He happens to be speaking on the Senate floor right now. CSPAN2.
He is one of the few people in the Congress who understands why it was that the founding fathers specifically gave the power to declare war to the legislative rather than the executive branch. Too bad the other 99% don’t get it, or would rather not have to make tough decisions.
A great speech (except for the god blessing at the end).
At least he acknowledges and regrets his youthful indiskkkretions!
A standing ovation for a representative who, in this speech at least, remembers why the founding fathers ensured that there was a deliberative body to counteract the dangers of executive unilateral action. Nearly every other member of the legislature on both sides of the aisle should resign in disgrace. Not because of whichever stance they have chosen in this particular endeavour, but because of their cowardly obeisance to the executive branch.
CTB
An excellent speech. If only it had come from an excellent man.
I never understood why Congress abdicated it’s responsibility, per the constitution, to own the authority to declare war.
Very good speech. Regarding Byrd’s checkered past… I’m curious, has he ever stated anything (in relatively recent times) regarding his involvement with the KKK? Given his current political views, I imagine that he would have recanted at some point, but I haven’t heard about anything like that.
Whoa! My ignorance of this guy is embarrassing. He’s a KKK-er? Ohmygod. Did he have an awakening or something? His speech doesn’t sound like someone who embraces Klan mentality.
He was in the KKK. He renounced it long ago. The Hindustan Times has a little article on it.
Has he recanted? Yes. Many times – this is the first link from a nonpartisan source I could find.
Should his feet be held to the fire for his odious 1930s behavior? Absolutely. Should all his views be overshadowed by it? Of course not.
Way I see it, he’s a man that grew up in a viciously racist world and was viciously racist in his youth. He has tried to make up for it; he has apologized repeatedly. He still says some incredibly stupid things, sometimes (in 2001, he talked about how God commands us to love even white niggers), and he should be taken to task for it.
But we can take him to task for that, and at the same time praise him for his perspicacity and eloquence in other matters.
Daniel
That speech was beautiful.
John Mace-I never understood why Congress abdicated it’s responsibility, per the constitution, to own the authority to declare war.
I assume it’s because they are politicians in it for the long haul and voting for war isn’t something people want on their voting record anymore. Better to let the 2-term-max fall guy take the heat.
I found the speech heavy-handed and trite.
shrug
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Mace *
I never understood why Congress abdicated it’s responsibility, per the constitution, to own the authority to declare war.
[QUOTE]
Well, it could be explained (somewhat cynically) in political terms… To have it on record that you voted for or against a war could be potentially damaging either way. It’s easier when you can blame things like Vietnam on the big guy in the house.
As for Byrd… enh. I might agree with many of the less hyperbolic sentiments, but the Senator himself generally tends toward so many partisan statements that he seemingly poisons his own well.
I seem to recall that Congress debated and approved a resolution authorizing this war.
The constitution requires no particular form by which war is declared by Congress. It simply requires that Congress approve, which it has.
Sua
I don’t know how the guy did it, but somehow he just stuck himself into the middle of a frenetic series of votes on the FY 04 Budget Resolution, and he’s reading poetry!
The guy knows the rules better than anyone else out there. Maybe he’s just checking in at the lunch break. Check it out at the CSAN link I gave above.
Senator Byrd’s point is that the resolution passed in October 2002 shifted the power to begin war from the Congress to the President, by allowing the President to choose whether or not he believed that war was necessary.
Byrd’s point is that there are certain powers that Congress can delegate to the Executive Branch to administer, but there are others that Congress cannot be allowed to give away to the Executive Branch. Among those latter powers are the power of the purse and the power to declare war.
If Congress shifts those powers to the President, Byrd would argue, the checks and balances of the Constitution begin to break down. Even if Congress willfully votes to shift those powers, it should not be allowed to do so, because it would be, in effect, passing laws that violate the fundamental intent of the separation of powers.
This is more or less the core of his argument against the line item veto, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 (albiet for a slightly different reason, not worth going into here).