What are the good things Bush II will be remembered for?

He is. But he has the pathetic, cowardly, whiney-@ss liberal-CONtrolled CONgress to deal with.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but that is a recent thing why did he not do it when the republicans control congress

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Blaming congress? What does he care? Clinton had a lame-ass Republican congress to deal with. They were saying "no war for Monica" and "wag the dog", about THE WAR ON TERROR!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But he still has control of the nukes doesn't he?

 

Good things?

Bush supporters have high praise for the incredible performance of Rumsfeld. Great regret at the resignation of the quality of an individual like that of the Attorney General, Gonzalez.

Those are two examples that come to mind. Bush's ability to pick the right people for the job. The Republicans should should put Rumsfeld or Gonzalez on the ticket as VP in November.

 

Are you actually saying that we should use the nuclaer bomb? I think I will just move to Russia if the US ever makes a decision like that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But I'm pretty sure he CAN use the bomb is the thing. No one has to let the President use it, unless there's some sort of law somewhere that says the US has to be in a declared war to allow nukes to be used. So sandy's point about the liberal controlled congress stopping Bush from nuking the hell out of the damn terrorists is moot.

 

Executive orders can override the legislative branch and the judicial branch. However, if he did, it would be such bad politics now wouldn't it? (oh, and it would be murder)

 

Yes, but that's not the reason sandy gave for Bush not using them, so your point's moot too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Personal attack

 

Absolutely. I agree.

With any luck the indictments will come in about the third week in September, and even if the Dems are running Hillary they'll have a chance.

The President cannot order the nuking of anyone, on his own sole authority, under the Constitutional prohibition on making war without Congressional permission.

The Constitution is in rough shape, though, at the moment.

Sounds like a W-style accomplishment, indeed:

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Those pesky little details: who pays, who's liable, who's taking the risks, where does the money go - - - -

 

The president has sole authority to authorize nuclear attacks. That is why a military officer always accompanies the president. He carries a brief case referred to as the football. It has the codes and ability to authorize use of nuclear weapons.

 

I thought this might be the case at first, but then I considered that Bush made war without a formal declaration which is still unconstitutional. So I'm not certain if it would still be considered unconstitutional to use the nukes.

 

Shrug. It was the best I could come up with.

In order to authorize a nuclear release in accordance with the SIOP, the president needs to have concurrence of the SECDEF, who functions as the other half of the NCA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

 

Hmm, so either way the President doesn't need Congress to authorize a nuclear attack. I wonder what sandy's complaining about then.

 

like the formal declarations for vietnam, korea, yugoslavia, etc.?

 

I'm sure you can guess what I think about those.

 

war powers act says they are legal :\

 

Yes but, I'll let wikipedia do the talking for this one:

Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter.

There is also much debate about the meaning of the word "declare". Some scholars suggest that to declare war does not necessarily mean to commence war. During the Philadelphia Convention, there was some discussion about the difference between the power to "make war" and the power to "declare war", and which of the two should be written into the Constitution. A declaration of war lets the citizens of a nation know that they are now at war with some other nation or entity. It also puts the belligerent nations and their citizens on notice. More importantly, this establishes that international law governs the conduct of the war. This protects citizens in all the warring nations involved insofar as if they are captured by the enemy, they will be treated as prisoners-of-war instead of mere criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

Also check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_Regarding_Constitutionality

 

updated 10:32 p.m. ET, Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS - Anisha Washington draws her neatly starched uniform from a dingy bureau in the crowded shotgun house she shares in a hurricane-crippled New Orleans neighborhood.

Her $10-an-hour pay as a security guard in the touristy French Quarter seems an improvement over the $7.50 she earned before Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005.

But, inflated wages in a storm-reduced labor force are overshadowed by the harsh math of life: Rent has shot up 46 percent, utility rates have risen 33 percent and 15 of Washington's relatives cram a four-bedroom house because apartments are scarce.