Comment: He's Living Under a Rock

(See in situ)


He's Living Under a Rock

"What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine."

The US has been operating this way for decades, especially this past decade. Why does he think there would be change if this is how the government worked? Is he not aware of what happened in Libya just recently? It is this lack of observance of the Constitution in regards to military action and spending that has the US at this "Fiscal Cliff". Yet he argues that disobeying the Constitution will somehow lead the US to successfully overcome this fiscal challenge. How does this so called expert come up with such ridiculous ideas?

This whole comment about letting Obama attack Iran on "merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief" is a scary argument. Any president should follow the Constitution and get the Congress to declare war before there are any attacks on a foreign country. Who is the judge of these "merits"?

The irony is that he starts his opinion piece with this.

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

Yet he is arguing for the most evil provision of all.

I hope no one buys this man's book.