Forum Post: Congressman promotes resolution to stop gross abuse of executive power
Posted 11 years ago on May 13, 2012, 10:47 a.m. EST by arturo
(3169)
from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The following video features congressman Walter Jones discussing his Resolution 107:
"Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."
Intended to allow the impeachment of any president, now or in the future, who involves the US in an undeclared war.
Video:
Interview with US House Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) on H. Con. Resolution 107 - http://larouchepac.com/node/22673
Bill text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
Contact your representatives and demand their support!
You don't suppose this is political posturing do you? A resolution? Wow, I have seen those fix all of our problems in the past. How about one saying good things about our mothers?
If you consider that both political parties are pretty well corrupted, this is an alternative approach for people to take back control over their government. I see it as a necessity.
If big money is going to be in charge of selecting our presidents, we should at least try to set the parameters within which they can operate.
The only parameter that really matters is getting the money out, not just out of elections, but in the many ways it is corrupting every decisions that government at all levels makes.
Focusing on this tiny slice that will inevitably be trumped by the money from those who have a stake in having them happen is totally futile, in my opinion. Good governance is what we need and if you try to turn this into a list and fight each item one at a time against the real power you will never see a noticeable change.
My Dad said, "If you learn one thing every day you will be ignorant most of your life." Little changes, change little.
I am for bigger changes also, I'd like to see Glass Steagall and a New Deal style recovery. But I think stopping the foreign wars at this point is a matter of survival. Of course campaign finance reform is important as well.
If we cut the Defense Budget to no more than the top three combined. the problem is solved.
Now get to the real problem and solution, get the money out, all of it.
Corruption is the largest component of our GDP, but I am tired of investing in it.
Yes, I think we should bring our military home and put them to work rebuilding our grade C and D infrastructure.
The power of the people who are buying politicians is collapsing as the value of their money collapses. If we can hang in there, without allowing them to collapse us as well, we'll have more opportunity to make a better world.
If we solve the big problems the little ones will get solved in a much better way. Cut the budget 60% and how many troops do you imagine will still be scattered around the globe?
The power of the rich to buy politicians is unaffected by the value of our currency goes up or down (It has been going up) because they have a lot and we have none. We can never win an auction,
When you say the currency is going up in value, over what period of time? There may be brief fluctuations, but the main trend can only be downwards until fundamental changes are made.
Maybe you mean that the prices of gold and silver and other commodities are going down, so the value of money is up, but I think that is just an artificial manipulation that cannot last.
You are, as they say, in the weeds. It doesn't matter. You are too far down in the details.
Now get to the real problem and solution, get the money out, all of it.
If we cut the Defense Budget to no more than the top three combined. the problem is solved. But you can't cut the budget until you regain control of the politicians. If you get control of the politicians back in the hands of everyday people, you can get the corruption out and cut the budget. CCut the budget and everybody comes home and stays home.
Corruption is the largest component of our GDP, but I am tired of investing in it.
The soldiers are NOT the first priority, control of the corruption is.
Preventing the destruction of the entire world through a nuclear war is my top priority.
OK, you do that. I'll work on number 2.
Fair enough.
The price of any commodity, be it oil, gold, silver, etc. does nothing for the value of our currency. The value of our currency is tied to productivity, employment, and the volume of currency in play.
The main trend does not have to be downwards as its not. US Dollars are still the most in demand currency world wide, by a very large margin.
The value of our currency is going down due to inflation, caused by printing money for the bailouts. As the value of the currency goes down, it takes more money to buy commodities like gold or silver.
I think the global demand for the US dollar is rather tenuous. Certain countries like China are now talking about buying oil from Iran in gold rather than dollars.
China, Russia, and Iran have the agreement not to use US dollars. China is Irans biggest crude oil trading partner and in return they get gasoline from China's refineries as Iran has no refineries. So their currency arrangement makes sense as they are primarily trading with each other exclusively.
The money 'printed' for bailouts has not hit mainstream circulation. Everyone is hoarding cash from companies to private citizens, so the inflationary impact is very low. Speculative bubbles in commodities are due to companies investing in commodities to get a better ROI than interest rates in bank accounts where the money sits....but that is not truly inflationary.
If you look at the historic price of gold over the last 20 years. There really is no correlation between our economy and the price of gold. What gave rise to the explosion in gold pricing was the introduction of ETF's and in 2004, the Chinese population triggered a rise in demand of gold as the citizens were granted ownership of the precious metal. India and China generate the largest demand for gold, and its for jewelry purposes.
The Euro is in the trash, and nobody really wants to replace the simplicity of trading with a single reserve currency against a basket of currencies... the liquidity the FX market enjoys would be lost. China's Renumbi doesn't float and the world doesn't trust it for global exchange.
