I watched in amazement last night, as one by one the Republicans displayed their ignorance of the constitution. They were asked whether they could take our country to war without the consent of the congress. It was painful to hear each of their tortured rationalizations when the answer is so simple. Mitt Romney was particularly embarrassing in his response because he would defer to the attorneys. Only Ron Paul had the correct answer.
No big surprise there...
I had to laugh as Chris Mathews was slapped down by Fred Thompson when Mathews said that Thompson should have stopped at "No" in his answer to the question of whether the Federal Government should intervene in a labor dispute. Thompson thanked Mathews for his opinion. For myself, I can't imagine why they had Mathews involved in the format at all.
I think I've reached the limit of my tolerance for Giuliani. Why he is a front runner is beyond me. If elected, he will raise the imperial presidency to new heights. Quite frankly I find him frightening.
How exactly would Rudy 'raise the imperial presidency' as you put it? I would like to know.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear lack of back bone with many of the candidates, but that doesn't mean that they are lost causes.
To suggest that taking our nation to war with out consent of congress is legal is correct, but what are the ramifications of such an act? What nuances must be addressed? It is a constitutional theory that yes the president can do as he sees fit as the CINC, but in a real world application there are many more issues to address.
While I agree with the emotive statement you made, one must look beyond that simplification of the issues at hand.
One question you might honestly ask yourself is, "Does Ron Paul over simplify issues, by making appeals to the pathos of rhetoric, because he can behave as a maverick, knowing that he will not win even a single primary, much less the nomination of the party?"
C.