View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2007, 10:26 PM
gixaholic gixaholic is offline
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 5,776
Default

THIS WAS MY FAVORITE PART OF THE ARTICLE.

Everyone please take note

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike most politicos coming together on other more innocuous, non-binding resolutions of rebuke for the president’s plan, Murtha, Clinton, and Kennedy are either impervious to how constitutional law trumps legislative law, or they are openly trying to usurp an authority beyond their own separated powers.



This usurping represents a hostile act against the people’s long-term interests as defined and protected by the Constitution. This fact remains even when the breach is based upon a popular sentiment of the day. (It’s the reason O.J. gets to live though most want him dead.)



Congress is not entitled to supplant the commander-in-chief’s inherent authority (i.e., intrinsic constitutional power) as outlined in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. This never changes, despite the Democrats’ recapture of Congress and their screaming demands for more checks and balances.



The only reason our three co-equal branches of government have the leverage to place checks and balances on one another is because each has certain absolute powers beyond the reach of the other two.



The president fights while the Congress funds, and neither may encroach upon other – that’s how we avoid divergent militias. The Supreme Court referees those passing constitutional muster, but the court is also barred from changing constitutional laws that ultimately define the separation of powers. Yes, each has a check upon the other, but they’re indirect checks and all three branches are answerable to those dynamics.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

lets discuse
Reply With Quote