If Congress AUTHORIZED the TRANSFER of power to the executive branch, how is it illegal? The Constitution only species who holds the power, not the transfer of it. It would be another story all together if they did not transfer it, but they did. The Constitution itself makes it illegal. The Founding Fathers did not want the power to go to war IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON. (Especially a crazy person.) Thomas Jefferson said, "… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” ~Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 This is what he said about the "necessary and Proper" clause when writing about a National bank: "for the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the [i]purpose [/i... The Constitution itself makes it illegal. The Founding Fathers did not want the power to go to war IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON. (Especially a crazy person.)The Congress is as much to blame as the executive office. It takes 2 to tango and they did. Fascism is a materialist concept consisting of Militant socialism and cultural materialism. That's it. Despite your ignorant propaganda. Regardless of the fact that in countries like Spain and Chile, Fascist governments bent over backwards to integrated church moral law to the existing legal structure and delivered harsh punishments to those who would break these "moral" laws and that it was the Church that cooperate with said governments. You are certainly right about that. (The two to tango comment). The reason Congress delegates declaring war to the president is that they have to come back to their districts and face people like you and me. Delegating their authority absolves them of any responsibility and they can get re-elected . And, believe me, they would rather walk on hot coals than to face angry constituents. So they know if they "wait the president out," he will do what he's going to do and to hell with everybody else. Remember during Bush's second week in office during his first term, he kept pushing for Congress to pass faith-based initiative Welfare programs for religions? Congress took years to study the Const... Melizer, I just noticed by your tags that you equate fascism, republicans, conservatives, and nazis. You seem to have inadvertently left out socialism and communism, and that would be because you are one or the other, right? Well for one in scientific socialism country there are no corporations, nor do they tie religion to the state (on teh contrary they assault religious institutions with a vengeance) so the tag would not fit and just because melizer denounces fascism does not make her a socialist or a communist. Should highlighting these "errors" then make you a fascist kcarr33? Oh I also forgot to add fascist Italy to the list above. The true threat is in fact totalitarianism, the idea that there should be but one power dominating the political life of a nation, whether it is a monarchy, a socialist oligarchy/one party state, or a fascist dictator. Regardless of the titles, they end up being the same. But if your intention is to turn the US into an oligarchy or totalitarian regime, who would you want to be on your side? The clergy. That way (Bush) doesn't have to kill millions of dissidents, he can just trick us. No, you may not assume I'm a fascist. I'm a libertarian, and a Christian, and this conversation is getting a little out of hand, don't you think? You started accusing milzer of being a communist so I guess that answers your question. And who says millions would not day if the clergy was on your side, considering how many have been slaughtered in the name off or under the banner of several religions. "die" |
View the Top Clips from September 5, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
