Hot new legal theory: Obama has the power to declare war unless Congress objects

posted at 2:01 pm on September 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

This story’s almost a week old but I stumbled upon it last night and want to make sure it doesn’t disappear. As the Times notes, courts have occasionally found in cases involving executive power grabs that Congress has tacitly consented to presidential authority over a policy matter by declining to oppose the president’s assertion of it.

But what if the president’s claiming a power that the Constitution explicitly grants to Congress, like, say, the Article I power to declare war? Can they tacitly consent to make that an executive power too, even though doing so would amount to a de facto constitutional amendment? Answer: Maybe!

The House and Senate swiftly passed a rebel-training bill, but it did not address the executive branch’s claim about the 2001 and 2002 authorizations. Members of Congress have also introduced a flurry of bills that would explicitly authorize force against the Islamic State, but none repudiate the administration’s interpretation of existing laws, either.

The Obama legal team’s broad interpretation of the old authorizations has drawn criticism. But several legal specialists said that because Congress was on notice about how the executive branch was interpreting its 2001 and 2002 statutes, any failure to challenge that theory — especially as it enacted other legislation in connection with Islamic State policy — could be interpreted as ratifying it.

“The Supreme Court has said that sometimes, congressional silence means Congress has approved of what the executive has done,” said Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor. “If Congress, for political reasons, is unwilling or unable to speak up and the executive goes forward with its somewhat questionable theory, in the future, courts may well treat Congress’s silence as granting permission.”

In other words, the fact that Congress authorized O to arm the rebels last week while he’s busy claiming he already has authority to hit ISIS under the old AUMFs against Al Qaeda and Saddam sort of implies that they agree that he does. Why any court would stoop to teasing out legislative purpose from implications and pregnant silences in a matter as grave as war, though, is beyond me. If the power to declare war means anything, I would think, it means the people’s consent hasn’t been given until Congress does some declarin’. Trying to shoehorn authority for a new offensive in a new country against a new enemy that used to be part of an old enemy but isn’t anymore into old statutes is way too cutesy for constitutional work, especially from a guy who enjoyed reminding people six years ago that his con law background meant he’d be more of a stickler on these things than that warmongering chimp, George Bush.

As it is, if courts follow the administration’s view of this, it could lead to one of two types of precedent. A weak precedent would be that the president has Congress’s tacit consent to wage war if he can base his actions on some earlier statute that Congress passed, like the post-9/11 AUMFs. That would preserve some limits on executive power. If, for instance, Obama decided for some nutty reason that he wanted to hit pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, there’d be no obvious statutory basis for him to do so. In that case, a court might decide that it can’t impute tacit consent to Congress even if they decline to formally oppose O’s actions. A strong precedent, by contrast, would be that the president has Congress’s tacit consent to wage war if they’ve declined to object past a certain point (say, the 60-day timeframe mentioned in the War Powers Act) even if the president’s not basing his action on some prior AUMF. In other words, Obama could say “I’m hitting Putin’s proxies” and then the clock would start on Congress to pass a bill withdrawing authority. If they haven’t after 60 days (especially if they’ve passed other bills in the interim that don’t mention the president’s Ukraine action), then they’ve ratified the war indirectly. They can withdraw funding for the operation at that point, potentially endangering U.S. personnel in the field, or just live with it. That scenario would turn the War Powers Act on its head, as it’s the president who’s supposed to be on the clock after he sends the military into battle, not Congress.

But that would also be of a piece with Democrats’ new view of broad executive power. Remember, some of them think that Obama somehow magically enjoys more presidential power (like, say, on immigration) whenever Congress is gridlocked. He doesn’t, of course — that’s anathema to enumerated powers — but go figure that lefties like the idea of a liberal president getting to enact his agenda by diktat when House Republicans refuse to go along with it. It’s a small leap from that framework, “gridlock means the president can act,” to the one described above, “congressional silence means the president can act abroad.” We’re creeping, in other words, towards a model of democracy where the “consent of the governed” means authoritarian executive power grabs rubber-stamped by the people’s representatives by implication, not even by formal ratification. It’s a slo-mo enabling act, except the act is merely assumed to have passed the legislature. Case in point:

We don’t believe that Congress would have intended to remove the president’s authority to use force against [ISIS] simply because they group had a disagreement with Al Qaeda leadership. So based on that history, based on their longtime connections to Al Qaeda and based on the fact that they continue to be in conflict with the United States and US partners and allies we believe that that the 2001 AUMF would still apply,” the official said.

