- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94140
06 Jul 07
No, this isn't another thread about US wars so please lets not get stuck in that dogfight this time.
As far as I know, the Oval Office has complete control over the way that the US conducts its foreign policy. First of all, is this true? I would love to know the facts here.
If my understanding is correct, should a President have access to such power in a democracy? Is this the one area of American government that hasn't stood up to the test of time?
06 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeAThe President can't do much without the blessings of Congress. They hold the purse strings. That's why some of these people on the site blaming Bush need to re-evaluate their position. After all it takes Congress's vote declare war. Both are at fault for the mess in Iraq.
No, this isn't another thread about US wars so please lets not get stuck in that dogfight this time.
As far as I know, the Oval Office has complete control over the way that the US conducts its foreign policy. First of all, is this true? I would love to know the facts here.
If my understanding is correct, should a President have access to such power in ...[text shortened]... mocracy? Is this the one area of American government that hasn't stood up to the test of time?
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by slimjimThere was no declaration of war. We haven't declared war on anyone since World War II.
The President can't do much without the blessings of Congress. They hold the purse strings. That's why some of these people on the site blaming Bush need to re-evaluate their position. After all it takes Congress's vote declare war. Both are at fault for the mess in Iraq.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettJust because we call it post traumatic stress disorder doesn't mean soldiers fighting in those wars don't have shellshock and just because its called an authorization of use of force doesn't mean it isn't a declaration of war.
There was no declaration of war. We haven't declared war on anyone since World War II.
07 Jul 07
So, the president decides what the policy is, and the congress decides whether or not to pay for it. Is that not dangerous in such a partisan system when the house of congress and the white house are occupied by the same party? (As they were up until relatively recently in the current administration?)
In such a case, one could "blame" the party, no?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94140
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by agrysonWell given that the USA is a democracy, that shouldn't be a problem. If you think that having one set of people predominantly in power is dangerous, then perhaps it is the electoral system which should be looked at. (Of course, though I'm sure some will disagree with me, having someone like Bush in the White House is dangerous.)
So, the president decides what the policy is, and the congress decides whether or not to pay for it. Is that not dangerous in such a partisan system when the house of congress and the white house are occupied by the same party? (As they were up until relatively recently in the current administration?)
In such a case, one could "blame" the party, no?
I don't think that anyone needs to be blamed, but the system may need reviewing.
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by agrysonIts not like you think. The majority party in congress would need 60+% of members in order to do any ramroding. That was not the case.
So, the president decides what the policy is, and the congress decides whether or not to pay for it. Is that not dangerous in such a partisan system when the house of congress and the white house are occupied by the same party? (As they were up until relatively recently in the current administration?)
In such a case, one could "blame" the party, no?
Allthough, it is almost always better to have the opposite partie in majority in congress. Congress does mostly bad, so gridlock is good.
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by agrysonHaving a single representative to foreign governments or to act as Commander-in-Chief once war is declared is not a bad idea. The President is the logical choice for that role.
So, the president decides what the policy is, and the congress decides whether or not to pay for it. Is that not dangerous in such a partisan system when the house of congress and the white house are occupied by the same party? (As they were up until relatively recently in the current administration?)
In such a case, one could "blame" the party, no?
But I am strongly against the Presdient deploying forces or creating a war zone and then threatening Congress to either support our troops or be lambasted from the "bully pulpit" as a rabble of unpatriotic so-and-sos.
Originally posted by rwingettActually, there was a declaration of war:
There was no declaration of war. We haven't declared war on anyone since World War II.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
The US Constitution does not specify what form or terminology must be used in declaring war, only that "the Congress shall have power...to declare war" (Article 1, Section 8).
The above authorization, passed by Congress, authorized military action against Iraq, thereby fulfilling Congress' constitutional obligation to either grant or deny the president permission to undertake sustained military actions.
HumeA:
"Well given that the USA is a democracy, that shouldn't be a problem."
This is not directed at you, but your statement brings up one of my pet peeves:
America is NOT a democracy, we are a republic. The Founding Fathers were very deliberate in that choice as there is an important distinction, one that is, alas, often over-looked these days.
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by MerkAh, I didn't know that, ok, that's a bit better than what I had thought.
Its not like you think. The majority party in congress would need 60+% of members in order to do any ramroding. That was not the case.
Allthough, it is almost always better to have the opposite partie in majority in congress. Congress does mostly bad, so gridlock is good.
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by spruce112358True, war, like many other things can't be governed by a committee. Indeed, despite the inherent problems, it makes sense that there is one person to act as the voice of foreign policy. A case in point is here in Europe, we have no collective voice or person that other nations to look to as the representative voice, which seriously reduces our clout internationally.
Having a single representative to foreign governments or to act as Commander-in-Chief once war is declared is not a bad idea. The President is the logical choice for that role.
But I am strongly against the Presdient deploying forces or creating a war zone and then threatening Congress to either support our troops or be lambasted from the "bully pulpit" as a rabble of unpatriotic so-and-sos.
Tied to that however is the disadvantages of that one voice also having a huge amount of power. I know that the vast majority of Bush's decisions are likely made by various committees and advisors, but my understanding is (and I may be wrong, so please tell me if I am) that if Bush didn't agree with his advisors, he could still go ahead and declare something as being the decision of the white house, and have that decision enacted (presuming the congress can somehow be persuaded).
I see that as a little too much power in one persons hands, but is that a view held by many Americans?
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by agrysonYes and no. Democrats hold that view when republicans are in the white house and visa versa.
True, war, like many other things can't be governed by a committee. Indeed, despite the inherent problems, it makes sense that there is one person to act as the voice of foreign policy. A case in point is here in Europe, we have no collective voice or person that other nations to look to as the representative voice, which seriously reduces our clout i ...[text shortened]... t as a little too much power in one persons hands, but is that a view held by many Americans?