Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14957)	6/18/2002 5:30:13 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I think that the red flag in the War Powers Act is: SEC. 8. (d) Nothing in this joint resolution-- (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, Being a cynic, I read that as: HEY EVERYBODY, WE'RE CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. This really could be the first Don't ask, don't tell policy. There's another advantage that the Act gives Congress. Since the Act does require some periodic reports, consultation with Congress, follow on 'approvals', etc... Congress would be in a position of just not approving the extensions. Congress just has to do nothing; and they have good solid experience with that procedure. Congress has implicitly acknowledged the very broad powers they were giving the President and subsequently passed the Boland Amendment which prohibited the US involvement for the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government under the WP Act. I find that whole notion bizarre....tossing the whole military ball game over to the Executive and then excluding on a case-by-case basis when the Executive is not allowed to use that authority. Seems back asswards. jttmab