It is a bad idea to give the President the power to make war. Do you know why?
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. [This guy is deep. It's not even all that easy to read. Can you believe that was just the first sentence? Stick with it. It's good! Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — "I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't." [One more paragraph, you can do it!]
The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."
Wow that's deep. Any idea who said it? Anyone? Anyone at all? Don't be shy!
Here's another one.
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” This one was said by Ben Franklin
So, if those who oppose George Bush are being "obedient to God", who is George Bush being obedient to? That excellent question comes from Xavier Onassis
my newest blog discovery.