[« Trivia answers....] [Is Mocking Michael Moore Safe? »]
01/25/2005: Will fafnir get the 2005 Interview of the Year?...Stay Tuned
I've been having an e-mail conversation with fafnir, one blogger of a terribly witty trio over at Fafblog:
Dear fafnir:
Have you read the Bob Woodward's interview of Dick Cheney where he writes:But the vice president said he believes the former president should have used the U.S. military to eject Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait even if Congress had voted against military action. "I firmly believe to this day even if the Congress had voted no we had no option but to proceed," he said, adding that the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces, provides sufficient legal authority to launch a war.
Just re-read my Constitution:
Section 8: The Congress shall have Power...To Declare War... The operative word being "shall" which we (as attorney's) know is a legal command...it means something must be this and no other may substitute.
Not only is there no such "Power" as laid forth in the Constitution in describing the "Commander in Chief" but this expressly ignores the very clear Constitutional language otherwise stating that only Congress shall have that power.
Please tell me I'm wrong here...but what could be a more clear...more disturbing...more extra-Constitutional view of the Presidency which knows no legal, linguistic or rational bounds than this articulated by the Vice President.
Is this going against the safeguards, all checks and balances, all sharing of power, distribution of the powers...in what is nothing more than a naked power grab for the Office of the Presidency not intended by our Constitution.
I find it amazing that so many ordinary citizens are apparently missing the crucial legal points of "what's wrong with this picture."
What say you to this view of Presidential Powers?
fafnir writes:
Sometimes Karen a nation hasta go to war an it is the president's duty
to take us into war to protect Freedom an Liberty an stuff an we can't
wait for the approval of the Halls of Europe or Congress or the US
Constitution to do it. Some people might call that "unilateralism" or
"cowboy diplomacy" or "criminal abuse of power" but that's just the
way it's gotta be.
Dear fafnir:
Hmmm...exigent presidential contingencies notwithstanding... maybe you ought to schedule an interview with the Constitution and see what it's considered opinion might be for fafblog.
I understand the Constitution is between gigs...having completed the shooting schedule of it's recent film debut in "National Treasure" and the brief guest-celebrity appearance in the History Channels' bio of Ben Franklin.
However (as is clear from this bloggosphere rumor about Cows and the Constitution) you might want to get this interview in quickly before the Constitution considers relocating to Freedom Loving Iraq:COWS and The CONSTITUTION
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our
government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago,
right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And
they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to
locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe
we should give them all a cow.
CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why
don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart
guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
fafnir writes:
Karen, that's an excellent idea. We're calling the Constitution's
agent to set something up as soon as possible.
Will fafnir get the scoop of all scoops...the 2005 Interview of the Year with the reclusive, elusive and being kept locked in a disclosed location, Constitution of the United States.
Stay tuned and I'll keep a look out at fafblog for updates.
Karen on 01.25.05 @ 04:15 AM CST
