Think that the whole thing was hindering progress of solving the war on terror, due to the lack of cooperation, and back-biting? And should the election process be suspended federally during time of national life threats, and war? Now that the election is completed, they seem to be working at the solution in a more harmonious way.
2006-11-14 02:49:07 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty, which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. –Alexander Hamilton
Taking away the power of Congress elections just because of war goes against everything that our founding fathers would have wanted. The reason that there is a legislative branch, and we have open debates for our laws, is to hear dissenting opinions. Read the Federalist Paper No. 10, from which the above quote is taken. It tells you exactly why we need Congress. No.6-10 are very good resources
Section Four provides that states may regulate the "times, places and manner" of holding Congressional elections, except Senators. So if there were dire circumstances they could change the date of an election. This section also states that Congress must assemble at least once each year. From this it is my understanding they must convene even under context of war, back-biting and all things included.
They held an election during the Civil War which was even more divisive for our country.
2006-11-14 04:11:42 · answer #1 · answered by Sensible_5 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The failure of the Iraq invasion and occupation is due to the people who ordered it being as ignorant as pigs about what they think they are doing. They don't understand the culture, they don't understand war. The "wot" has caused the world to be a much more dangerous place, and has guaranteed that there will be more attacks on U.S.soil. After 9/11 it was a strong possibility, Bush has made it a certainty. Using Rumsfeld as a scape-goat won't solve a blessed thing.
May God watch over our troops who serve with honor in a situation they did not create.
2006-11-14 11:28:58 · answer #2 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hope karen is being sarcastic, stay the course is no longer an option as we are losing the war on terror to our own leadership. By passing laws that take away the freedoms of the people of the U.S. the president is showing his true colors and needed to be reigned in. You can see a difference in his demeanor since the election, he is showing a need to compromise for the first time in his presidency.
2006-11-14 11:04:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
To answer your questions:
No and definately not.
The "war on terror" can not be won. There will always be some oppressed people fighting to gain their freedom by whatever means necessary. There will always be people who feel "wronged" who will lash out. Terrorism is subjective. Creating terror in others to advance an agenda is terrorism. The US itself is a terrorist state. The 1986 bombing of Libya is listed by the UN's Committee on the Legal Definition of Terrorism as a "classic case" of terrorism  on a short list that includes the bombing of PAN AM 103, the first attempt made on the World Trade Center, and the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. We cannot win a war unless we choose sides. "Shock and Awe" puts us squarely on the wrong side...
2006-11-14 11:03:16 · answer #4 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think that you answered your own second question- we needed the shake-up. In a couple of years everyone will be mad at the Dems and we'll shake up again! That's America- but I hope it will cause the Dems to stop blaming, the Rep. to think and the rest of us to demand some work out of Washington instead of the stupid bickering! Politics is exactly what it is- politics- I just hope that afterwards they hunker down, shut up and get some things going for the American people. PS- I'm conservative too!
2006-11-14 11:00:21 · answer #5 · answered by ARTmom 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If they didn't get to acting harmoniously after spending the last year slandering each other, they'd ALL lose their seats in 2 years. I don't think any of that crap will change until a viable 3rd party scares the crap out of both the Dems and the Reps.
2006-11-14 11:02:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh God yes, Bush is going such a wonderful job we should just suspend the Constitution including the Bill of Rights. In fact lets send the Congress and the Supreme Court home until Bush either resigns or dies in office.
2006-11-14 10:54:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It has only been a week. The Dem's aren't even in office yet. Their true colors will shine (not a good thing), give it time.
LisaT-- In times of war we do not need a leadership change. How do you rationalize that comment? You don't switch coaches in the middle of the season.
2006-11-14 10:53:10 · answer #8 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
This is called the "honeymoon stage" in Politics. Weight until the new Congress starts and hold on to your seats. It's going to be a rollercoaster ride!
2006-11-14 10:51:22 · answer #9 · answered by ginger13 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely not. Times of war and threat are when we desperately need new leadership - now is the perfect example.
2006-11-14 10:51:27 · answer #10 · answered by LisaT 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