Write your senators to deny sweeping powers for the president!

Great Debates
1

So pResident Junior gives us a talk tonight about his pending decision to strike first in Iraq. The right for him to do this is expected to be endorsed with wide bipartisan support. I know of no Republicans who are planning to vote against it (though they might exist) and many Democrats are planning to vote for it, too. The Senate is likely to pass the measure with over sixty votes for it. For those who don’t know, the U.S. Senate works like this. There are 100 members, so 51 votes are necessary for a bill to pass. If more than two thirds of all Senators vote for it (67 votes, since 1959) then the bill passes with no discussion. It’s filibuster-proof. If there’s a tie vote, the Vice President casts the deciding vote.

The way things look, this bill will likely pass with no debate, and whisked to the president’s desk to be promptly signed into law. This is one of the darkest days of American democracy, and we will live to regret it. “We” includes Americans and non-Americans alike. I nearly cry when I think of how the Bush administration is throwing away one of the most basic tenets of my country’s democracy. I suspect I will cry when I can no longer do anything about it. That probably won’t be much longer from now.

What I have done is write my senators. In fact, I’ve written four senators. My state, like most, has only two, but besides those of New Jersey, I also wrote Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) because she seems to be on the fence when it comes to this issue, and Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina) for reasons that you should see below.

I’m probably going to write more senators today. I’m considering writing John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Harry Reed (D-Nevada), John McCain (R-Arizona), and I’m considering sending notes of encouragement to the likes of Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) and Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia). I’m not writing to many Republicans, of course, because they’ve been moving in their usual lockstep and are not worth the effort. Of course, if your state has any Republican senators, I encourage you to write them so that you may beg them to preëmpt this foolishness, and I also encourage you to write your Democratic senators (and your independent senator, if you’re a Vermonter). Feel free to borrow from the two letters I’m pasting below, but please also do what you can to give your letters an original stamp. A grass-roots letter always feels so much better than astroturf, you know?
Dear Mr. Corzine,

Hmm… nothing on your site about the pending Midterm Elections War. Nothing there saying how you feel about pResident Bush flushing our former policy of national defense for one of global imperialism. We’re on the brink of screwing up our country and ruining the world, Mr. Corzine. I beg of you: vote down Bush’s irresponsible war plans for Iraq. Preëmption is no way to govern, and we will live to regret this.

How long after American troops preëmpt Iraq will we see Chinese troops preëmpt Taiwan? Or Indian and Pakistani troops preëmpt Kashmir? Or Russian troops preëmpt Georgia? And you can only imagine how many countries want to preëmpt Israel…

Think hard about this vote, Mr. Corzine. This is a chance to get on the right side of history. We can’t afford to flush America’s respectability down the toilet through this belligerent, short-sighted measure. I remember during the 2000 campaign I shook your hand at Journal Square on the morning of Election Day. Support this corruption of American values and I’m sure I’ll never willingly shake your hand again. Vote against the Midterm War.

Yrs,

Chance the Gardener
Jersey City, NJ

Dear Mr. Edwards,

I must say I’m disappointed. I’ve been following you for two years, keeping you in mind as a man I wouldn’t mind seeing run for president. I know, I know, it’s too early to be talking about that, but for a long time, whenever I thought, “Democratic candidate in 2004,” your name sprang to mind. My uncle and I have discussed you as an attractive presidential candidate; he’s the one who first decided you’d be good for the job, and he convinced me.

No longer. I just read your statement on the Midterm War in Iraq and was sorely disappointed by your enthusiasm for giving the executive branch carte blanche when it comes to military action. America has had a tradition since its founding that we don’t attack, but rather we fight back. Preëmptive military strikes will draw to a close our days in the community of nations, and will open a new chapter of the United States as an empire.

I’m deeply saddened to see that you are supporting this irresponsible legislation, Senator. Frankly, I feel betrayed. I’ve read up on your career in the courtroom, and I’ve been impressed. The way you argued to win that settlement for that girl who got her insides sucked out by that swimming pool intake duct particularly moved me. And I’ve always been more prone to trust a self-made person with elected office, which is another appealing feature about yourself, not only as a presidential candidate, but as a senator.

