Washington doesn't get that democracy matters

Congress and the President

n practice, Congress's power to declare war is little more than a nullity. War financing is where the constitutional rubber meets the road. It's true that war declarations were far more regularly invoked before the last half century. But anyone who doubts that the framers saw the power to finance or not to finance as the Congress's real power need only familiarize themselves wtih English constitutional history of the 17th and 18th century which was the ... Full Story »

Posted by Joseph Duemer
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Member Tags: Imperial Presidency King George Bush
Editorial Help

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Kaizar Campwala
3.2
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

Josh Marshall is an astute political observer, and this post constitutes his reaction to the presidents troop surge plan. Unfortunately, he does not give a lot of context for this to be read in a vacuum. He does do a good job of giving historical context, however (probably due to his background as a history student).

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Marty Heyman
3.7
by Marty Heyman - Oct. 1, 2008

This is an opinion piece. The author provides a credible (probably arguable but not argumentative) interpretation of the Constitution, a personal bias in one direction, and an argument for going against his own bias. He links to facts behind his reason to recommend against his normal bias.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Mike LaBonte
2.9
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

No specific examples given of Constitutional framers' intent, Congressional war declarations, use of funding to limit war. This evidence is easily found, but absent here. Paragraph on the lack of popular support for the Iraq war has some links, but lacks support for "foreign policy establishment ... is also overwhelmingly against escalation".

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jim Lang
3.2
by Jim Lang - Oct. 1, 2008

This blog post expresses the view that the Bush administration has demonstrated contempt for our system of government and that it is incumbent upon Congress to exercise the power of the purse to control the course of the Iraq war. Public opinion is well sourced but the rest isn't. It is a very partisan piece, but makes some interesting points.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Joseph Duemer
4.3
by Joseph Duemer - Oct. 1, 2008

Thoughtful and historically informed thoughts on the proper duties of the Congress in relation to the Executive Branch.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
David Patterson
2.9
by David Patterson - Oct. 1, 2008

A restatement of political options already generally known. Marshalls conclusions are opinion of course but he does support his case. Constitutional debates are trendy now so this approach may resonate with readers.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Mitchell Kaufman
1.8
by Mitchell Kaufman - Oct. 1, 2008

This is an opinion piece. As such, it is OK, but as reporting it falls short. Marshall has been proven wrong too many times to be a credible source.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Gene Fire
4.7
by Gene Fire - Oct. 1, 2008

I wish the mainstream media would research history and take a look at the constitution like the author of this story has. Maybe they are pretending not to know for some other insidious reason!

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Dan Maceda
5.0
by Dan Maceda - Oct. 1, 2008

It is a clear, concise statement of an argument for congressional action to rein in an imperial presidency.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Good
from 14 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.5
Facts
3.2
Fairness
3.2
Information
3.4
Sourcing
3.0
Style
3.8
Accuracy
3.5
Balance
2.4
Context
3.7
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
2.2
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!