tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post1474939172360460134..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: America's Non-representative War GovernmentSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-75099971877484337282017-07-19T10:43:59.330-05:002017-07-19T10:43:59.330-05:00Have you read the act? A president has 48 hours to...Have you read the act? A president has 48 hours to report to Congress that he has introduced forces into hostilities. That starts the 60-day clock running."Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.aspSheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-40986998950043502772017-07-16T19:56:08.771-05:002017-07-16T19:56:08.771-05:00The War Powers Act. Presidents can engage in comba...The War Powers Act. Presidents can engage in combat for 90 days before saying anything about it to Congress. Perhaps research might be appropriate before writing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12779418896784391935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-47748367330561062892015-11-05T17:27:10.712-06:002015-11-05T17:27:10.712-06:00I agree, Frank, reps of 50k people would be known ...I agree, Frank, reps of 50k people would be known by and responsive to the constituents, would not need the huge staffs current reps have, and would be more difficult to purchase (in volume) by corporations and other power brokers. The most notable power broker that purchases rep votes is the pentagon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-3899381897169899302015-11-03T21:32:55.276-06:002015-11-03T21:32:55.276-06:00How can 1 representative represent 10 people much ...How can 1 representative represent 10 people much less 50k? It's a complete fiction. <br /><br />The representative will represent himself in Washington on behalf of his financial and political patrons and his personal clique. Certainly he won't know the person much less represent the person who pulls a lever once every 2 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-57897695924117416012015-11-03T20:02:59.418-06:002015-11-03T20:02:59.418-06:00The enlargement of the U S House of Representative...The enlargement of the U S House of Representatives to about one per 50,000 population in a district would make a House with about 6300 Representatives. That is certainly technologically feasible. It would make the argument for a "representative" government more plausible. Would it rein in the national Security State? Certainly not, if it is never tried.D. Frank Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03262143401112395859noreply@blogger.com