Comments on: “I’ll Write the Check, You Balance The Checkbook”: The Fall of Checks & Balances in America http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/iraq/ill-write-the-check-you-balance-it-the-fall-of-checks-balances-in-america/ School's out. The New School is in session. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:40:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Eftychis http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/iraq/ill-write-the-check-you-balance-it-the-fall-of-checks-balances-in-america/#comment-15 Eftychis Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:40:36 +0000 http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/?p=16#comment-15 I have to say, we have different political views but I cannot see what 20,000 soldiers in Iraq can do other than delay the inevitable. At the same time, I am not sure if the democrats have the balls to cut off funding, they have been running around the question for weeks trying not to answer it. Maybe now that bush has given his speech they will begin to get their act together, but comeon they have to act like a party in the majority. What is strange to me, as a conservitive (and a sign of how angry I am with the current administration) is that it seems the democrats are the ones who are going to reduce spending and once again limit the size of government (something my party was suppose to do). I have to say, we have different political views but I cannot see what 20,000 soldiers in Iraq can do other than delay the inevitable. At the same time, I am not sure if the democrats have the balls to cut off funding, they have been running around the question for weeks trying not to answer it. Maybe now that bush has given his speech they will begin to get their act together, but comeon they have to act like a party in the majority.
What is strange to me, as a conservitive (and a sign of how angry I am with the current administration) is that it seems the democrats are the ones who are going to reduce spending and once again limit the size of government (something my party was suppose to do).

]]> By: Ryan http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/iraq/ill-write-the-check-you-balance-it-the-fall-of-checks-balances-in-america/#comment-14 Ryan Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:33:12 +0000 http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/?p=16#comment-14 Your appear very strict in interpreting the constitution in this instance--and I like that. I believe that congress should serve as a check on the president waging war--which is why congress should have declared war instead of resolving to abdicate their check and give the president discretion. At the same time I sense that this time your interpretation is only strict out of convenience and that you are only posing as a champion of the rule of law and the US constitution out of expedience for your anti-war stance. Zach, you are a liberal, and hardly an enemy of government. I find that your argument is invalid by virtue of your own hypocrisy, unless of course you also are against: a national bank, foreign aid, government health care, social security, public education, and public works projects (to name only a few) on the basis that the federal government is not enumerated these powers in the constitution. A true strict constructionist believes in rule of law and checks and balances uniformly and unconditionally; you only champion them in the fair weather. Your appear very strict in interpreting the constitution in this instance–and I like that. I believe that congress should serve as a check on the president waging war–which is why congress should have declared war instead of resolving to abdicate their check and give the president discretion.

At the same time I sense that this time your interpretation is only strict out of convenience and that you are only posing as a champion of the rule of law and the US constitution out of expedience for your anti-war stance. Zach, you are a liberal, and hardly an enemy of government. I find that your argument is invalid by virtue of your own hypocrisy, unless of course you also are against: a national bank, foreign aid, government health care, social security, public education, and public works projects (to name only a few) on the basis that the federal government is not enumerated these powers in the constitution.

A true strict constructionist believes in rule of law and checks and balances uniformly and unconditionally; you only champion them in the fair weather.

]]>