It dawns on me this morning that Kennedy is throwing

[FredStembottom]

us right into a constitutional crisis - NOW, today!

Clearly the Bush admin. has been trying to establish a dictatorship. And Kennedy seems bent on exposing that immediately with his legislation to require congressional approval for further Iraq actions.

And while I have seen this confrontation as absolutely unavoidable - I didn't see it coming this week!

This may be more than a little frightening - but here we go.

(Y'all are probably way ahead of me on this - but I have a job that keeps me away from computers and DU for most of the day)

I'm excited. I'm worried - but this isn't elective surgery anymore. This constitutional cancer must be excised.

[ewagner]

1. I think he is...

and I think he knows it and is doing it to force a "high-noon-showdown" between the pResident and Congress....

fasten your seatbelts folks, it's gonna be a rocky ride....

[blm]

2. And some cautious Dems intend to thwart Kennedy's move by submitting a

watered down, NONBINDING resolution to cover their own asses and insult the base who they think is dumb enough to not know the difference between Kennedy's effort and theirs.

[janx]

5. Which ones, blm?

I haven't heard about this. ?

[TayTay]

7. There will probably be competing bills

Kennedy doesn't look like he will accept a watered down 'sense of the Senate' thing. It will probably wind up like the Iraq Withdrawal resolutions did last June. One with teeth in it will get a few votes, the other, non-binding will get more.

[janx]

11. WIMPS!

But thanks for the explanation.

[blm]

Exactly - and thanks for stepping up. I didn't get back to this thread in time.

.

[blm]

16. Exactly - and thanks for stepping up. I didn't get back to this thread in time.

.

[lojasmo]

8. Reid et. al. EOM

[janx]

13. Reid?

Good Lord. One would think that Reid appreciates the fact that he and others are there to provide Congressional oversight. What is he thinking?

[lojasmo]

26. Biden's bill, actually....Reid was announcing, though. EOM

[janx]

29. Ahhh--

that figures. Thanks.

[blm]

30. This is the same procedure he used when Kerry-Feingold withdrawal vote was going on.

So, I am not surprised he's doing it.

I AM surprised that the Senate Dem leaders don't feel confident enough in their roles or in the American people's preference that THEY be the ones deciding what happens in Iraq. The people spoke loudly enough in November and in every poll taken on Iraq sentiment.

[GeorgeGist]

41. Cautious is not the word...

for those who refuse to be sane.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. A constitutional crisis is better than a passive acceptance of a

dictatorship replacing a constitutional republic.

[janx]

4. It has to be addressed now, as Kennedy said.

Bush wants to rush those troops over there before Congress can do anything about it, and Kennedy doesn't want that to happen.

They should be addressing this crisis as soon as possible--I had hoped for this week, but it will probably take a little longer.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

Whatever you want to call it

- and you may well be right - I approve of it wholeheartedly.

[FredStembottom]

21. And I call you:

A Rumpole fan!

:headbang:

[ChiciB1]

33. Me Too!

I'd LOVE to personally do some direct damage but fear retribution! Constitution? What Constitution?

I AM being facetious here, just in case I get called out.

[ChiciB1]

35. I Was Agreeing With the Wholeheartedly Part... n/t

[acmavm]

6. It was inevitable. Might as well get it over with.

[BlueIris]

46. Yep. No time like the present.

Go, Ted, go.

[jobycom]

9. It would only be a Constitutional crisis if one side disobeyed the law

What Kennedy is trying to do is use the Constitution to stop an act that Bush is trying. Bush's act isn't exactly nonConstitutional, or at least not clearly so. Presidents have often taken the initiative in sending troops to battle zones without Congressional approval, using the argument that as Commander in Chief they control the military. While Congress has to declare a war, per the Constitution, presidents have long said that sending troops is not synonomous with declaring war. As far as I know, this has never been rejected by specific Congressional legislation, nor by the Supreme Court. Thus, Bush's actions so far do not clearly violate the Constitution, since he has not been explicitly told he can't do what he wants to do. In fact, with the old Congress, he has so far been allowed to do whatever he has wanted, with Congressional approval. Part of the reason the IWR was passed, if you remember, was because Bush was claiming he was going to invade whether COngress approved or not, and Congress wanted to have a say in the matter to preserve their power.

