Every few years one side or the other complains that the President is over-reaching his authority. This almost naturally leads to the debate over “Implied Powers,” and whether or not they (the implied powers) exist (they do) or not?
In 2014, the world faced the specter of ISIL (or ISIS or IS) as the Islamic State overran vast swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria (the “Levant”) and begun to impose its version of Islamic Law on the local inhabitants who really just wanted to be left alone. When they (the locals) wouldn’t go along with the insane Islamic nut jobs, they (ISIL) began to commit mass murder on an industrial scale.
Reactions ranged from the idea that we – the United States – had a “moral” duty to step in, to the position that we should stay the heck out of yet another war in Asia. was the Islamic state an actual threat to the United States or its “national interests?”
How do we define the “National interests” that guide our foreign policy? Most of all, what does the Constitution have to say about not just the powers involved, but what, if anything, about the process?
Sausage making, as the process has been described, is not really pretty, and generally speaking not at all interesting.
But if you want breakfast, you have to break a few eggs. And grind up some pigs…
As protests predictably erupted across the nation, there remained a great deal of confusion regarding the use of the Executive Order by President Trump to initiate his so-called “Muslim Ban.” While the average citizen certainly has his or her opinion, and good on’em for doing so, even Members of Congress expressed their opinions about the Order. The problem is that their opinions are made for TV, not for the law which they themselves passed. Read the rest of this entry