We could clear that up by having Congress pass a new bill saying whether we should go to war with ISIS or not, but since our representatives are cowards and Obama is an authoritarian, we’re going to settle for half-assed theories of what Congress probably would have wanted if they ever actually addressed this issue instead. Disgraceful, but that’s where we are now. And it’s also disgraceful, needless to say, that the media’s relatively unbothered by all this. Peter Suderman wrote yesterday that Obama is effectively uncheckable on war matters because Congress won’t do it and the courts, realistically, can’t do it. But he is checkable: If the media treated this as a constitutional crisis and got the public alarmed, Obama would back down for reasons of simple political expedience. Instead, despite some chin-pulling about where exactly his authority to fight ISIS comes from, they’re chill about it — of course. That’s the last check, and it failed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s not a war, sillies.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Old and Busted: Hope and Change
New Hotness: The Return of the Unitary Executive

Good Lt on September 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM

It’s this, a diversion.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM

The latte cup was just a tiny dot of humor yesterday.

The best part was how all the peace-loving leftist doves were orgasmic over obama’s war/s.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Most significant news of today, from the ‘illustrious’ boring UN speech “Our foreign policy will not be dicktated by counter-terrorism events” — obama

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:07 PM

H/t RWM

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Congress can go ahead and declare war.
It seems to me they are the chickens here

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

They might not even have killed the bad dude of Khorasan.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

The derelict congress is off.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:10 PM

WTF.

Only Democrats have this power. Reoublicans must still ask permission- through elections if congress is controlled by the GOP.

It’s time for a code red group

Skywise on September 24, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Congress can go ahead and declare war.
It seems to me they are the chickens here

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

You’re needed on the Weed legalization dropping 7 points thread.

ToddPA on September 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

THAT is exhibit A of how someone can rationalize damning the one they hate for doing the same thing that they praise in someone they’re a fan of.
It’s all you need to know about the substance of the complaint.

rogerb on September 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Congress can go ahead and declare war.
It seems to me they are the chickens here

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Stupid idiot. Congress cannot simply ‘declare’ war. They can approve a request from the POTUS to declare war.

Don’t bogart that joint, Cheech…

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM

When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.

Richard M. Nixon

Fenris on September 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM

courts may well treat Congress’s silence as granting permission.

It’s less that and more that courts don’t feel they have any power over the President sending troops wherever he wants. Courts aren’t going to hold the president in contempt of court and jail him. And any injunction ordering him to end a war is useless without that power.

rbj on September 24, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Congress can go ahead and declare war.
It seems to me they are the chickens here

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

When are you enlisting to fight?

Good Lt on September 24, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Amazing what utter garbage you can think up when nobody has the balls to call you on it for fear of being called a racist.

SCOAMF + Orange Jumpsuit —- some assembly required

NapaConservative on September 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM

H/t RWM, for today’s boring and stupid speech.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Hot new legal theory: Obama has the power to declare war unless Congress objects

Hotter new legal theory: Obama and the entire Democrat party has the power to whatever it wants because they are Democrats.

Such troubling times we live in -_-

Gatsu on September 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

So basically the president can do anything he wants up until congress objects?

bgibbs1000 on September 24, 2014 at 2:18 PM

So Kerry will be apologizing to Nixon for sending him into Cambodia, in December of 1968.

RickB on September 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Stupid idiot. Congress cannot simply ‘declare’ war. They can approve a request from the POTUS to declare war.

Don’t bogart that joint, Cheech…

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Where in the constitution does it say Congress need a request from POTUS to declare war?

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

A capital offense…

JohnGalt23 on September 24, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Where in the constitution does it say Congress need a request from POTUS to declare war?

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I’m gonna have to say that I’m with the choomer on this one.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Where in the constitution does it say Congress need a request from POTUS to declare war?

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Duh, obama wipes his tiny azz with the constitution. Wake up already.

Boehner hands him the roll.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:23 PM

It’s not a war, sillies.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM

It’s just a counter-terrorism operation.

A really big, expensive, loud, everlasting counter-terrorism operation.

And one that doesn’t kill any bad guys. Because…humanitarian.

