Yes, exactly, Senator Murphy
Nov. 20th, 2014 01:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO0jLd_MaDM
Senator Chris Murphy of CT (*) put out this video of his brief appearance on the Rachel Maddow show in which he reiterates his call to President Obama to put the matter of US military response to IS(IS/IL) in front of Congress and get authorization.
Murphy makes the point I've been yammering about for years (particularly in regards to filibusters lately) that the party in power now is not always going to be the party in power and you must govern for the future. The Senator is a liberal Democrat who has largely supported Obama, but he has the foresight to recognize that we made rules and laws to apply over time and short-sighted political maneuvering is only going to end up costing more in the long run.
I did not approve of Reagan's or Bush's unauthorized military ventures, and I opposed their election and their party. I do not approve of Obama's unauthorized military ventures, despite my voting for him and his party. The Constitution rightly vests war-making power with Congress - no matter how much despised they may be - and Presidents ought to bloody well take a look at that oath they swore and follow it.
(*) Full disclosure: I contributed money to Senator Murphy's latest election campaign, which is why I'm on his email list.
Senator Chris Murphy of CT (*) put out this video of his brief appearance on the Rachel Maddow show in which he reiterates his call to President Obama to put the matter of US military response to IS(IS/IL) in front of Congress and get authorization.
Murphy makes the point I've been yammering about for years (particularly in regards to filibusters lately) that the party in power now is not always going to be the party in power and you must govern for the future. The Senator is a liberal Democrat who has largely supported Obama, but he has the foresight to recognize that we made rules and laws to apply over time and short-sighted political maneuvering is only going to end up costing more in the long run.
I did not approve of Reagan's or Bush's unauthorized military ventures, and I opposed their election and their party. I do not approve of Obama's unauthorized military ventures, despite my voting for him and his party. The Constitution rightly vests war-making power with Congress - no matter how much despised they may be - and Presidents ought to bloody well take a look at that oath they swore and follow it.
(*) Full disclosure: I contributed money to Senator Murphy's latest election campaign, which is why I'm on his email list.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-11-21 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-11-22 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-11-22 04:45 am (UTC)To uphold the constitution that explicitly names the POTUS as Commander in Chief? So how does one balance out "war making authority is vested in Congress" with "the POTUS can tell his/her troops to do whatever s/he wants them to do, including shoot their bullets at $foreign entity"?
As they say: "It's complicated."
Complicated because on the one hand, Congress should think about how the country goes into war, but also complicated because theoretically, should foreign nuclear missiles slip their bonds, you don't want the POTUS to have to get in the car, drive over to Congress, find out that they're not in session because they're on recess...
And that's just one example.