Romney: Il Duce

I know I said I am done blogging, but here is one I had to write. Here is another proof that the United States Constitution has become a stale talking point.


First, lets go back to George Romney, Mitt Romney's dad, who was born in Mexico and ran for the Republican nomination. See a pattern yet? Now, let us return to Mitt.


You need to keep track of the great leader's view on the Constitution, as they will not be written down and if you make a mistake, the army will come and arrest you and hold you in secret with no possibility of habeas corpus. You can watch a video at the Atlantic Monthly  but here is the key statement, weird syntax and all:

...I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now....

  Note the word "now."  


Of course, the pretext for pounding the war drum is to prevent the only nation on earth that does not have a fiat currency from being a world threat.  It is, by not having a fiat currency. 


Sorry to be rambling from blog retirement, over my particular life experience I have come to realize that garbled syntax has meaning. I am not talking about using a poor word or making an error during construction. I am referring to precise, convoluted language, that which we merely ascribe to politicians as their avoidance of being pinned down, which is true, also. If you are old school, you know how to digram a sentence.  Try the quote above. In the end, there is a buzz finished with: I can blow up anyone for sixty days.


=================


As to the "now"


There is the "War Powers Act" that was passed during 1973, thanks to the Viet Nam era fear episode, passed ostensibly to "limit" the actions of the president. This is how things are sold in Fantasyland. We were sold the Federal Reserve, the Seventeenth Amendment, various "police actions," the NDAA, etc., etc. All you need it s false crisis.  Now, as in Libya, you don't need any crisis. You just need to be mad.


President Nixon VETOED, the War Powers Act as being unconstitutional, but our Congress overrode the veto. Congress undercut its own enumerated power. No president has affirmed it is Constitutional, but they use it, they are not limited by it. There is no question it is unconstitutional, there is no question Rubio, Jindal, McCain, George Romney, and Obama are not eligible to be president. Then again, there is no question that the Constitution is not relevant. 


This is another example how we lost our nation.  


There are timing provisions in the Act that required the President to request approval of an executive act placing troops in combat. If there is no approval of Congress (a resolution - ???) the troops must be withdrawn. Obama no longer cares about getting approval, if you have noticed.  New York Times editorial on Obama in Libya, even they get the usurpation. Leftists and Statists can work together, but at some point the Leftist realizes what they are doing:

EDITORIAL

Libya and the War Powers Act

Published: June 16, 2011

• RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• LINKEDIN
• COMMENTS (159)
• E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

It would be hugely costly — for this country’s credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya — if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya. However, Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation.

Related in News

• White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation (June 16, 2011)

• Times Topic: War Powers Act of 1973

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (159) »

The White House’s argument for not doing so borders on sophistry — that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops,” and thus are not the sort of “hostilities” covered by the act...

We are deeply skeptical of the motivations of at least some of the politicians suddenly championing the War Powers Act, beginning with House Speaker John Boehner....

Also, note the act requires that the location the troops be one where "imminent" hostilities are likely. That is anywhere we send out troops. 




Here is the New York Times on the subject:

HOW WAR POWERS ACT WORKS

Published: March 29, 1984

• E-MAIL
• SEND TO PHONE
• PRINT

WASHINGTON, March 28— The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.