posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:25 PM
Everything in politics is about "how to look good."
This is no different.
The foundation of this government was predicated on the notion that no society can lay down a set of immutable laws that can be logically expected to
apply to future generations under unknown circumstances.
The checks and balances of our system were imposed (and in many cases hotly debated) because we knew that the power to take any unilateral action
taken on behalf of an entire population runs the risk of being abused or misused.
The War Powers act seems logical to me because it ratifies the understanding that as a people we understand this peril. Congressional weakness
through entanglements of "political expedience" and the general unpredictability of activism in the Supreme Court (for similar and or competing
reasons) must be countered by a President who can, when necessary, take the risk of compelling the nation to respond a certain way to perceived
War cannot be waged, or won by committee. Judges administer law and interpret the effect of policy and action against the intent of the framers of
the constitution and their own guiding principles of ethical behavior. The Executive (president) is meant to have the authority to initiate such acts
as we have seen.
But all three branches of the government MUST have a say in the action, even if it is only after the emergent situation arises. The President's
administration will support the president, that's why he appoints them (or the party does.) But Congress and the Supreme court are under no
obligation to agree with what the president does.
I think the so-called loop-hole regarding combating terrorism is the real culprit in this scenario.
What we need is a clear definition that can be used to state unequivocally that there is such a danger that merits risking lives and expending the
wealth of the nation. But at this stage that definition is often muddled and obscured by 'secrecy': an expensive and critical political tool in
the 21st century.
Let's face it, the president can do this. But he also MUST submit his 'authority' for scrutiny by the representatives of the people, who,
ostensibly, will see a reasonable threat should one exist. Not wanting to explore this, or subject a decision to kill hundreds, if not thousands,
reeks of the lack of transparency that causes citizens to lose faith in the notion that they have any voice in the matter at all.
We cannot shy away from scrutiny because the people we have elected are duplicitous and often, part of a systemic political jury-rigging to simply do
what is best for themselves and their associates... without regard for the population the are supposed to represent. Yes they will engage in
populism, demagoguery, and pandering - we are geared by both the "press" that exists to inform us, and the conditioning of consumerism to DEMAND
such behavior from politicians. If they fail to please us, we might take away their most precious commodity - public power.
In effect, it is not the War Powers Act that doesn't work. The act is meant to be a tool to direct the course of public conduct we expect of our
government. The tool is fine, even with the ability of one party to bend it to whatever need they are willing to define as critical. That's why we
have the review process - the rule of accountability.
What doesn't work is not the tool... it's those who wield it. This country cannot be administered and 'used' by a politically aligned agenda. It
must never be allowed to be the convenient plaything of any narrow interest. Yet, for all intents and purposes - that is exactly where we are today.
Political parties need to be eliminated completely, the electorate must be directly represented, not through some political social club whose primary
concern will be inevitably for the continuance of their own governance model.
Frankly, if I had my way, there would be no "party" as a standing institution. Such things are not necessary for a government based on compromise
and the sanctity of human dignity. "Parties" are a convenience for peddlers of interest and con-men.