The above is possible, but not being used. I can only conclude that the DNC is choosing to rubber stamp. Any other conclusion would ask that we believe the DNC cannot do what is possible. I am not impressed with the DNC: They have the option to end funding for the war, but refuse to do what will make that happen. The GOP and President aren’t making or forcing anything; the DNC is refusing to block and continue rubber stamping what We the People said in November 2006 needed to change.

(EPU’d from previous thread)

Hi, Pups!

Great day. Congrats to all.

An idea to kick around: how about a daily or nightly “Feet to the Fire” frontpage/thread?
To make getting the word out to
Call Critter Whatstheirface about Issue Whatchamacallit
into a regular thing we all look for and add to our daily routines?

If the urgency of the issue has already been addressed extensively, just include links if time is limited. Include the excellent list of toll-free capitol switchboard numbers (thanks Katymine!)with two notes (from my experience and IMHO):
1) pick a number and just let it ring a lot–an operator will answer. Thus, redial can be a good friend.
2) be as nice as possible to those hardworking, probably underpaid and underappreciated women and men on that switchboard. Speak clearly, use a cheerful, friendly tone and lots of “Please” and “Thank you” no matter how impersonal or harassed or curt they sound when they answer (they’re just trying to keep the calls moving).

And one last little thing I’ve been doing–especially if I’m not a constituent (ie, if I call Reid’s or Pelosi’s office), I identify myself as “this is one of the American People.”
(/de-lurk).

Funnydiva

Great idea. Could we add a “three day countdown” with suggested comments for the writing of personal letters. Look at these stats to see how We The People can make a difference in personal statements delivered by snail mail, phone, email and fax. Faxing personal letters and then following up with mailing the hard copy is important too. It is our country and our voices do have the ability to bring change as idealistic as it sounds.

Might the clock run out on impeachment? Remember the Supreme Court voted to cut off the recount in 2000 because of not enough time before inauguration (advantage: republican).

There is NO “clock” on impeachment. Impeachment can occur even AFTER an individual has left office. There was a Secretary of State who was impeached AFTER resignation (although most members of his own party refused to convict because they said “what’s the point”).

But the point is clear. Impeachment doesn’t just remove an individual from their office…it also PREVENTS, in the FUTURE, that individual from “hold [ing] and enjoy [ing] any office of honor, trust or PROFIT under the United States.”

No Ambassadorships, No judgeships, No appointments to advisory committees~ paid or unpaid, No grants or stipends, no travel money, no contracts with Federal Agencies, no use of the Presidential Seal or Title, no Presidential Library with official documents, No franking privilege, no Secret Service protection…not even the use of the TITLE of POTUS or VPOTUS without the addendum “Impeached and Convicted” (use only for historical reference rather than “honor”).

NO subsequent powers to block Presidential records would be possible since that would be a power of trust and honor accorded to an unimpeached and Trusted and Honored Official.

Not only would a “late impeachment” have actual consequences it would also be symbolic that NO PRESIDENT can VIOLATE HIS OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.

It’s impossible to raise this point NOW since pointing it out removes the winds from the sails of those that believe that they can “run out the clock” and conceal their crimes. It steamrolls their whole rationale for stonewalling.

It gets the Republicans in Congress to realize that they can’t escape the inevitable.

But the first step is the holding of hearings in the House on issues where Bush has violated the Constitution. They need to review ALL of Bush’s “Signing Statements” and see if he has, in fact, refused to follow the very laws he put his signature to. They need to point out the Geneva Convention Articles he violated (lawful treaties which if violated by anyone else would clearly constitute a violation of US law). They need to point out that the failure to abide by the principle of habeas, suspending it during a time when the US was neither invaded or undergoing an armed insurrection, undermines not only the fundamental principles of democracy but also explicitly violates the Constitution. They need to build this case point-by-point and ACT.

A’57 @ 40

Somehow, I don’t believe that the framers of the Constitution envisioned having an imbecile as Commander In Chief.

They anticipated both imbeciles and tyrants, what they never imagined was an emasculated, supine Congress cowering at their own shadow averting their eyes from the shredding of the Constitution.

Actually if you read the Virginia debates on ratifying the Constitution they did discuss both an inept and a corrupted Congress in league with a despotic President. That’s one reason they allowed impeachment to be initiated by the State legislatures as well as through Congress.