If Kennedy succeeds, and Bush sends more troops anyway, then we have a Constitutional crisis, because two branches would then be interpreting the Constitution differently, and would each be denying the legal powers of the other. In that case, the Supreme Court would make the decision as to which branch was violating the Constitution. So far, all of that would be within the bounds of the Constitution, since that's exactly what the Framers wrote the Constitution to do. If either side then ignored the Constitution, we'd have a Constitutional crisis.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

[FredStembottom]

20. And the way you see it is: quite clearly,

I think.

Thanks for a good delineation of where the distictions fall.:hi:

[happydreams]

32. Good thoughts. Thanks for that. Kennedy sees

the writing on the wall. He knows what Bush is after...dictatorship...and he is getting out ahead of the curve. Setting the agenda, framing the debate whatever and focusing the discussion.

:hi:

[Tellurian]

43. Agreed, jobycom..

Kennedy is throwing a wrench into Bush wheels to slow him down to give Congress a chance to examine
how Bush went to war in the first place. As all the Dem candidates have said previously; these are not the terms and conditions we voted for when we gave you permission to go to War (as the last resort).

And Bush has already sent a fresh redeployment of troops as was announced yesterday..
So, I think Kennedy is using this opportunity to hold Bush accountable...a
Constitutional crisis in the making . Now, it should all come out how Bush has stripped
and ripped the Constitution to shreds..anointing himself...a dictator.

[AtomicKitten]

10. there is debate on the constitutionality of Bush's intent to escalate

and whether or not it is, in fact, a continuation of the blank check for action the IWR gave him or whether that expired and he requires new authorization from Congress to escalate. Several others are preparing their own similar bills including Murtha. As far as I'm concerned, any impediment of escalation is a good thing, but these bills may take a couple weeks to flesh out. The impending investigations will also put a crimp in Bush's freewheeling warmongering.

[Tellurian]

44. You're absolutely right, AK

The bills in flux will be put on the back burner for now.
Kennedy has created an "issue" of escalation Bush will have to answer to first.

Kennedy is forcing Bush into a corner. Bush will have to declare one way or another.
Is he a self-proclaimed dictator...or NOT?

[Chipper Chat]

12. I love Ted Kennedy.

The republicons have had tape across his mouth for 12 years and now it's off.
Give 'em hell Teddy.

[earth mom]

17. I'll second that-Give em hell Teddy!

:applause:

[Parche]

14. civil war

We might have another civil war here in the US??

[tridim]

15. I think you're right, we're quickly moving in to uncharted territory

I'm prepared for the fight, but still very anxious as to how it's going to go down. Bush is the variable and he's a loose cannon, I really don't know how he's going to react when the Dems tell him to screw-off. Everything is an unknown.

It's odd, but for the first time in years I can't predict what's going to happen next week. It was easy with BushCo and the rubber-stamp Repukes in charge.

[primative1]

18. Looking Forward to It

I share your sentiment about "looking forward to it".
I have actually begun to look forward to the evening news each day; it will likely become more and more interesting ... must see's IMO :)

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. As well he should!

Bush has couched Iraq as a "part of the Global War on Terror". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Congress declaring a "War on Terror". By keeping it under the realm of "WOT", Bush believes (and has been fully enabled by Congress thus setting a precedent) that he has the ability to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants all in the name of the "WOT". It's far past time to set the boundaries and reclaim Constitutional duties.

Surprisingly, the CATO Institute *gasp* had a great piece about it from February 2002. http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-26-02.html
The last two paragraphs: "Nonetheless, anyone following news accounts of the current debate on Iraq could be forgiven for thinking that President Bush has all the authority he needs to wage war on that country. Our elected representatives certainly seem to think so. Senatorial hawks, such as Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.), John McCain (R.-Ariz.), and Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) have been reduced to pleading their case via the U.S. mail. In a Dec. 5 letter to the president, Sen. Lieberman, et. al., wrote, "we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later." Even Sen. Daschle (D.-S. Dak.), initially reluctant to endorse military action, now merely bleats that Congress would like to be "included, consulted, and to work with the administration" -- not that the president lacks the authority unilaterally to wage war on Iraq.

