Webb: “We do have an amendment on Iran”

Call your Senators today and tomorrow and ask them to support the Webb amendment. This, simply stated, requires the president to get Congressional authorization before attacking Iran, in keeping with the United States Constitution.

The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121.
To see if your Senator is supporting the amendment and report the result at: Provision against war with Iran

View the Video here: Support the Troops, Support the Webb Amendment

Jeff Herz - My View of the World said...
unfortunately one of my senators the honorable lying Joe Lieberman has already decided to bomb the shit out of Iran and my other Senator is too busy running for president (and being way behind in the polls) than to pay attention or listen to his constituents in CT.

Sphere: Related Content

Can Democrats End the Iraq War?

Congress does not need Bush's approval to end the war. Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of such a strategy, but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.
It is a matter of constitutional fact, which is that the Democrats could stop the war if they chose. They choose not to."
The questions are not just: Can Congress stop the surge? Can Congress stop a war-mongering president in his tracks? The better question is what are the things Congress can accomplish just by trying to stop the escalation, boldly, and without apology?
The answer to that is: an enormous amount -- and that the only thing that can guarantee Democratic political weakness in 2008 is if they abandon a strong withdrawal (or, if you prefer, "redeployment") position.
According to The constitution the Congress shall have power:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Why are they not using this power to end the War?

Sphere: Related Content

House Votes to Pull Troops

The president acknowledged that public opinion might be against him — he said that “sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don’t enable you to be loved” — but suggested that Congress was overstepping its constitutional role by trying to force a change of policy on him.

WTF!! Now Bush is talking as if he actually 'knows' what the Constitution is and what it says! This 'un-president' has made a mockery for so long that it is in shreds!

Sphere: Related Content

White House refuses to answer subpoenas

Update: Dems push White House on executive privilege

10-day deadline given along with vow to invoke 'full force of law'

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, the heads of the Judiciary committees demanded an explanation in 10 days of why the White House claimed executive privilege on subpoenaed documents and vowed to invoke "the full force of law."

Constitutional showdown possible over firing of federal prosecutors

WASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

"Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953). Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692"

Apparently our President doesn't think it his duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” that it is alright for him to substitute his own judgment for that of the Constitution regarding the discharge of such duty.

Once again Bush shows us his disdain for both the Constitution and the American People!

Sphere: Related Content