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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (39351)	4/14/2004 10:16:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

The issue of "the popular vote" and "fewer supporters" is a complete non-starter for me. I believe that the way the Constitution separates and divides power is a good thing. There's not really enough difference between Clinton and Bush, or Clinton and Kerry, for me to feel any differently about the concept of pre-emption depending on who's in charge. It's either a good idea, no matter who's in charge, or it's not. I don't really see any American president using pre-emption to attack, say, a friendly country. Reason being is that Congress declares war, not the President. I don't know how many little undeclared wars we've had over the course of the history of the country but I do know it's more than 100. Someone recently wrote a book about it that I meant to read but now I've forgotten the title. No, if you actually study the documents generated by this Administration that lay out the policy behind pre-emption, it's intended to go after "rogue states," states which either threaten us or harbor terrorists. Iran is in the cross-hairs for its nuclear program and as a state sponsor of terrorism, and so is North Korea. We are not going to let these countries develop nuclear weapons if we can stop them before it's too late. There's a tension between the Executive and the Congress here, because the President is in charge of foreign policy, and his powers in that area are plenary. Congress and Nixon worked out a compromise when Nixon was President. Under the War Powers Act, Congress can cut those little undeclared wars short, although Reagan managed an end run against the Contras by using non-US funds. That never got challenged, and opinions differ as to the validity. The traditional alternative to pre-emption is waiting until we are attacked in order to respond. That makes zero sense in the context of nuclear weapons. My understanding is that you are morally opposed to responding even if we are attacked, no? All this calculus of power offends your sense of morality.