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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (320241)	1/11/2007 8:51:47 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573539

Ted, > I think we're headed for a constitutional crisis. I think the Dems/Congress will say "no" and Bush will proceed without the support of Congress. There is no constitutional crisis. Bush is the Commander-In-Chief, so he can send as many troops as he feels like. The American people want the war ended, not escalated. Bush is escalating the war. He is creating a crisis that eventually may lead to constitutional crisis by taking unpopular actions that hurt the American people. What Congress can do, it seems, is cut off funding for Iraq, but even the anti-war Democrats are hesitant to do that. I think you are wrong. Kennedy is putting up a bill that will restrict his ability to escalate the war. I don't think you realize how much of Bush's credibility is gone and how little respect he commands. He and Cheney should resign.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (320241)	1/11/2007 10:10:55 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573539

"There is no constitutional crisis. Bush is the Commander-In-Chief, so he can send as many troops as he feels like." Not strictly true. The power to declare war is given to Congress. A Commander in Chief does not have the power to attack any country with no restrictions. So if war is declared against, say Mexico, the CiC can't invade Canada without having to answer to Congress. Now Congress gave Bush a pretty blank check. But that doesn't mean he can continue to attack more and more countries without Congress having a say. "What Congress can do, it seems, is cut off funding for Iraq, but even the anti-war Democrats are hesitant to do that." Because it isn't easy to do. They can deny additional funds. Or they could cut off all funds to the military. But if any funds are giving to the military, they can't keep a president who is determined to do something from using those funds for anything he desires. Realistically speaking, the only power that Congress has over a president who refuses to play ball is impeachment.