Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:39 PM May 2015

The Congress does not need to give away any more of its granted powers...

First of all, they need to amend the War Powers Act. In our Constitution, the power to declare war is given to the People's Representatives. That is the Congress. They should no longer be permitted to shirk their duty. If they cannot adhere to our Constitution, then perhaps they should no longer be in our Congress?

And the same would go for the so-called "fast track"? What is so urgent that our Congress cannot study and debate it? Especially in regards to "trade treaties". The Congress, Democrats and Republicans, need to step up and do their job.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Congress does not need to give away any more of its granted powers... (Original Post) kentuck May 2015 OP
It's complicated. Igel May 2015 #1
There are a lot of questions with this treaty. kentuck May 2015 #3
War Powers by the executive should be limited to RESPONSE to ICBM attacks. HereSince1628 May 2015 #2
Right. kentuck May 2015 #4
Actually I don't think OBL assasination is OK by a Potus decisio, it should require a Letter of Mark HereSince1628 May 2015 #6
I tend to agree but... kentuck May 2015 #7
Killing OBL was clearly an act of reprisal HereSince1628 May 2015 #8
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It's ok for Obama to skirt the Constitution when the GOP kelliekat44 May 2015 #5

Igel

(35,359 posts)
1. It's complicated.
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:35 PM
May 2015

Fast track is just a way of keeping the Senate from wrangling over every clause of a 3000 page document.

We saw something like that in how the ACA/HCRA were passed. We were happy because those we love to hate were shut up, but if it was our ox being gored we'd have gone ballistic. With a trade treaty, that kind of wrangling would be insane.

And it would be worse, because every wrangle would lead right back to the negotiating table and could unravel the deals and compromises that were struck. Perhaps that would be a partisan intent; perhaps a jingoist intent; perhaps just the intent of a group of senators from different states that team up for local or regional issues.

As for giving away authority over international trade, that's precisely the authority that Obama is defending as his own turf in the Keystone XL pipeline. It's international trade, granted to the Congress, but has so often been ignored that the executive now considers it its own turf. You may swear to uphold the text of the Constitution when you become president (or a representative), but what you actually defend are interpretations favorable to maintaining your own power.

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
3. There are a lot of questions with this treaty.
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:22 PM
May 2015

Not just with the Congressional authority, but with control (manipulation) of so many currencies. How will that be possible? If this is Obama's primary accomplishment in his second term, how do we explain it to people? What do we gain? By "we", I do not mean American corporations, but the workers of America?

Does this treaty also create more hardships for American workers, as have most all the others?

Are we supposed to support this treaty on blind faith? Why should we?

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
2. War Powers by the executive should be limited to RESPONSE to ICBM attacks.
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:20 PM
May 2015

Nothing else requires POTUS action without approval of Congress which can be gained in 72-96 hrs.

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
4. Right.
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:25 PM
May 2015

Individual military operations, such as assassinating Osama bin Laden, should not have to have Congressional approval. But troop movements, airstrikes, invasions, and war-like maneuvers should be informed by the Congress, in my opinion.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
6. Actually I don't think OBL assasination is OK by a Potus decisio, it should require a Letter of Mark
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:33 PM
May 2015

and/or Reprissalfrom CONGRESS, not the president. That's Article 1, section 8 of that quaint piece of paper we refer to as the constitution
I

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
7. I tend to agree but...
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:48 PM
May 2015

is it an "act of war"? Is it an aggression against another nation? I think it is a matter of definition. Otherwise, I think the President should have to notify Congress on almost all matters involving the military. He is the Commander in Chief, in times of war or hostilities, over the military.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
8. Killing OBL was clearly an act of reprisal
Wed May 13, 2015, 08:43 PM
May 2015

War is NOT about assassination

Authority to do vengeful acts of reprisal rests with Congress. If the constitution means anything...and I admit it means less and less... a president cannot use the military to kill people as a matter of vengeance.

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
5. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It's ok for Obama to skirt the Constitution when the GOP
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:28 PM
May 2015

wants him to take the heat off them but they will try to impeach him for it. BUT, if he didn't do anything to fight back they would accuse him of being a traitor, a Muslim lover, a weak President...except they already have accused him of this.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Congress does not nee...