Bullypulpit
Senior Member
<blockquote>Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necesary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probablity of the British invading us" but he will say to you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't."
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I inderstand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. </blockquote>
The above passage was taken from a letter from Abrham Lincoln to William Herndon in refutation of Mr. Herndon's support of James Polk's war with Mexico.
It applies equally, today, to President Bush's policy of pre-emption in the case of Iraq, or any other threat his deluded mind might percieve. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war, and it doesn't really matter how many times it's been done before, they violated the Constitution in abdicating their power to send troops into harms way to the President.
Similarly, the President had no right to accept such powers, and in doing so he violated the Constitution.
ANY who authorized this abdication of authority stand in contempt of the very foundation of the Republic, and are unworthy of the office they hold, just as ANY who accepted such authority stand in contempt of the Constitution and are unworthy of the office they hold. {Yes, that means John Kerry AND George Bush)
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I inderstand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. </blockquote>
The above passage was taken from a letter from Abrham Lincoln to William Herndon in refutation of Mr. Herndon's support of James Polk's war with Mexico.
It applies equally, today, to President Bush's policy of pre-emption in the case of Iraq, or any other threat his deluded mind might percieve. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war, and it doesn't really matter how many times it's been done before, they violated the Constitution in abdicating their power to send troops into harms way to the President.
Similarly, the President had no right to accept such powers, and in doing so he violated the Constitution.
ANY who authorized this abdication of authority stand in contempt of the very foundation of the Republic, and are unworthy of the office they hold, just as ANY who accepted such authority stand in contempt of the Constitution and are unworthy of the office they hold. {Yes, that means John Kerry AND George Bush)
