the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.I found the article on the vote at The Washington Post. I couldn't find an article on this in either The Lowell Sun or, surprisingly, The Boston Globe♠.
I suspect the Republicans ducked this because the outcome in Libya is still in doubt and accepted the argument that the amendment was not relevant to the bill.♥ Actually, I like that argument, if it is a precedent. Even so, I am disappointed in our own two Senators.
Hat tip to the Instapundit. His links led to Hot Air, where Allahpundit quoted California Senator Dianne Feinstein as calling the amendment "too cute by half". And it is, which is not saying something bad about it.
Regards — Cliff
♠ The amendment offered is a quote of a statement given to them by a former Senator.
♥ Although some say we may be there for years.
1 comment:
I like it only because it completely affirms the rank cynicism of the Democrat political philosophy. Kudos to Sen. Paul for making them refuse to eat the very words of their vaunted hero, further underscoring not only his incredible hubris, but his abysmal lack of understanding of the role of President.
The Globe didn't print anything about it because they didn't want to further reveal that this emperor has absolutely no clothes.
Post a Comment