President May Ignore War Funding Law

The President has claimed that he may ignore the request of the legislature to submit a request for war funding in the budget this year, according to Air Force Times. In keeping with his history of appending signing statements to legislation that he signs he issued a "signing statement" with last year's defense budget that said he would construe the provisions in a manner consistent with the President's power as Commander in Chief. This allows him a way to ignore the legislature if he chooses and do as he likes. If he doesn't want to submit a request for war funding than he will interpret the law in a way that says he does not have to submit the request.

The Constitution grants the legislature the enumerated power to "raise and support armies," which means that the President, although the legislation does not day it is required that he should submit an honest request. A legislatively written request to the President is similar to a lower-ranking military person receiving a "suggestion" from a superior. The legislature needs to know exactly what the President needs equally as much as a superior needs a subordinate to follow the suggestion.

The people have a right ot know how much we plan to spend on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget year because after all the President is fond of telling us that it is our money. We also have a right to not have our legislators abused by supplemental request that are not supplemental at all and drive our deficit up rather than reducing it. The voters come down on their representatives for spending too much, however, it is hard to expect them to cut off funding with troops in the field. The President needs to stop his refusal to request the money through a standard budget process.

Chris Shays attributes Abu Ghraib abuses to sex ring

What's up Chris? You saw more of the Abu Ghraib photos than we did and now you say that there was no torture or abuse? This is ludicrous.

The Stamford Advocate reports that Congressman Chris Shays said the following in a debate with Dianne Ferral:

Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture.

This is disgusting coming from a sitting congressman who saw more of the pictures from Abu Ghraib especially because we were told that they were too provocative and the American people did not need to see them. It is also disgusting because Senator Graham said that the pictures depicted rape and murder.

If dog leashes around the neck and sexual humiliation aren't torture, congressman, than what is torture?

Well shays did define torture when asked as "anything that could cause mental or physical pain or sleep deprivation" and claimed that he had only seen 600 photos and not the ones that were the worst.

Even if he attributed the behavior to a sex ring among the Maryland National Guard wasn't the things they done designed to cause mental and/or physical pain? Perverts use sex for power and not that for which it was meant.

A dog leash around the neck? Is this not meant to at least cause mental pain by placing the detainee in a humiliating position? IF they pull the leash a little too tight does that not risk physical pain?
This is outrageous and should not be stood for from our elected officials.

Judiciary Oath a Bad Idea

Today, the Committee for Justice released and extended its "Fair Judiciary Oath" to Senate candidates. The two requirements for the oath are to support a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate and opposition to 'arbitrary' blocks in committee.

I cannot argue with a fair vote on the floor, but I would never sign the right of filibuster away because I would have to ask what I should do if a nominee that I thought was objectionable got out of committee. I would vote against such nominee if given the occasion, but I would not want to stop someone who believed that they needed to filibuster to bring public attention to it. Let the voters vote out those who filibuster if they feel so strongly.

The second provision is even worse because it would take away a Senator's right to make an independent decision about each nominee because a decision to support a committee hold for any reason except a reason predefined by the group.

I am really concerned that this will end up not applying across the board because these people will oppose the nominees of a Democrat based on the very thing that they do not want analyzed about their nominees, ideology. I would recommended that no candidate sign this because it takes away their right to make an informed decision.
(hat tip: RedState)