Solaratov on September 24, 2014 at 2:26 PM

The despicable, hypocritical ‘Obama-Firsters’…

‘The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years. And progressives who support the views of the majority as expressed by this poll should never be listened to again the next time they want to pretend to oppose civilian slaughter and civil liberties assaults when perpetrated by the next Republican President (it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies).’

– Glenn Greenwald

One final point: I’ve often made the case that one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama legacy is that he has transformed what was once known as “right-wing shredding of the Constitution” into bipartisan consensus, and this is exactly what I mean. When one of the two major parties supports a certain policy and the other party pretends to oppose it — as happened with these radical War on Terror policies during the Bush years — then public opinion is divisive on the question, sharply split. But once the policy becomes the hallmark of both political parties, then public opinion becomes robust in support of it. That’s because people assume that if both political parties support a certain policy that it must be wise, and because policies that enjoy the status of bipartisan consensus are removed from the realm of mainstream challenge. That’s what Barack Obama has done to these Bush/Cheney policies: he has, as Jack Goldsmith predicted he would back in 2009, shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation, and (by leading his supporters to embrace these policies as their own) has done so with far more success than any GOP President ever could have dreamed of achieving.

Resist We Much on September 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Hey, Solaratov!

4) He’s narcissistic: Is Barack Obama just a heavy duty narcissist or does he actually have narcissistic personality disorder? It’s impossible to say for sure, but either way, his self-centered behavior cuts all the way down to the core of who he is as a human being. Whether he was sleeping through Americans dying in Benghazi or golfing right after he talked about James Foley’s beheading, Obama is always primarily interested in himself. Leaders in this country are supposed to be servants of the people, not their masters. Having a man like Obama, who views the great power he has as a way to serve himself is dangerous for our country.

He is clinically certifiable.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Hot new legal theory: Obama has the power to declare war do whatever he wants unless whether or not Congress objects.

Fixed. Congress can object or not and it doesn’t matter since it doesn’t seem to want to do anything at all to curb Obummer’s power.

hawkeye54 on September 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Well, Congress has never tried to stop obama from doing anything, so, what difference does it make what “legal theory” is used to defend obama’s illegal action? Through their refusal to do their jobs, Congress has granted obama carte blanche to do as he pleases.

Pork-Chop on September 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Where in the constitution does it say Congress need a request from POTUS to declare war?

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I’m gonna have to say that I’m with the choomer on this one.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

Congress has never declared war without the President first requesting that they do so. That was my point.

Sorry.

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM

It’ll be good times watching the left’s heads explode when a republican president (assuming there is another one in my lifetime) pulls the same stuff bozo has. They will become completely unhinged.

txag92 on September 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM

When did presidential authority to hit al qaeda and its offshoots end?

Buddahpundit on September 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM

A capital offense…

JohnGalt23 on September 24, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Actually I find our nation’s capital, at least most of those on Capitol Hill, offensive these days.

hawkeye54 on September 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM

courts may well treat Congress’s silence as granting permission.”

The problem is that congress does not have the constitutional authority to “grant permission” to the president to violate the constitution.

And the federal courts don’t have the constitutional authority to “allow” the congress to “grant permission” to the president to violate the constitution.

And every damn one of these people — the president, all the members of congress, and all the federal judges — took a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution.

And the media are not the last check on the government’s abuses of power. That role is held by We, the People.

AZCoyote on September 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM

So basically the president can do anything he wants up until congress objects?

bgibbs1000 on September 24, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Yeah, and IF it objects, he’ll do anything he wants anyway. Congress has made itself so irrelevant, Obummer could dissolve it with an EO and not many would miss it.

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on September 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

Congress has never declared war without the President first requesting that they do so. That was my point.

Sorry.

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Yes, that’s the road we usually travel.

But we’re on a whole new set of roads in the Obama Era.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM

If the media treated this as a constitutional crisis and got the public alarmed, Obama would back down for reasons of simple political expedience.

This man’s entire presidency has been a constitutional crisis.

TarheelBen on September 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Stupid idiot. Congress cannot simply ‘declare’ war. They can approve a request from the POTUS to declare war.

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Congress doesn’t have to wait for a request to declare war. It is one of their enumerated powers. IMO, the War Powers Act is illegal because it gives too much of that power to the executive.

Happy Nomad on September 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM

To suggest that congress is ‘chicken’ for not declaring war without a request from the POTUS is stupid, even for our trolling drug addled ‘weedisgood’.

Tradition, protocol and respect dictates that they defer to POTUS prior to a declaration.

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM

“When the President does it, that means that it’s completely legal.”

Obummer’s verison.

hawkeye54 on September 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM

But we’re on a whole new set of roads in the Obama Era.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM

I’m not able to see that. Early on, I was told I could come along for the ride but had to sit in the back of the bus.

Happy Nomad on September 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM

OT – sticky

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Why let a simple Constitution interfere with Odumbo’s agenda!

rjoco1 on September 24, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Tradition, protocol and respect dictates that they defer to POTUS prior to a declaration.

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Unity of government dictates a coordinated declaration of war. This has nothing to do with tradition or protocol.

Happy Nomad on September 24, 2014 at 2:38 PM

This is a defect in the Constitution. Originally of course America was prohibited from have a permanent military so, for all practical purposes, the President had zero power to unilaterally declare war or even start up a temporary “kinetic action” adventure.

We need an article V convention, and this should be one of the several issues with which it deals.

MTF on September 24, 2014 at 2:39 PM

I’m not able to see that. Early on, I was told I could come along for the ride but had to sit in the back of the bus.

Happy Nomad on September 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM

You get a whole different view when travelling from under the bus.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM

“We must go to Congress”

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Barack Milhous Obama.

Aizen on September 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM

“The Supreme Court has said that sometimes, congressional silence means Congress has approved of what the executive has done,” said Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor. “If Congress, for political reasons, is unwilling or unable to speak up and the executive goes forward with its somewhat questionable theory, in the future, courts may well treat Congress’s silence as granting permission.”

Happy Campus Bullshit.

The New York Times quoting an NYU drone does not precedent make.

hillbillyjim on September 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM

When your government goes to war without input from anyone but the Chief Executive. When the legislative branch has no functional oversight power, has given up the power of the budget completely, and is composed of members who would fit in well in the Supreme Soviet. When judicial process has no effect on the Chief Executive or his subordinates. When the press admits that it lets the Chief Executive’s minions re-write their news reports

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/reporters-say-white-house-sometimes-demands-changes-to-press-pool-reports/2014/09/23/e5e6fec8-42d9-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html

You live in a dictatorship.

The chains are just resting lightly ….. for the moment.

When neither political party even credibly pretends to oppose the Chief Executive; why do you expect that any electoral process will be a) honest or b) change things?

Subotai Bahadur on September 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM

I bet Obama can order beheadings too unless Congress objects.

ConstantineXI on September 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM

The chains are just resting lightly ….. for the moment.

When neither political party even credibly pretends to oppose the Chief Executive; why do you expect that any electoral process will be a) honest or b) change things?

Subotai Bahadur on September 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Soft tyrannies have a history of not staying that way.

ConstantineXI on September 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM

I bet Obama can order beheadings too unless Congress objects.

ConstantineXI on September 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM

If it came to that, he’d start with CONgress first. Some members would certainly object, but I suspect some would respond with thunderous applause.

hawkeye54 on September 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM

So Kerry will be apologizing to Nixon for sending him into Cambodia, in December of 1968.

RickB

He still has the hat…….

E9RET on September 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Where in the constitution does it say Congress need a request from POTUS to declare war?

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

You seem awfully eager to launch a war and to send other people’s children to die.

When are you enlisting?

Good Lt on September 24, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Unity of government dictates a coordinated declaration of war. This has nothing to do with tradition or protocol.

Happy Nomad on September 24, 2014 at 2:38 PM

So now y’all are going to simply parse words with me, HN??

Pretty petty, IMHO..

See y’all another day. Too stuffy in here…

bimmcorp on September 24, 2014 at 3:03 PM

So Kerry will be apologizing to Nixon for sending him into Cambodia, in December of 1968.

RickB

He still has the hat…….

E9RET on September 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Still trying to figure out how President-ELECT Nixon ordered Lt John Forbes Kerry ANYWHERE in December of 1968.

Resist We Much on September 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Congress can go ahead and declare war.
It seems to me they are the chickens here

weedisgood on September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM

In the case of an incompetent president and an incompetent commander-in-chief, they might be a little more reluctant to use that power to declare war.

slickwillie2001 on September 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Silence. What does it mean?

Dusty on September 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Look, you morons, the President has the power to make war. Congress has the power to declare war.

Congress can’t make war on the enemies of the United States. That’s why we have a President. . . and if the President doesn’t want to make war after Congress declares one, he doesn’t have to.

