Gaetz supported the House War Powers resolution

Even the self-appointed leader of the Praetorian guard for the regime knows that the president has too much power.

“Gaetz on Thursday said that he supported Trump’s decision but also believed Congress has a say in “matters of war and peace.”
“I represent more troops than any other member of this body,” Gaetz said. “I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington. That sergeant died a patriot and a hero. If the members of our armed services have the courage to go and fight and die in these wars, as Congress, we ought to have the courage to vote for or against them.”

Kaine has been trying to curtail the president’s power on war for years. McConnell won’t hear of it. The current House resolution, bi-partisan with Gaetz and a couple of other Republicans, has a pig’s chance in Smithfield of passing the Senate.

I know why it won’t pass the Senate with toady Mitch in charge. But why on earth anyone, besides Barr and some other autocrats, would try so hard to make the president a monarch is beyond most intelligent thought. That office already has way too much power. Much more than the founders ever dreamed of.

This is especially critical when the regime is so mendacious and purposely misleading in order to confuse all Americans as if we were the enemy. We can trust nothing his “imminence” says, yet we are bestowing 007 license to kill powers on him.


16 thoughts on “Gaetz supported the House War Powers resolution

  1. First Lee and Paul call the briefing the worst they have seen in their time in Congress. Now Gaetz supports a Democratic proposal for limiting Trump’s powers? It’s almost 60 degrees out, yet Hell hath frozen over.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. RE: “That office already has way too much power. Much more than the founders ever dreamed of.”

    That would be hard to show, since the founders wrote the Constitution which defines the powers of the office of the president. It is fully within the scope of his authority as commander in chief of the military to engage in military adventures even without a declaration of war. The American people, in fact, elect the president to shoulder that very responsibility.

    Congress for it’s part may approve of the president’s military performance by authorizing spending, as this Congress has done, without a declaration of war. It may also disapprove of the actions of the commander in chief by withhold spending, refusing to make a war declaration the president wants, or impeaching him.

    These conditions are clearly what the founders intended. Do you not find them to be adequate?


  3. Point out in the Constitution where it says that a president may assassinate a high ranking leader from a nation we have not declared war on while he was visiting a country that we are allied with.

    So now Congress can withhold money for that missile that we fired from a drone?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Article II, Section 2. [1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”

      Now you show us where in the Constitution Congress has the power to control the activities of the Commander in Chief other than through appropriations, declarations of war or impeachment.


      1. Not so fast.

        CINC means what? That the president can do as he pleases with the military?

        He runs the military as allowed by Congress.. It tells him when and where he can use it. What kind of weapons he can buy and even where it can sleep and eat.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “CINC means what? That the president can do as he pleases with the military?”

        Exactly, in pretty much the same way that being the owner of a photography company meant you could do as you pleased with the business.

        What is it about the principle of co-equal branches of government that you object to? Do you really mean to pretend that the Executive and the Legislative branches are equal, except that the Legislature controls the Executive?


        1. I disagree that the president can do as he pleases with the military. He cannot wage war without Congress’s permission. He cannot ratify treaties either. He cannot use the military as a domestic police force.

          The president has to enforce the laws as passed by Congress. He cannot opt out of that nor can he make his own laws.

          He cannot tell Congress what laws he wants passed other than as a recommendation.

          He cannot make major appointments without the Senate’s approval.

          And, of course, he can be impeached and removed from office.

          If that is control of the president, then so be it. Why are you so worried about that?

          His job is to execute the laws as passed by Congress and as intended by Congress. He is in charge of administering the various branches of the bureaucracy. He is in charge of the DOJ.

          What has taken place over the years, decades really, is that Congress has abrogated its responsibilities in favor of giving the president too much leeway in enforcement of duly passed laws, use of the military and an overly broad expanse of “emergency powers” that should at best be very temporary and not a permanent transfer of power to a single person.

          We are supposed to have an executive to run the country, not a king to rule it.

          Liked by 3 people

        2. “Exactly, in pretty much the same way that being the owner of a photography company meant you could do as you pleased with the business.”

          I think I see your view.

          However, in this imperfect comparison, the owner may be able to do as he pleases with regards to running the business within the confines of the law, but the hired manager cannot.

          The president is not the owner of anything. He has been hired by the people, or more precisely, the electors, to run the executive branch. The people are the owners of our nation and they make their will known through the legislature, which, in turn, tells the president what he needs to do.

          Liked by 3 people

        3. RE: “The president is not the owner of anything.”

          He is the “owner” of the office he holds and the powers the Constitution gives to that office. This used to be a generally accepted principle.


          1. He is not the owner, but he does hold the office for as long as the people let him, with a cap at 2 terms.

            He does have Constitutional powers, but he is still beholden to the law.

            And the checks on the abuse of power are in the hands of the people through both voting and, if needed, impeachment. He cannot dismiss or impeach any Congressman or judge.

            He is not powerless by any means. Good presidents can go to the people to make his case and thereby pressure Congress if he is popular. Trump does that even though he is the least popular president at this point in his term since Truman. This works because of the primary system and the polarization in states.

            But to kill leaders in other nations that we have not declared war on is a key issue. And if done on a lie, that is criminal.

            Johnson did lie with Gulf of Tonkin. Bush with WMD’s in Iraq. They should have been censured at the very least. But, they had the people behind them due to “war”, undeclared bur war nonetheless.

            I think Trump lied about the imminent threat.


            Liked by 2 people

  4. Interesting that our own Rep Luria voted against this resolution. Her statement made no sense to me: I voted against it because we need a new AUMF. Okay, but isn’t this resolution a step towards that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s