[Scotty]

Uh, impeached for what?  You can't impeach a president because he does something you/Congress doesn't like.  And, thanks to the War Powers Resolution (from back in 1973, before somebody goes crying evil Bush government again), he doesn't have to declare war in order to deploy troops.  Hell, he doesn't even have to notify Congress until two days after the troops go in.  Interestingly, the bill was passed despite a presidential veto.  Congress really wanted it passed back then.

Not to mention that, despite said resolution, no less than three presidents have ignored it and not faced impreachment.  There's precedent already set.

[Thaeris]

That doesn't make it alright. I think current events make it absolutely clear why it's not alright.

[Mika]

Thaeris, I think you need to open stuff up a little bit more yourself. Telling us what you see coming would be a good start? You don't need to worry about being wrong in the end, just as long as it's all reasonable. Without that, I cannot participate into a discussion of things happening mostly inside US.

[Scotty]

That doesn't make it alright. I think current events make it absolutely clear why it's not alright.

You're missing the point that with precedent already established, and with a law specifically tailored by Congress to allow the president to deploy troops without a declaration of war, there's nothing to impeach anyone on.

[SpardaSon21]

Except setting a precedent that presidents can just ignore existing law is a bad thing.  If I recall correctly Nixon got into trouble over doing something like that at the Watergate Hotel.

[Beskargam]

I agree with Thaeris in that the president shouldn't be able to make war on his own decision in principle, but I wonder if congress would do a better job. It also allows the president to be more flexible and rapid in response, which might be crucial if there was ever a need for them?

What I really would like to see is the tax code overhauled. I also would like to see campaign reform, 1 in how long before the election campaigns can start (shorten it!), 2 less obnoxious ads(this is more me being annoyed rather than a serious thought), 3 the president winning by direct election, or if you want to keep the the electoral college out of tradition, then have the delegates be assigned based on the % of votes each canidate received rather than winner take all. so if canidate A gets 25% of the vote, then he gets 25% of the electoral votes of that state. 4 I want super pacs eliminated, and the dumb supreme court decision that allowed them reversed. overall more transparency on where the money is coming from.

[NGTM-1R]

Except setting a precedent that presidents can just ignore existing law is a bad thing.  If I recall correctly Nixon got into trouble over doing something like that at the Watergate Hotel.

There are functional, emotional, and moral differences between violating basic law indisputably for the public good and law enacted primarily because people can't decide on who should and should not be able to have power.

Leaving aside whether the violations of it are right or wrong, existing law on the subject of the use of armed force by the United States is a deeply strange collection of half-measures and hedged bets more effective at hindering the creation and enacting of effective policy than at any other task. That it is perennially violated, and no one really seeks to enforce it, should not be surprising. It's really bad when it comes to interacting with the real world.

[Thaeris]

Deploying troops for the defense of the nation, or short-term incursions to suppress an agressor is NOT the same as going to full-scale war or invasion SANS DECLARATION. Nor should the President be permitted to bow to the UN on international matters without the consent of Congress. For that matter, the President should most definitely NOT sign UN legislation which may be construed to limit the rights and freedoms of the American people. Considering that he has done this already...

[Scotty]

I'm glad you're here to tell us what the President's jobs and responsibilities are.  I wonder where we'd be if you weren't?

[SpardaSon21]

I think the President's responsibilities can be pretty adequately summed up as "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".  At least that's what he's supposed to do as part of the oath of office.

[Beskargam]

Deploying troops for the defense of the nation, or short-term incursions to suppress an agressor is NOT the same as going to full-scale war or invasion SANS DECLARATION. Nor should the President be permitted to bow to the UN on international matters without the consent of Congress. For that matter, the President should most definitely NOT sign UN legislation which may be construed to limit the rights and freedoms of the American people. Considering that he has done this already...

ermm what exactly did he sign that gives away rights? this is the firs tI have heard of it apart from the guy it Texas going on about the president starting a civil war and calling in UN troops. . .

EDIT: quick google turns up Arms Trade Treaty, which didn't happen, and it sounds like all they had was "I think Obama is gona do this!"

[Thaeris]

I just checked my information, and it does look like the administration passed on signing the UN Arms Treaty that was a hot topic in July - over a quarter of the Senate asked the admin not to, actually. Thus, I retract that last portion of that statement, as it was in error. Sorry about that...

[BrotherBryon]

Good, I was beginning to think you might be a member of the Tea Party but since you actually accepted factual information instead of shouting "Lies!" when proven wrong I guess you must be at least a bit rational.

[Thaeris]

The Tea Party movement is a disappointing example of subversion. The movement was brought about by concern about the Federal Government over-stepping its bounds (which it was and is indeed doing) and not adhering to the Constitution - both of those issues are very important. Corporate fascism stepped in and you got the Kochs and Sarah Palin instead. It's among the most ironic and saddening defeat to a civil activism group in recent times.

Occupy Wall Street (and other Occupy movements) got flogged by the media and then got smacked down when protesters might have been causing more observers to consider the crap involved in the bail-outs via legislation. Here's H. R. 347 itself.

[NGTM-1R]

Considering that Tea Party types almost exclusively appeal to the idea of the Constitution, rather than its actual text or any legitimate interpretations thereof, you should probably take their original and current concerns with a large grain of salt. The kind they need a donkey to get out of the mine.

It's rather like how some people will appeal to the idea of the Bible, rather than having made any thorough study of the text.

[The E]

Time for a new feature we call "Mitt Romney steps in it".

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

TL;DR:

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

How in the **** does anyone who is not a millionaire think that guy is in any way electable?

[NGTM-1R]

That sounds pretty objectivist of him.

[General Battuta]

...They should impeach the next president that declares war without Congress' consent...

The United States hasn't formally declared war since World War 2 so this doesn't seem likely to happen

What's more, the President actually has constitutional power to roll troops anywhere he likes in response to hostile action; this goes as far back as some asshole named George Washington

  The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994) ("oth Secretary [of War] Knox and [President] Washington himself seemed to think that this [Commander in Chief] authority extended to offensive operations taken in retaliation for Indian atrocities.") (quoted in Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331 n.4. Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331-32 n.5.

This isn't to say I always think military adventurism is a great idea, but it's by no means unconstitutional.

[The E]

That sounds pretty objectivist of him.

I really like John Scalzi's take on this: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/09/18/hey-i-dont-have-to-pay-income-tax/

[General Battuta]

Here are the two Most Important Issues for me this election~~~

issue number 1

Why don't we know who's going to win yet? We've known who would win by Labor Day in almost every past election. We certainly knew Bush would win in 2004 and we definitely knew Obama would win in 2008 by this time of year. Maybe we also know whether Obama or Romney will win - I haven't checked. But last I knew the election was still extremely, maybe indistinguishably, close. Which is weird, because given the Q1 economic results, Obama should be losing. Why is Obama overperforming where he should be in the polls?

issue number 2

I really want this election to offer a choice. I'd love to have a Republican party that was about as far right as the Democrats were left. I'd like to chew on some proposals for fiscal conservatism and sensible economics. But literally none of that is relevant because a) congressional Republicans have taken a bizarre, pathologically obstructive 'at all costs' stance, paralyzing a government that was intentionally built for easy paralysis, and, b) the rhetoric of the Republican party has rendered all issues of economics, defense policy, and even constitutional ethics irrelevant. Unfortunately, they've turned this election into a referendum on the humanity of women and the value of science. Which means there's no choice at all: no matter how spineless or disappointing the Democrats have been, they are the only viable choice. I hate single issue voting, but when the parties choose to distinguish themselves by an issue as fundamental as 'women are/are not human beings', it takes over everything.