Vote for NOBODY

NOBODY will keep election promises

NOBODY will listen to your concerns

NOBODY will help the poor and unemployed

NOBODY cares !

If NOBODY is elected things will be better for everyone

NOBODY TELLS THE TRUTH

"The opportunities for productive work, the resources of nature have been grabbed. You cannot get pay enough or make a profit enough to enable you to get a foothold. The biggest fellows get a monopoly ahead of you every time. They have gobbled up the sugar lands, the grazing lands, the timber lands, the building sites, the coal seams, the iron ore lands, the street car franchises, the patents, the banking charters.

You will read in newspapers and in books and hear from the pulpits that they were more industrious and enterprising and frugal and that you might be as they are : that it is all "the survival of the fittest!" Nonsense ! there is room for a few on top of you and the few monopolists are quite willing to pay editors, by advertisements and in other ways, and to support clergymen to flatter them by teaching that we should all be contented with that arrangement. "

"To overthrow the gigantic system of plunder from which we suffer we have only to contend with the "privileged classes." How many are they ? …the Hills, Morgans, Gormans, Murphys"

"Our votes elect the legislatures who give these men their power. Our labor creates the wealth which these men take. Our authority puts these men in control of the government, the courts, the army and the police. "

"This work is written to set you thinking what you want and how to get it. If you want other people's money do not be too particular about how you get it. Slave, make use of your acquaintances, skimp, gamble with loaded dice, marry rich, invest in land, overreach, lie in with the rich, do criminal jobs for the strong who will protect you from the courts; make yourself solid, "get wisdom" the skill of the hands, "get knowledge," the training of the mind, and "with all thy getting, get" a monopoly. For the higher understanding will only be a hindrance to financial success under present conditions. "A tender conscience is a disqualification to success."

"The president shall not have the power to pardon any person for act in which they themselves were involved."

Of course no one can be expected to give back any power, it goes against the very nature of how power corrupts people, the system must enforce itself by relying upon the other party's, namely the ones who stand to lose the ability to enforce the constitution.

PS: the house was given the power of the purse because originally the federal power to tax directly was directly related to the population of the state, and thus giving the house executive power of the purse in originating bills they keep the power to spend in sync with the power to tax.

While even then before they broke the tax relationship with the 17th amendment this was obviously not a perfect sync, it was a far better sync then what we now have.

As to what I disagree with on is the matter of what constitutes torches, if Congressional law defined water boarding and everything else they did as torches then while the president must yield to the laws definition, I must disagree with the law.

I must also still contend the vote to Authorization of the uses of force as a defacto deceleration of war, as what is war if it is not the uses of force against an external nation/organization. While you may demand more explicit language, and I conseed that is reasonable and should have been adopted, I also See very little practical difference.

Even the point that War can only be declared on defined and recognized states is some what pointless given what is and is not a state is a matter of arbitrary opinion always has been. That's why getting recognition is such an issue for new country.

So if that is to be the constitutional standard requirement for a deceleration of war it is important that we define a nation or country as something which we do not necessary recognize as such and yet is still capable of waging war upon us, requiring a likewise external response to stop them.

I beleive a congressman has proposed passing a rule that would require that specification, perhaps we should get behind that. as a procedure that might HELP congress stick with in their bounds or at the very least help us more clearly and less ambiguity identify when they fail to do so.

The problems that result from that failure, are of course as extremely serous as you say they are.

if my possible interpenetration were "put into place" the sittuation would not be between iraq and congress but rather iraq and the head of state of the United States which is the presdent who acts on behalf of and in execution of congresses laws. In this case congresses decleration of war and altermatime.

I agree this is shakey ground, and generaly bad policy to carry out our functions due to the above problems of constitutional anarchy which can come form such a vage excution process, but it is intheory a ligitimate excitation of the law. IF we assume that congress does not need to explicitly reference constitutional power words like declare war, to actually declare war.(the generally bad procedure in question)

The other question is exactly what is a war? What can a war be declare against? Exactly how must a war be declared?

All of theses things cold uses a hard concrete definition, as to eliminate the ambiguity with regard to whether or not our constitution is being upheld in this regard, and if not exactly how and where.

I suspect we will require linguistic research as well as past historical prescient traditions in reference to the same to get a better more concretely nailed down explanation and thus verification procedure.