But if the president can take us into war with Iraq without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress, then Congress' power to declare war isn't worth the parchment it's written on. Congressional hawks and doves alike have the power -- and the responsibility -- to vote on the question. And for his part, President Bush ought to acknowledge that until Congress votes him the authority to attack Iraq, the Constitution stays his hand."

It's well worth the (short) read!!!

[goclark]

22. Can you declare a War on something that is not a contry?

Could we have a War on Happiness, or Crime or the Bible?

Something just doesn't fit.

Who are the Terrorists ---- GW BUSH and Co. comes to my mind.

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Well, we've had a War on Drugs for years

A War on Cancer was declared many years ago. Thing is, I've either been living in a cave or all of those military operations for those wars have been exceptionally covert!

But you're correct. If you can use military force to prosecute a "war" on undefined boundaries/targets, at what point do you know success is achieved? Bottom line, the WOT should be called exactly what it is: Perpetual Warfare.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Not to mention the War on Christmas.

I wonder if I can get any takers for a War on Shrove Tuesday.

[goclark]

28. Exactly ~ It's Perpetual Warfare

With the DECIDER in charge.

There is no beginning and no end to the "undefined boundaries/targets."

BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!!!!!!

Did the Congress officially "War On Terror?"

I would like to see the link to that Declaration of "WAR."



:grr:

[pat_k]

23. Impeachment is not a "crisis" Empty gestures short of impeachment. . .

. . .are abdications of duty.

Impeachment isn't a constitutional "crisis." Impeachment is the constitutional process we defined to give Congress -- our voice -- power over the judiciary and the executive. Impeachment is the weapon we gave members to fulfill their oath and defend the Constitution against attacks that come from within. Fulfilling their duty and asserting the power we gave them is no more a "crisis" than putting a matter before the courts or engaging in any other constitutional process.

Impeachment is the ONLY mechanism by which we can "just say no" to torture, spying, profiteering, corruption, stolen elections, and the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive. Until they stand and fight for impeachment they'll be failing to do what the voterrs demanded of them on Nov 7th: i.e., "Get us the heck outta Bush world" (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/19">link).

[bigdarryl]

25. I think he's the only dem who's got BALLS!!! in speaking out

[happydreams]

31. You know what JFK said about his little brother.

He's the best debater/politician of us all.

Ted is looking strong up there. No wonder the Bushies hate the Kennedy's they are the opposite of each other.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. That's very smart of Teddy!

Excellent lawyerly thinking. Put the ball in DimSon's court.

[blm]

36. Except, it looks like leadership is playing ball WITH Bush and against Kennedy's bill.

.

[Faryn Balyncd]

37. You are exactly right..... This cancer has to be excised....

But Kennedy is not throwing us into this crisis.......It's been a full fledged constituitional crisis for several years.

Artificial "centrism" on these issues is a cop-out:

Any politician who now chooses empty rhetoric over the difficult task of confronting and defeating a lawless president is betraying his/her oath of office.......As well as betraying the voters who elected them -- not only Democratic voters, but millions of independents and disaffected Republicans who crossed party lines to elect a Democratic majority for the precise reason of reigning in a lawless, out-of-control Administration.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

[FredStembottom]

38. The cancer being the uncontrolled growth in executive branch power.

Just to be clear.

The congress and courts must re-assert their control. And re-assert it over some 50 years of growth in power especially in the area of a President's ability to begin wars single-handedly.

This goes beyond just the current man in the office now - even though it has reached it's zenith with him.

[Faryn Balyncd]

40. You could not have said it better.

[Duer 157099]

39. Randi just called him a "Surge Protector!" LOL

perfect! :)

[Cascadian]

42. That is a good thing. It exposes Bush for what he is really doing.

I applaud Ted Kennedy for doing this. People are finally waking up and the Neocon morons would have to do something very rash to hold on to power. Kind of like when a criminal is cornered. It becomes desparate. What worries me is that criminal may hold us hostage by holding a gun to our heads if you know what I mean.



John

[Tellurian]

45. Kennedy is forcing Bush's hand..

The Dem leadership is behind him 100%..

The bills in play are on hold until there is an answer to what Bush thinks he is doing
ordering a troop escalation without Congressional approval..