A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World

May 1, 2007

VETO!!!

Good for the President.

Beyond the implications for Iraq, this bill wasn’t good for the country as it diminished the Constitutional role of the President as Commander In Chief.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) had no problem voicing his dissent saying,

White House hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden recently told a supporter that after President Bush vetoes the Iraq war funding legislation, “we’re going to shove it down his throat.”

Good to see what the Democratic Presidential field feels towards usurping Presidential authority as outlined by the Constitution.

13 Comments »

  1. I don’t think Joe Biden is man enough to shove it down Pres. Bush’s throat. Bush works out on his ranch. He’s no pantywaist. He could take old Joe with one blow to his big fat mouth. I’d pay good money to see old Joe lying on his back with stars circling around his head.

    Comment by madmouser — May 1, 2007 @ 11:23 pm | Reply

  2. The Democrats get power, and look what they do with it.

    Some, like Hillary, tried to appear more moderate on abortion, then they all turn around and decry the Partial Birth Abortion ban. They love their infanticide.

    Then they do everything they can to surrender the war. Disgusting.

    Comment by Neil — May 2, 2007 @ 12:23 am | Reply

  3. I guess that’s what th Democrats mean by bi-patisanship.Forcing the president to do things his way.

    Comment by mpinkeyes — May 2, 2007 @ 1:26 am | Reply

  4. Funny mpinkeyes.
    Well, they’ll meet tomorrow, but I don’t suspect too much will come from it.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — May 2, 2007 @ 1:31 am | Reply

  5. Good point on Biden.
    Very curious to see what “shove it down his throat” looks like.

    Comment by mommyzabs — May 2, 2007 @ 2:20 am | Reply

  6. Hmmm….not that I’m panicking too much, but I can’t access my blog dashboard. Seems that a bunch of others are having the same issue.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — May 2, 2007 @ 3:21 am | Reply

  7. I had the same problem last night too, although I was panicking. It seems to be working today.

    Comment by mpinkeyes — May 2, 2007 @ 10:24 am | Reply

  8. Right on. Can’t wait to Pelosi and Ried “negotiate” after thier recent spate of political self-righteousness.

    Comment by lorraine — May 2, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  9. Neil,

    They say, “safe, legal, and rare,” but only want two of those three. They either do love themselves some infanticide (after all, it’s empowering!) or fail to realise that when something is absolutely safe and absolutely legal (both of which they want), it will never be rare.

    RE: Veto. YES!!! Finally! Thing is, Congress has the power to cut funding from the army; it has the power to declare war; and the Executive is the Commander in Chief. You never read statutory provisions by themselves, and you interpret them in light of the others. That which is enumerated is meant to exclude that which is not enumerated. Hence, if Congress has the power to declare war (which, let’s not forget, they actualy voted for), it lacks the power to end war. It may cut funding to the army.

    The Founders didn’t much care whether or not cutting funding makes Congress look bad; point is, if they don’t like the war, it’s their only Constitutional avenue.

    Comment by theobromophile — May 2, 2007 @ 9:15 pm | Reply

  10. Hence, if Congress has the power to declare war (which, let’s not forget, they actualy voted for), it lacks the power to end war. It may cut funding to the army.
    I may be wrong, but Congress hasn’t declared war in decades. That’s what makes this so different. Congress authorized the use of force rather than declaring war.

    With that said, I still don’t like the political grandstanding my the Dems by trying to connect a timetable (and pork spending) to a troop funding bill. I would love to see how many votes a clean bill would get.

    Comment by LLR — May 2, 2007 @ 10:06 pm | Reply

  11. If Congress is serious they can vote to defund, not “end” the war. Foreign policy is also the pervue of the Executive Branch.
    This is as much political as it would have been if the GOP were doing it during a Dem administration. The thing that is troubling to me, beyond the immediate instance, are policy implications.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — May 3, 2007 @ 1:17 am | Reply

  12. If Congress is serious they can vote to defund, not “end” the war. Foreign policy is also the pervue of the Executive Branch.

    Bingo! Limited options for Congress to express its disapproval.

    Comment by theobromophile — May 3, 2007 @ 8:55 pm | Reply

  13. Well, that’s the problem, so many in government either don’t know the Constitution, or more likely just care about raising the level of the base, who know little of the document!

    Comment by avoiceofreason — May 3, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: