dagblog - Comments for "Deep Thoughts on a Monday Morning in June"

Whether legitimate or not,

Barth — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:51:41 +0000

In reply to Isn't the executive veto a

Whether legitimate or not, the veto is not really a requirement of a republican form of government. Alexander Hamilton, whose vision of the presidency was not far from that of a monarch, argued strenuously in favor of it in Federalist No. 13, http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed73.htm, and the veto was modelled after the royal prerogative. (The last time a monarch refused assent to a law was in the early part of the 18th century, so it is questionable whenther we ought to have revived it, but we did.)

In keeping with his own view of the presidency, Washington only used it twice, and until Jackson, presidents saw it as solely required to prevent the enactment of unconstituional laws. Even the modern view, that allows its use against anything the president views as unqise hardly justifies its use to impose the executive's religious beliefs on the rest of us.

The Taliban has sufficient firepower to control civilians in Afgahnistan. They certainly showed that during their time in full control of the country. Nobody really cares much about Afghanistan otherwise. It is landlocked, mountainous, and has little industry except for the drug trade. While everyone goes elsewhere, it is a fertile ground for terrorists to train and plan. They will be back in a flash, if the Taliban is in charge again, but I also question whether that requires our occupation of the country. If we could contain the USSR, can't we find a way to contain Afghanistan?

But I don't know. I just don't know.

Isn't the executive veto a

kgb999 — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:51:08 +0000

In reply to Deep Thoughts on a Monday Morning in June

Isn't the executive veto a legitimate part of our republican form of government? It being wielded for asshatish purposes doesn't make the procedure itself somehow an affront to democracy. Likewise, when legislature overrides an executive veto and enacts legislation anyhow, it does not render the War Powers Act (for example) unconstitutional .... in fact, would seem to make that law a stronger expression of the will of the people's congress.

Without institutional international support from somewhere, the Taliban can only achieve so much; even in power. It has been the Pakistani ISI support which makes them so dangerous; which seems to mostly be a result of the conflict between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. IMO, we need to start giving Kashmir the same type of international pressure for resolution that we are seeing on the Israel/Palestine issue. If that source of instability could be amicably eliminated, the Taliban would be of little utility to anybody but themselves (and Pakistan would be motivated to promote stability and trade in Afghanistan instead of using it as a breeding ground for guerrilla assault forces).

How can we be said to have been defeated when nobody even knows what the hell we are trying to accomplish? Certainly the objective isn't now the extinction of everyone who subscribes to an orthodox Taliban religious belief system. Do we just have to brainwash 'em all ... then we can come home?