Your mind seems to be made up, but I’d welcome an about-face on your part before you vote to help establish the American Empire. Sure, I don’t live in your state. I’ve written my senators here in New Jersey already, but since I’ve come to view you in a special light, I felt I should write to express my concern which looks like it will soon be translated into disappointment. Once again: I beg you to vote against giving the president these sweeping powers to declare war so freely. Your vote will be much harder to explain when voters start asking for an explanation as to why all those soldiers are returning in aluminum boxes.

Yrs,

Chance the Gardener
Jersey City, NJ

Again: please write your senators. This is important. Please write other senators, if you can find the time. Linked below is the Senate home page, where you can write to all 100 of them directly, if you’re so inclined. Please take the time. There is more riding on this vote than the sparse debate on the issue would imply.

http://www.senate.gov/

2

Do it NOW! The vote is tomorrow.

3

[ul]Government 101:cool:[/ul]

[ul]:confused: [sup]Which one is that?[/sup][/ul]

[ul]Pray tell, which ones have more than two? :rolleyes:[/ul]

[ul]Haven’t you been watching the news? :p[/ul]

4

Here’s what’s really happening:

The House Rules Committee is going to meet sometime tonight (Monday) to decide the rule under which the Iraq Use of Force resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) will be debated. It is expected to offer at LEAST 20 hours of debate. But it won’t be much of a debate because Gephardt has already signed off on the White House version. The only ones who will oppose it will be doves like Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Barbara Lee, D-Calif. (also the only House member who voted to not authorize use of force in Afghanistan). Also expected to oppose is Ron Paul, R-Texas, but he votes no on everything. Ironically, Paul will offer an amendment to make an outright Declaration of War, merely to show what he believes is the hypocrisy of the whole matter.

The Senate is more dicey, as is often the case these days, what with a narrow majority and Senators who don’t have to worry about being re-elected in less than a month. (Only 1/3 of them are up in 2002.)

Right now the Senate is doing nothing but yakking, which they can do under their rules. Unlike the House, there are several versions of the resolution in play in the Senate:

1. The Bush Resolution: Authorizes use of force against Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction AND authorizes a regime change policy. (S J Res 45)

2. The Levin proposal: This will be offered as an amendment to the Bush resolution. It would require U.N. support before U.S. military action. Many Republicans don’t like this because of the sovereignty questions it raises.

3. The Biden-Lugar Compromise: Exists as a separate measure (S J Res 46), but is expected to be offered as an amendment to the Bush-supported resolution. This one supports eliminating weapons of mass destruction, but downplays regime change.

That said, Bush is highly likely to get his way, eventually, in both chambers. But the Senate isn’t likely to vote until next week at the earliest. However, their support will likely be even more enthusiastic than the House, since moderation prevails in the Senate and the chamber only contains one true liberal (Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.)

To say there will be no debate isn’t accurate. There will be plenty of it, perhaps too much, and it will be in the Congressional Record for all to see.

Also, no matter what your feelings are on this, keep in mind that the White House has scaled back its demands quite a bit, including ensuring the resolution only authorizes action against Iraq proper. (The original White House version made references to “securing stability in the region” which some saw as a carte blanche; the White House promptly backed down.)

5

When I called Senator Clinton’s office today, the person who answered the phone told me the Senate was likely to vote tomorrow. In any case, it’s urgent that everyone voice their opposition ASAP.

6

If the Senate votes on anything tomorrow, it will be on a cloture petition to limit debate (to 30 hours, I think). They will not pass a final resolution until next week.

7

Oh, Chance the Gardener is from New Jersey…that explains it. I can’t remember the last time a Democrat broke the law there cough 51 days to replace a candidate cough. If anyone’s trampling on the Constitution, it’s your state.

