Temporary Archive: Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board

Back to Archive Index

Deep Question

Posted by tom on 9/23/2005, 11:06:37, in reply to "Tom - question about that"
First, if we where to actually reverse a lot of the shift in power from the legislature to the Executive, this question would be largely mute. Answer me this--why does the Constitution spend twice as much lentgh discussing the role of the Legislature than it does the Executive?

So, let's go back to 1941--"Congress declares war"---2002 "Congress authorizes militray action" Congress was given the power to declare war because that is were that particular power was suppose to reside. The Executive branch is not a higher branch but rather the branch designed to execute the will of the people. So, if we held ourselves to the standard of our forefathers it would be much more difficult to go to war but going to war would necessarily mean a greater amount of buy in--i.e. less divisiveness.
Okay, all well and good--fast forward--but what about now? The flaw in what happened is that vigorous democratic process did not occcur before the deployment of troups. Once deployed, there was virtually no politically acceptable way to remove the troops. The outcome was pre-determined. Now, once the war became imminent/began the protests were too late. So, what I frequently tell people is that the non-war people failed...simple. They now have to shift effort to strengthening themselves, seeng where they made mistakes and holding leadership accountable everyday. It is my personal belief that once a singel US soldier is killed, it is too late to stop. Why? Because that raises the standard for making the initial decision. The faith in leadership of that one soldier is worth too much to allow it to go in vain..yes, that is pigheaded and absolute.
Instead of pointing to the potential of the enemy to somehow use the split in opinion and shame people into not voicing their opinions, I as a leader would want to know what people were thinking, whether I could/would do anything about it and it would seem to make better sense to higlight the freedom of expressions, rigours democratic process and the on-going struggle of the most powerful nation in the world to make the best of itself as an offensive tool against our enemies.
As to balance, there are clearly illegal and legal forms of protest--and there is also civil disobedience--so you "think the people who break the law in a protest" cause more problems---what do you think about the women's suffrage movement? Rosa Parks? Anti (motorcycle) helmet rallies? etc--If you are laying in front of my ambulance you are getting run over--we have both made a choice.


Responses:


Temporarily archived without permission from Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board.
Contact Donna if questions or concerns.