The other day I told ***** that I could not understand why the Congress did not seem involoved in the public
discussions about attacking Iraq, since the power to declare war is assigned to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.
When she disagreed, we looked up a copy of the Constitution, and I had the satisfaction of pointing this statement out.
But, the next day, under the heading "Law Allowing U.S. to Attack" she showed me that Congress had passed a law
"loaning" the power "to attack another country" to President under special circumstances. It seems that our Congress
at some point of time took a vote that the power of launching a peace/war attack on Iraq would be more conveniently
decided by the President than by Congress, despite age old tradition that this has been the power of Kings, not U.S.
Presidents. Has anyone asked the Supreme Court whether it is Constitutional for Congress to loan absolutely critical
Congressional powers to that single man, with all his frailties, who just happens to be President?
If the Supreme Court has bought this one, the the Supreme Court and Congress should make a title change in the
Constitution to "Assigned King." King Clinton vs. King Assad. How much easier to understand! Leaders of the media
and of our legal system might further explore re-introduction of concubinage and plygamy, also traditional for earlier kings.
Than simplicity could be joined by consistency of 1998 headlines.