Author: Michael A. Ventrella

by

The Constitution and War

When the Constitution was written, war was a lot simpler — for one thing, it took a long time. You had to move armies and ships and supplies and well, this just wasn’t done overnight.

So the Founding Fathers, wary of letting the President have too much power as Commander-in-Chief, wrote Article I, Section 8, which gave Congress the power to “declare war.”Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

They haven’t done that since World War II.

So now Obama is about to take actions against Syria that, by any standard, is an act of “war”. But we’ve allowed our Presidents to do this so many times that no one is seriously suggesting that this is unConstitutional any more. (Well, except for the Obama haters, most of whom had absolutely no problem with GW Bush doing the same thing, so we can ignore them.)

But it’s still not that simple. The Constitution does not define what a “war” is or what the process is for Congress to declare it, nor does it prevent the President as Commander-in-Chief from ordering troops anywhere he wants and so on.

During Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act which severely limited the President’s power to keep troops somewhere without congressional approval. It has not been enforced since then.

On the other hand, Congress did approve Presidential actions in Iraq and Afghanistan even though they never officially called it a “war.”

Then there’s the question of treaties. If this is done with UN approval, maybe foreign treaties take precedence over the Constitution, like when we went into Libya. (Well, with drones.)

So as our President becomes more and more imperial during wartime, we seem to be sitting back and going along for the ride.

This is especially disturbing right now with Syria, because a vast majority of Americans want us to stay away from that terrible place (How often do you get 75% of Americans to agree on anything?).

I’d say this is a perfect time for Congress to step in and say “no” to the President, but sadly the vast majority of Congress is in agreement with him.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Assad situation

I’ve never been a close follower of foreign policy, but this whole Syria thing has me worried.

First off, this is one of those situations where there is no Good Guy. The Brutal Dictator or the Muslim Brotherhood? My choice is to leave them alone completely.

Unfortunately, there are innocent people dying, caught between these two.

I’d like to go in and help these people, of course. It’s a natural human emotion. But I am not sure we can, and I am not sure it is worth it. After all, our experience in getting involved in the Middle East has been less than stellar. Sure, we got rid of bin Laden, Morsi, and Qadaffi, but it’s not like enlightened democracies sprung up to replace them. Maybe they’re just not ready for that yet.

What worries me is the banging of the Drums of War in Congress, where a vast majority of politicians are encouraging Obama to do something. (Hey, remember when the Constitution required Congress to declare war? Man, those were the days.) Only around 25% of the population is in favor of military action, but of course Congress constantly goes against our wishes.

I wish there was an easy answer.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Welfare drug tests and wastes of money

Another state has just spent a ton of taxpayer money forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests only to find that the number of welfare drug users is actually less than the national average. (If you think only poor people use drugs, you’re an idiot.)

Normally, conservatives hate wasting taxpayer money. But when Utah spent thousands of dollars to test drug users only to find twelve who failed the test (yes, you read that right), they considered the money well-spent.

Last year, Florida‘s program had a similar result, when the costs for testing far outweighed the 2% who failed the drug test.

“People who get government money should take these tests, and if they fail they should lose their benefits!” say some. Well, OK, but then let’s be fair about it. We should test all people getting government benefits, the vast majority of whom are elderly and/or disabled (You know, the evil “entitlement kings and queens” Romney warned us about).

Specifically, that would include:

The elderly who get Medicare and Social Security
The Disabled
Veterans who get any sort of veteran service
People who get student loans
Workers who become unemployed
Children who get school lunches
Parents who get child tax write-offs
People who get mortgage credits
Factory farm CEOs who get farm subsidies
Oil company CEOs who get “incentives”

Let’s see … is there anyone left who does not get government benefits?

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Well, duh, of COURSE it’s partisan voter suppression

I admit that while I can despise certain Republicans who want to limit voting rights, I admire those who admit it is purely for political reasons, because at least they are being honest in their evilness.th061QIW1J

The fact is that there is no voter fraud. Here in Pennsylvania, the Republican party has installed a number of new barriers to voting in order to prevent that terrible voter fraud, because, after all, in the last ten years we’ve had zero cases of voter fraud here. Similar numbers exist around the country.

Clearly, these new voter suppression laws are a solution in search of a problem.

So I tip my hat to those Republicans who tell the truth. Take Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai who admitted that voter identification efforts were designed to suppress Democratic votes. (Remember him? He told a Republican Steering Committee meeting that Voter ID “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”) While Obama did carry the state, Republicans still bragged that their efforts cut their losses and allowed them to retain control of the House seats from Pennsylvania.

The strictest voter ID laws since the 1960s have recently been passed by the neanderthals in North Carolina, all to stop that elusive “voter fraud.” So I can applaud neanderthaless Phyllis Schlafly, who recently argued that getting rid of early voting was important not to fight against fraud but because it helped Democrats.

How can you not admire her for that? We’ve been saying all along that this was for partisan political reasons, and her response was essentially, “Yeah, of course it is. So what?”

Here’s what she said:

The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.”

The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.

Translation: “We need to get rid of early voting because these early voters don’t vote the way we want.”

So please don’t buy the bullshit. There is no voter fraud. The Republicans know they can’t win if everyone votes, so their only hope is to keep us from voting.

And they admit this.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Vegetarians and cloning

I discovered a few years ago that I am a pescatarian, which means I don’t eat meat except for fish. I had never heard the term before that, and possibly it was made up around that time.

I stopped eating meat when I was in college in the late 70s, so no matter what my mother-in-law thinks, there’s nothing she’s going to say that I haven’t already heard that will make my wife and I change.Spockha

There are two main reasons I don’t eat meat.

First: health. Every reputable doctor will tell you that the less red meat you eat, the healthier you will be. Can’t get much less than zero, right? Seriously, remember those old food pyramids? Meat was at the top because you were supposed to eat it rarely, not because you were supposed to put it on top of your salad. Worse yet, most meat these days is shot up with chemicals and additives that make people sick.

Second: as a protest against factory farms. You know those torture prisons, where the animals can’t even turn around in their pens. I don’t like the idea of my money going to support them.

I also don’t want to be hypocritical about it. I’m not one of those people who cries about cruelty to dogs and cats while munching down on a hamburger. I don’t think we should make a distinction between cute animals and non-cute animals. They all feel pain.

So I’m happy with the announcement that they’re moving closer to cloning meat. If they can do it without additives and chemicals, all the better. We’re not talking about cloning an entire animal from birth (which should be treated the same as any other animal) — this is cloning a side of bacon, absent from the pig. Kind of scary and science-fictiony, but hey, that’s the direction we’re headed.

No animal is harmed, and, like a Star Trek Food Replicator, you can have meat every once in a while without causing pain to anyone.

Even Spock would call that logical.

Editorial cartoon of the day