Say Anything Blog

The United States Constitution provides for only one Commander-In-Chief, not 535 commanders-in-chiefs. The President alone has the reposnsibility for prosecuting a war. The Congress must pass a declaration of war, although it need not use the word war, providing the President with authorization to engage in an armed conflict is more than sufficient. The Congress has the power of the purse, which cutting off funds can end a war as passing budget resolutions can fund one.

There has always been a natural tension between the three separate but equal branches, with each seeming to be more dominant at various times. That being said, I was shocked to recently see the Senate voting on whether or not a General appointed by the President as senior commander in a theater of war was acceptable or not. That far exceeds their constitutional authority, it breaches the wall of separation between the branches, and it has been slowly and freguently breached because weak kneed Presidents have not had the courage to defy Congress when they exceed their constitutional authority.

Our Founding Father’s wisely constructed a three separate but equal branches of government and built in enough institutional tension that each would try and grab more power at various times, and yet the other two could rein in the violating branch. Right now with the help of RINO megalomaniacs like Spectre, the Senate is trying to assert a doctrine of Congressional dominance over the other two branches, it is time for the Supreme Court to slap him and other senators down.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Hang on there Jarhead. I figger there’s more here than meets the eye.  I suspect they’ve brought in experts, e.g. surrender specialists, from France.  You see, France has developed a knack for ending whichever war they’re embroiled in—they just stop fighting!

...for great justice

I was shocked to recently see the Senate voting on whether or not a General appointed by the President as senior commander in a theater of war was acceptable or not.

yeh, neiman, I had a similar reaction but our government has come a long way (in the wrong direction, I believe) since it was founded.  In addition to the Senate approving military promotions, we have the president issuing executive orders that have the power of the legislature although they have not been reviewed and voted on by them.  And perhaps the very worst abuse of the powers of the government are the courts who make the equivalent of legislative decrees without Constitutional authority. e.g. abortion, etc.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

There has always been a natural tension between the three separate but equal branches, with each seeming to be more dominant at various times.

Neiman,

The three constitutional branches of our federal government,are certainly separate, and of equal importance overall.  However, within each branch’s respective area of responsibility it has primacy over the other two branches.  The “equality” of the three branches is a pleasant and convenient myth.  The President appoints the judges, the Senate confirms those appointments (at least it does so when it’s deliberations aren’t being hijacked by truculent Democrats), but the judges themselves decide the cases brought before them.

Similarly, the President is the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the military.  Those functions are not within the constitutional purview of the Congress.  Senators and Congressmen have no authority to prosecute a war or direct the actions of our armed forces.

Your suggestion that the Supreme Court “slap down” Specter and the other Senatorial megalomaniacs is an emotionally satisfying one, but there is no appropriate vehicle for doing so, no extant case, and it is highly unlikely that this White House would bring one, or that SCOTUS would see fit to rule on what it would likely deem a political disagreement anyway.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Since when do the dhimmi’s care about how many millions of people they get killed? It’s all about the power to them. They have lot of practice in the killing fields. Like it or not the blood of millions is on they’re hands. We make Hitler the worst of the worst when in fact the dhimmi’s make him look like a boy scout.

DocDave and Bat One: Both of you made excellent observations about this question. I would only add . . .

1. Yes DocDave, the Courts have too often become a super-legislature, that is passing social legislation from the bench absent Constitutional authority and/or precedent to do so.
2. Bat One: You are right about the SCOTUS not slapping down anyone absent a case brought to them for a ruling; however, the Supreme Court is supposed to do just that, referee between the Legislative and Executive branches when a different interpretation of the Constitution is held by each branch; and the SCOTUS is only supposed to determine whether or not either of the interpretations or parts thereof are not consistent with the Constitution. Interesting though, they have no inherent power to enforce their decisions upon either branch.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.