Wall Street Journal - Senators-in-Chief: Congress has no Constitutional power to micromanage a war.
If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they'd attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. By passing "non-binding resolutions," they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.
In addition to being feckless, all of this is unconstitutional. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole Constitutional authority to manage the war effort. Congress has two explicit war powers: It has the power to declare war, which in the case of Iraq it essentially did with its resolution of 2003. It also has the power to appropriate funds.
In addition to being feckless, all of this is unconstitutional. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole Constitutional authority to manage the war effort. Congress has two explicit war powers: It has the power to declare war, which in the case of Iraq it essentially did with its resolution of 2003. It also has the power to appropriate funds.
Daniel Henninger's Talking Ourselves Into Defeat
Ann Coulter continues to set the standard with: I am woman, hear me bore
According to the famed "polls" -- or, as I call them, "surveys of uninformed people who think it's possible to get the answer wrong" -- Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress -- except for the fact that the Republicans' current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
James Taranto was on fire Thursday in his Best of the Web column.
Two Papers in One!
"Neither broken promises nor failed policies changed Mr. Bush's mind. So the nation has been saddled with tax cuts that have turned a budget surplus into a big deficit."--editorial, New York Times, Jan. 24
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted on Wednesday that the federal budget deficit would shrink again this year. . . . The agency predicted that the deficit for 2007 would decline to about $200 billion. It would be the third big annual decline in a row. . . . The decline of the deficit comes on the heels of unexpectedly large increases in tax revenue over the last two years."--news story, New York Times, Jan. 25
"Neither broken promises nor failed policies changed Mr. Bush's mind. So the nation has been saddled with tax cuts that have turned a budget surplus into a big deficit."--editorial, New York Times, Jan. 24
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted on Wednesday that the federal budget deficit would shrink again this year. . . . The agency predicted that the deficit for 2007 would decline to about $200 billion. It would be the third big annual decline in a row. . . . The decline of the deficit comes on the heels of unexpectedly large increases in tax revenue over the last two years."--news story, New York Times, Jan. 25
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.