The dollar is going to be important for quite sometime to come.
I guess we will see.
I am an advocate of MMT. It explains the rules and operational realities of our monetary system. Look at this article by Seeking Alpha, a main stream investment ezine. Our ideas of what debt and deficit really mean are rooted in the previous gold standard monetary system, as such they bear no re valance to our current system. Here is one solution that is being batted around that can work....
http://seekingalpha.com/article/283180-trillion-dollar-coin-idea-goes-mainstream
That's great, I'm really glad to hear it from a financial person. Some say that the tide is beginning to turn, for example, more representatives who once favored financial deregulation now are asking for a return to Glass Steagall.
The way that I heard it explained is that the financial oligarchs control the monetary system and its fluctuations, and use those fluctuations to make money for nothing.
Examples of this would be the savings and loan scandal, the dot com boom and bust, housing/mortgage bust, and today's financial crisis.
If you keep doing that long enough, it extracts the real value from the system, which is happening now, and allows the system to collapse.
We need to go back to a system of real production: manufacturing, infrastructure, health, education, etc.
I see what you are saying. When I say monetary system, I am restricting the definition to our fiat based currency.
The 'monetary system' as understood by you and others applies to our entire banking system, treasury, regulators and such..... In this definition I agree with you 100% as to what should be done.
Do you work in finance? Any proximity to Wall Street?
Personally, I fear the monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt. I advocate a return to a credit system in accordance with Alexander Hamilton, and a national bank to finance economic development projects.
I worked for Wachovia and Wells Fargo for 4 years in IT Security. I resigned in December of last year. I reside in NC now, Charlotte - Wall Street South, as we call it.
I don't believe that the monetary system is in of itself the problem. The problem lies with cronycapitalism and the corporatocracy we reside under.
This is an easy fix......lets do both simultaneously.
north carolina Rs + larouce = nuts
Try focusing on the issues rather than the people, this is meant to prevent war.
congress near unanimously voted to go to war with Iraq
which the UN assured several time did not have any weapons of mass destruction
.
I wonder if when the UN holds elections for countries
whether those elections are made national holidays
.
Support the 99% ... demand elections be national and state holidays
Don't quit your day job Walter.
Excellent
Glad you think so, please advise your representatives.
Yes
Congress has weak knees when it counts then huffs and puffs like a big, bad wolf when it doesn't. The Congressman from North Carolina should know the causes for impeachment of any president are Constitutonal, not determined by Congress, which is nothing more than a corrupt assembly of paid mouthpieces.
Almost all politicians on the federal level are prostitutes in the service of the 1%. Elections have begun to resemble obscene brothel displays where voters pick from a limited choice of jaded candidates.
Prospective wars in Iran or Syria would inevitably result in confrontations between the US and Russia and China. This legislation is meant to keep us out of that. Its a return to original American principles of staying out of foreign wars.
The Constitution clearly states only Congress can declare war. Presidents have repeatedly bypassed this by sending military troops into foreign actions without declaring war.
The Congress tried to reclaim some of the power, which the Executive Branch had usurped over the years, with the War Powers Resolution in 1971. Still, presidents starting with James Madison have maintained the framers of the Constitution specifically used the wording "declare War" to allow presidents the freedom to direct troops quickly in defense of the nation.
More or less the Congressman from North Carolina is grandstanding. His house bill would be vetoed by the President, if it ever got by the Senate, which is highly unlikely.
If that is so, then it looks like WW3 is inevitable.
American leaders have sometimes duped the nation into war as well. The sinking of the USS Maine in 1898 helped sway public opinion into war with Spain, though the official cause of the explosion and sinking was never determined.
Many historians believe the United States had ample warning of the Pearl Harbor attack, but failed to prepare military forces in Hawaii for the attack to provoke America's entrance into WW2 by drowning out pacifist critics in the wake of such a "surprise" attack.
Finally, George W. Bush and his fellow conspirators misled the people of the United States into believing Iraq posed some type of threat to national security by possessing--what we now know were fictitious-- weapons of mass destruction.
Politicians nearly always find ways to circumvent safeguards, which supposedly limit their power.
So do you think WW3 is inevitable?
I hope not, but the politicians will decide then garner public support by whatever means.
Great Post! Maybe there are actually a couple of politicians who still have a pair! I agree that stopping the US from global policing and nation building around the world would put Americans in a safer place.
Yes, and he's a republican at that.
Hehe....who would have thunk!
I thought we decided only blow jobs and burglary were impeachable crimes. This dog won't hunt.
[Removed]
AH there is a problem here it was congress at the beginning of the bush administration that abdicated their own responsibility for declaring war and gave it to the president. Now they want to that responsibility back. You can't have it both ways.