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: jttmab who wrote (14971)	6/18/2002 8:58:47 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

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.</.i> When American troops are being shot at, that can be highly risky politically. Easier just to pass the extension. Congress just has to do nothing; and they have good solid experience with that procedure. LOL!!!!! Yes, they have that down to a science. Being a cynic, I read that as: HEY EVERYBODY, WE'RE CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. Let's say that in spite of their claim not to be doing so, that's precisely what they did. The Founders had a reason for separate military command from approval to use military force - and for making it something as visible as a Declaration of War. 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. I suspect that at some point the executive branch is going to badly blow it, someone in Congress will find the cojones to challenge the WP, and the USSC will shoot it down.