Now I can understand why loyal Republicans, including Gaetz and Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul, would jealously guard the powers given to Congress by the Constitution ... and I sympathize with them. However, we need to be more realistic about this Constitutional power.
The difference, dear reader, boils down to timing. When the Constitution was written, wars tended to develop slowly ... over weeks and maybe months. Today, wars are far more precipitous and can develop over hours and minutes ... soon to be seconds and microseconds ... not enough time for the House to debate any needed war resolution. Pragmatism rears its ugly head.
Therefore, rather than tying the executive branch’s hands when it comes to war powers, it seems rational to amend our Constitution to acknowledge this foreshortening of how our president must react in real time to kinetic threats. I won’t suggest the language of this 28th Amendment here ... after all that is why we elect “lawmakers.” No?
7 comments:
What are you saying? The POTUS should be able to unleash the entire force of our military for any reason without any approval? What if DJT decides to kill Kim Jong Un or Assad on a whim?
I don’t think I said or even want that. Reread my last words on what needs to be done by Congress.
Sorry. I took ‘foreshortening’ to mean a faster action rather than a period of even modest deliberation.
Interesting that you would see that the Constitutional authors did not forsee the speed at which crises could morph into war as a justification to give POTUS more power.
However when it comes to the speed at which semi-automatic guns with large ammo clips, the founders words should be literally interpreted.
How did I know you would pick at this scab? This equivalence is strained like Gerber's baby food ... not at all equivalent.
Reasoned inconsistency is the hobgoblin of deplorable minds.
Is that an AOC quote?
Post a Comment