So shut up.

Joseph OHenry on September 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I bet that legal theory goes kaput the minute a republican is president. Just a guess.

jukin3 on September 24, 2014 at 3:52 PM

So, there are two choices available.

Okay, I’m going to quickly assess the two choices for giving the President the authority he needs to annihilate ISIS. I look at it this way because I believe neither Congress nor the public is at all interested in denying the President the authority he needs to tackle this enemy.

Choice 1: Congress assembles to debate a new authorization for use of military force (or a declaration of war).

Result: Congress agrees this is something new and they also agree that they can be lead around by the nose by an audacious authoritarian in the White House who uses the Constitution as toilet paper. Republicans, in particular, look like doormats just before the elections.

Choice 2: Congress assembles and quickly debates whether this falls under the 2001 AUMF, determines it does, and passes a resolution to that effect.

Result: Congress pulls rug out from under Constitution shredding authoritarian president, puncturing his narcissistic belief he can go it alone, and maintaining Congressional Power. Republicans, looking good going into the elections, can go around declaring that

— Obama can get no-brainers right — YEAH! ;
— suggest if he needs help identifying any other AQ offshoot they’d be glad to help;
— say they’ll be checking to see if he needs more funding, because his plan looks like it will take much longer than necessary; and
— it was too bad he didn’t come to Congress sooner ’cause then he wouldn’t have fumbled around for so long trying to think of a defense for for acting.

Dusty on September 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM

So we can hold them all accountable when the collapse occurs.

They’re going to need a bigger helicopter and a bigger roof.

Bishop on September 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM

It says in the Bill of Enumerated Congressional Declaration of something something that the preznit has the power to declare and wage kinetic military actions.

I’d provide a link but you dummies wouldn’t understand it anyway.

Bishop on September 24, 2014 at 4:08 PM

And the GOP shills here will earnestly attempt to convince you that if conservatives once more dutifully vote for their GOPe goombahs in November, the congress will suddenly reach between their legs and discover that which had been hidden these last 6 years; the manhood to oppose this overreaching imperial presidency.

Yep, no question; starting my diet tomorrow to disassemble this progressive nightmare in November…

Why wouldn’t we believe it, huh?

Dolce Far Niente on September 24, 2014 at 4:10 PM

It all depends on what your definition of “Congress objects” means….

albill on September 24, 2014 at 4:10 PM

The other point is, even if he can “bully” the other party to put a plan in place, he can get his constituents to sit on their hands in order to go it alone. We have seen this with the immigration issue. The Hiuse passed a bill, Harry Reid did nothing and Obama is telling us that he can’t wait for Congress, so he issues a diktat.
He’s playing political games at the expense of the Constitution.

djaymick on September 24, 2014 at 4:23 PM

We need an article V convention, and this should be one of the several issues with which it deals.

[MTF on September 24, 2014 at 2:39 PM]

I don’t know how putting more words on a parchment will solve the problem of having a president who disregards the parchment. But maybe you have an idea what might be written to do that. Do you?

Dusty on September 24, 2014 at 4:27 PM

And it’s also disgraceful, needless to say, that the media’s relatively unbothered by all this.

Certainly is, but there is a reason for that.

It’s (D)ifferent when it’s about Obama.

cat_owner on September 24, 2014 at 4:29 PM

The double standard is so glaring, people should go on the congressional record pointing out the differences between the way Bush & Obamie did things and the response then when an evil R is elected, rub their noses in it while (s)he does exactly what Dear Leader is doing now.

Too bad 95% of the MSM are libtards.

Tard on September 24, 2014 at 4:30 PM

I suppose liberals also believe that King Barack can raise taxes as long as Congress doesn’t object?

And if His Majesty can do that, why can’t he pass other laws. As long as Congress doesn’t object?

Hell, we can save a lot in salaries. Just fire Congress and all the people who come with it. Just think of the savings!

GarandFan on September 24, 2014 at 5:09 PM

We don’t have legislators any more, we have elected cowards who are afraid to do anything that might damage their ability to get re-elected. The only group of people who care about this, and are willing to do something about it, are the tea party. The Democrats, Republicans, and the press have done a great job of marginalizing them so we’re left with this ragtag bunch. No one wants to rock the boat and the number of people who recognize this problem, and actually care about it, is dwindling.

bflat879 on September 24, 2014 at 5:42 PM