2007-04-02 05:19:17 · 11 answers · asked by Jose R 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I am going to go out on a limb here, but first let me state that I am a veteran of 15 years in the military with tours in Iraq.
No it is not treasonous for congress to do what they are doing. for all of those who base their political knowledge on Fox news broadcasts, here is a little history lesson.
Fact: Our system of government has roots in the English system (not all but some).
Fact: one of the most important aspects of our government is the system of checks and balances.
Fact: The Magna Carta is ONE of the foundation documents of our constitution.
Fact: The Magna Carta was an attempt to redress the issue of taxation to support the wars of the King against France; a war many englishmen and noblemen didn't agree with. it mandated that the King had to consult Parliament before he could levy new taxes.
That being said, Congress has the right to introduce legislation on behalf of the population which they represent. The President can Veto, and, if congress has enough votes they can override the Veto.
Again, I am a COMBAT veteran who has served in Iraq and spent an entire tour working with the Iraqi Army. Treason would be to continue throwing American lives away in a War that was based on lies and deception.
2007-04-02 06:00:51 · answer #1 · answered by Answerking 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The funding bill is against what the dems promised when they took power again. Bills are to be straightforward, not have pork, be open for debate, and contain only provisions relating to the purpose of the legislation.
But the dems to get the votes they needed added so many domestic spending proposals to the bill that its a disgrace. The bill needs to be vetoed for more than its crossing the line into executive branch responsibilities for administering the war and giving our enemy a time line for when they can increase their attacks on our soldiers.
2007-04-02 05:34:40 · answer #2 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. Bush's threatened veto has nothing to do with the pork-barrel additions Pelosi doled out to buy support, and everything to do with the fact that the legislation demands that Bush begin to think about starting to get around to coming up with a committee to initiate planning for a possible eventual ENDGAME; something he has stated outright that he refuses to even consider.
In a government system with separation of powers, such as ours, it is in fact criminally irresponsible for the president to attempt to continue the autocratic style he was permitted to adopt in the aftermath of Sept 11. The US public is more than clear that we are insistent on a change in our Iraqi involvement, and we have elected congresspeople whose jobs are now dependent on their actually doing what we sent them there to do.
It is part of the president's job description to work with those congresspeople to ensure that the will of the people is executed. Sure there will be negotiations, that's part of the job. The rest of the job is successfully concluding those negotiations and implementing the resulting agreement. The president doesn't want to have to do his part of the job, hence the preemptive veto threats.
2007-04-02 05:45:59 · answer #3 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry you got shot crossing the border but the bill that is being VETOED was not just for the troops and it undermined the Commander-in-chief...but being an illegal like you, you wouldn't know the truth about the US Government other than you hope the Dems win to give you money to send back to Mexico....We just don't support the pork for the illegals picking the spinach and storing the peanuts....
2007-04-02 05:41:31 · answer #4 · answered by Try Reality 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What do you think?? Try cutting the funding to corn growers in South Dakota. Its about Vetoing the pork that has nothing to do with the war!!! Drrrrrr
2007-04-02 05:24:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dude, everyone knows the difference. If congress sent a bill to the president with nothing on it but military funding it would have been signed already.
Instead, congress is trying to overstep their authority and mandate actions that are exclusively the Executive Branches domain. To allow them to do this would hamstring every Commander-in-Chief to come. Even if that Commander-in-Chief was a democrat and the legislature republican.
If you are smart, regardless of your party affiliation you would be pressuring your representatives to stop this. It is causing a Constitutional conflict. That is not what anyone was elected to do. Congress can fund it or not fund it. They can't fund some of it, they can't kind of fund it , they can't sort of fund it, they can't only fund it if.... Fund it or don't fund it. If they really believe the American people want us to pull out now, what is the problem? Don't fund it. If you think the American people want us to stay, fund it.
Stop trying to hide behind proceedure, democrats. My God, do you even care what kind of message this sends to the enemy? Who's side are the democrats on? They seem to be after the same outcome as the enemy.
.
.
2007-04-02 05:32:39 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its actually more treasonous to prevent funding by incorporating imposible demands into th funding bill.
2007-04-02 05:22:40 · answer #7 · answered by this_takes_awhile 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If using a little " PORK " helps some in Congress do the right thing, then I say, More Sausage please. Bribe a few more, and let's get this thing done...BTW, 3 Dems and 20 Pubs were 'BRIBED'
2007-04-02 05:53:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only treasonous to the DEMOCRATs who want their PORK.
2007-04-02 05:35:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Make yourself usefull and join the service.
2007-04-02 05:24:04 · answer #10 · answered by Ray2play 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