Now go download the videos of planes flying into big tall buildings, people jumping out of buildings to their death, firemen being crushed under 100 stories…

Mr. Bush is just trying to prevent future acts of terrorism, if you and your children don’t wish to be protected maybe there should be an “opt-out” clause - you won’t participate in defending our nation against terrorists like those in Iraq, and we won’t protect you from dying a pointless death to a religious fundamentalist who blames you for all the problems in the world.

8

Bob, the New Jersey Senate race has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq resolution, nor with Chance’s personal political views (I assume).

I will not respond to the rest of your message. This is not Great Debates, and the purpose of this thread is not to debate the merits of attacking Iraq (that has been done extensively elsewhere) but to remind those who oppose the resolution to contact their representatives.

9

Unfortunately, I - a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who is of legal age & has never been convicted - have absolutely no voice in this matter. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I did write to Elanore Holmes Norton, for all the freakin’ good it’ll do :rolleyes:

10

So it’s standard forum policy to hide a great debate under the guise of IMHO, so there can be no response? He took multiple shots at my President, freedom, the Republic (by falsely stating we’re a Democracy) and my country, and I will always come to the defense of what I believe is right.

He acts as if the President and Republicans are destroying the country, which is the exact opposite of what is true - we are trying to preserve our country against a very determined foreign aggressor. It is his buddies who are politicizing, putting their careers in front of our security.

This thread should be moved to Great Debates.

11

Hmm, if the vote is tomorrow; I guess that means I’ll have to overnight it and hope he has time to read it before he goes to vote that very same day. :wink:

12

Sorry, but this is not a slap in the face of our republic – it’s exactly how things are supposed to work. The elected leaders vote on questions of policy.

You may not like their votes, but it doesn’t destroy our version of democracy if they vote this way.

But since this is IMHO, all I’ll add is that in MY opinion, the political process is working just fine, and I support it.

  • Rick
13

Shakes, apparently my information about when the vote would take place was wrong. As I understand it, they mostly just tally up the calls and emails they get, so there’s still time. If their offices tell them they’ve been deluged with phone calls, they’ll listen.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener *
**
Bush flushing our former policy of national defense for one of global imperialism. We’re on the brink of screwing up our country and ruining the world. I beg of you: vote down Bush’s irresponsible war plans for Iraq. Preëmption is no way to govern, and we will live to regret this.

How long after American troops preëmpt Iraq will we see Chinese troops preëmpt Taiwan? Or Indian and Pakistani troops preëmpt Kashmir? Or Russian troops preëmpt Georgia? And you can only imagine how many countries want to preëmpt Israel…

Well said.
Irresponsible, short sited fwiw, I agree. Preemptive strikes can be endless if applied to all potentially dangerous scenarios. I agree it goes against the founding principles of our country. I am not CONVINCED that it is necessary–scare tactics and constant badgering from the president, aside! You are not alone in your thoughts!

15

[hijack]Attrayant, that’s a screwy situation, but as a native of California, it seems strange that DC would get equal representation in the Senate, despite the fact that California has 60 times as many people as DC.[/hijack]

16

Wyoming.

Oh, I mean “bump”.

17

That’s kinda the whole point of the Senate, as opposed to the House. Read a little history, big states vs little states and getting this whole government thing set up back in the 18th century. ( Not being snide, just a suggestion. It’s an interesting series of compromises)

18

Attrayant, if you’re pointing out that Wyoming is smaller than DC, then point taken. Wyomingians (or whatever they’re called) also should not have more political power then me.

Weirddave, California public schools are bad, but I did learn something about U.S. history. :slight_smile: The thing is, when they came up with that plan, the states were all similar in size. I don’t think they foresaw the current composition of the country. Also, I think the idea of states’ rights is BS and should have gone away along with the Confederacy.

19

If that were true, then the US Supreme Court is complicit in it. They refused to hear the case so the decision of the NJ supreme court stands.

So you subscribe to Bush’s thought process, “you are with us or you are against us” also applies to Americans who exercise their rights to disagree, eh?

Who is trampling the Constitution now?

20

Constitution 101

  1. The House represents the people.
  2. The Senate represents the states.

Your argument is precisely why Roger Sherman introduced the Great Compromise in the Constitutional Convention in 1787.