Http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33837.pdf

There’s a glaring omission in it, though, in my opinion, for a document addressed solely to the Legislative Branch of government and intended to elucidate its powers. Because a Congressional concurrent resolution (unsigned by the president) has never happened to be used before by the Legislative Branch (been “historically taken”) to end an armed conflict, the report treats such an option as, in effect, non-existent (though specified as available in 1973’s War Powers Resolution). This circumstance is doubtless a direct result of our mostly good faith presidents to date, who cooperated with the mostly good faith Congresses in doing what was best for the American people, in matters of war. As a result, Congress has never yet been forced into such a Clause 11 unilateral ‘undeclaration of war’ by concurrent resolution (even Nixon signed the repeal of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, before he added his signing statement…). In discussing the War Powers Resolution, the CRS report instead tries to rely on the 1983 INS v. Chadha case (that james mentioned the other day, in which “Congress may not invalidate executive decisions by one-house ‘veto’”) as precedent for why it may be “highly unlikely” that Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution would be held to be Constitutional if ever used. That’s a pretty wild, disingenuous stretch for me, considering the potency of the inherent power vested solely in Congress by the underlying Clause 11 provisions that Section 5(c) is based on, and the significant differences between the legislation and procedures at issue in INS and the WPR. The report seems to equate (or claim that many or most scholars and historians equate) such a unilateral resolution with a law (that must obviously be presented to the president for signing), but they are very different animals, authorized by different sections of Article I of the Constitution. A convenient argument to try out in pursuit of the ‘Unilateral Executive’ theory of authoritarian government, perhaps, but not one that Congress ought to voluntarily buy.

The bottom line: We need and the Constitution deserves a Supreme Court ruling to ascertain the true balance of war powers in this country today. The good faith of prior presidents and Congresses is being abused today to promote the tyranny of the current bad faith president in the waging of war. Congress must test the limits of its own war powers, at long last, to settle this state of affairs, and to put a stop to this abuse either by SCOTUS intervention, or by Constitutional amendment if need be.

A parallel approach to forcing that court ruling on the extent of their inherent Clause 11 war powers, could be for Congress to start planning for a Constitutional amendment that would add the words “and peace” after “to declare war” in Clause 11 of Article I’s Section 8. The power to declare war is downright dangerous and ominous without the reciprocal ability to return the nation to peace against the wishes of an authoritarian Commander in Chief (especially with today’s industrialized military might) who can veto any legislative attempts to do so (or threaten to hold troops on a foreign battlefield hostage to a reduction of funding), and use his political party in Congress to sustain such a veto. War must not be more difficult (and ought to be easier) to end than it is to begin, at least in terms of authorization.

Finally, something that gets to the floor debate between Warner and Durbin on Monday, about what I consider to be bad faith parsing that defines a “specific” statutory authorization (under the WPR) for the ongoing Iraq occupation to be each and every funding bill passed by Congress for the conflict, in addition to the 2002 AUMF (which was based on the WPR). This definition was asserted as a justification and as authorization by Warner on Monday, which disturbed Durbin because Durbin voted against the 2002 AUMF but in favor of every Iraq funding bill since; about that, there’s this from the report:

It is a well-established principle that Congress’ appropriation of funds may serve in some circumstances to confer authority for executive action. Reviewing courts have found this principle no less applicable concerning matters of war. The appropriation of billions of dollars in support of U.S. combat operations in Indochina, even after the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was viewed as congressional authorization for continued U.S. participation in hostilities, regardless of whether some Members of Congress had a motivation for approving continued appropriations other than that reflected in the express language of the enacted legislation.

Importantly, however, Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution went out of its way to eliminate the use of funding bills as implied or “specific” statutory authorization for conflicts under the WPR, thereby end-running those earlier court precedents (a fact which Senator Warner conveniently overlooked in arguing his position and which apparently Senator Durbin was not prepared to point out to him in rebuttal).

But it seems pretty clear that, so long as Congressional occupation-funding continues (which Carl Levin for one apparently illogically insists it must, no matter what), an affirmative vote, by unilateral Congressional Clause 11 concurrent resolution, to deny further authorization for this conflict is needed, if Congress wants to stand on the firmest Constitutional grounds that have yet to be, but should be, tested in court [probably in addition to trying to pass a simple Congressional legislative repeal of the previous 2002 authorizing act - though that didn’t work too well during Vietnam, pre-WPR - which of course must first overcome a presidential veto, as must any end-date-certain legislation].

Why are some many so sure they lied about everything but that??

I like your “The Bush/Cheney War” …. after all that’s exactly what it is. This should be the official name for it from now on. Just so there’s no mistaking later on when they start to play “Pin the Shitmire on the Donkey”.

“The Bush/Cheney War” it is!

ok, then : ), let me clarify-
that is one of the most DEEP things you have said, which in my book is the most clever…..since i go for the deep thoughts………so, i think those are the most clever……..