Thursday, August 21, 2008

McCain vs. the Constitution

Earlier this week, I speculated about whether John McCain had read the California Constitution, since he offered up his legal opinion that California Supreme Court justices had read it wrong. Today I'm wondering whether he has read the U.S. Constitution.

McCain, from a White House ceremony about the Iraq resolution in 2002:
The Constitution of the United States designates the President of the United States as Commander-in-Chief. The Congress of the United States plays a role, and I believe that this process we are about to embark on is the appropriate role that Congress should carry out its responsibilities. But at the end of the day, the final, most serious responsibility of sending young American men and women into harm's way rests with the President of the United States.

My Constitution says that responsibility rests with Congress. The president decides who gets sent where. Congress decides to do the sending.

9 comments:

Mark T said...

Your reading of the constitution places you with others who have similarly found the Geneva Conventions violated.

Both the Constitution and the Conventions are quaint. Interesting, but irrelevant in our post 9/11 world.

Jay Stevens said...

He also fails to specify who the president is commander-in-chief of...classic Bush trick. The president is CiC of the armed forces, not us, no matter what these goons would have us believe.

David said...

Mark, I hope you are just being cynical.

Eric said...

We've discussed this before.

While only the Congress can declare war, the Congress did give the President the authority to go to war, which could be called an informal declaration of war.

War politics has made an amazing 180 degree turn in the last decade.

The liberals used to love the U.N., right up until the USA was called upon to enforce the UN resolutions in 1991, and now they seem to loathe the UN.

Now, I watch Barack Hussein Obama supporting the war, where he originally made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign, and the Democrats (other than Hillary supporters and Ralph Nader) seem willing to accept it.

If you criticize Senator McCain, you should at least make a footnote that he was only one of the 99-or-so Senators who abdicated the right to declare war to the President.

Mark T said...

David - I need to start using emoticons. Yes, I was being quite cynical.

Anonymous said...

David, the problem seems to be that Congress has abdicated its duties in this area to the president. They ought to be spanked for being so spineless.

Mark T said...

Congress is indeed spineless, but don't forget, Eric, that the administration used an old tactic used many times before to lead us into that war. They lied.

David said...

Eric, Yes, we have had this discussion before. Short version: A proper declaration of war would not allow congressmen to argue that they only meant to allow Bush to negotiate; they never intended to for him to actually go to war. That argument should never even be on the table.

When you say liberals now loathe the UN, that's news to me. When did that happen?

But you are right about McCain, of course. He is just one part of a much larger problem.

Eric said...

I'll clarify it a little -

When the UN was a paper tiger, the liberals said things like "Listen to the UN, and don't be rash" because all the UN did was pass unenforceable resolutions.

After the Gulf war, when the US enforced the 14 UN resolutions, and the whole Iraq war started, then it was a whole different story.

Exactly who lied to us Mark? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? I can post up excerpts of their 2001/2002 speeches if you want.