Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for September 04, 2013

Are we finally on new material? With politics it is so hard to tell.

You know, I’d REALLY like to get GT’s take on MSNBC and the Democrats beating the war drums….

actually, for the most part, msnbc , notably Ed Shultz and Chris Matthews are against the impending missile strikes

It’s not about an upside…it’s about not standing by and letting a regime torture white people…if this was happening in Africa no country would give a damn.

I bet GT stays on sabbatical, he’d have to be critical of POTUS and I just don’t see him being THAT open minded.

I guess it takes a prez who has taught Constitutional Law to realize that Congress is supposed to have a say in matters of war if at all possible. Obama has not ruled out going to war. He has not ruled it in either. If there is a time sensitive situation going on it would be different. Since the generals have said it doesn’t make much difference if we attack today or next month it is not time sensitive. I appreciate a prez who proceeds with thoughtful caution. Truman stayed up many nights before proceeding with the A bomb. He didn’t take the decision lightly.

It is great to see that GT is back! A strong return with the GOP wing nuts. Poor Boehner. Last night, we saw Jon Stewart back as well. Good times.

Actually Montessoriteacher, the President can go to war for 60 days without the approval of Congress. If it lasts longer than that, he must consult Congress.

Ok sorry my mistake regarding the fact it is not new material.

I know that there are specifics regarding how long the prez has in regard to declaring war. I am still glad the prez is asking for congressional input. This seems reasonable.

Maybe we should send troops into Congress to stop the republicans’ civil war…..Nah, I’m enjoying it too much.

Good one, kaffekup!

Have a nice holiday Susan.

Right no upside… well except saving thousands of lives

He can’t resign. He needs the money for his over-tanning sessions.

There is no upside for us in bombing Syria. Russia has a lot of brand new muscle to flex and they really want a challenge. Assad and his cohorts are supporters of Iran and Hezbollah. Both of whom hate us. The Muslim Brotherhood is hand in hand with Al-Qaeda. Same story. Obama IS getting out of hand and really needs to dial it back. Boehner and his crowd hate Americans. Else why would they try to put everyone in the poorhouse? We could do so much more if we spent all that money on lifting up our own people.

Kissing Fish: Christianity for people who don’t like Christianity

“If once we admit, be it for a single hour or in a single instance, that there can be anything more important than compassion for a fellow human being, then there is no crime against man that we cannot commit with an easy conscience.” — Leo Tolstoy

Really, I’ve never heard any suggestion Obama thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and needs replaced. Source? Voices in your head don’t count, btw.

Joining the off-topic discussion, I’m inclined to agree there is little upside to US involvement in Syria. Without a sustained campaign of bombing, it is unlikely a US attack will seriously degrade Assad’s forces – meaning they will remain quite capable of further attacks on civilians, including chemical attacks. Moreover, while the Assad regime is evil, the opposition has strong ties to radical Islam – so even if US attacks did tip the scales towards regime change, it might be towards an even less desirable government. Plus, Assad has strong ties with Russia and Iran – and could use an American attack as a pretext to launch an attack on Israel, the closest American ally in the region.

I’m all for preventing needless bloodshed, but it’s hard to see that limited US bombing of regime targets will accomplish much beyond symbolism. Beyond that, America and the rest of the world have had little problem ignoring slaughter of civilians elsewhere – Africa in particular comes to mind. But the answer to the Rwandan genocide (rather than what happened – ignoring it), for example, would have been to put boots on the ground – not send in a few cruise missiles.

Half the Founding Fathers thought the constitution was fundamentally flawed and should be replaced. Patrick Henry fought hard to prevent its adoption, George Mason help write it and finally opposed it. Benjamin Franklin thought there were serious problems with it, but it was the best compromise deal that could be had at the time. Every amendment added to it was to correct a flaw or weakness. It is the oldest written constitution in the world, hammered out (not handed down) 226 years ago for a country 1/100 the size of the present United States, where a fifth of the population was slaves, and everything traveled by horse or sail. Fortunately, it has proven flexible enough to build a modern nation under its umbrella, which was only possible because it was not taken too literally, or too narrowly. The good, and the will, of the people was permitted to succeed in spite of some of its provisions. For all that, it is nice to see Williamsburg (the place where I have lived and worked teaching history for thirty-plus years) mentioned in the strip.

The Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court the final say as to what the Constitution is and means. Thinking that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way different from the prevailing rulings of the court is the same as thinking the Constitution should be different. The Constitution changes every time an amendment is added, or a new ruling comes out of the Supreme Court. If someone thinks that the court should overturn some long-standing precedent, that person thinks the Constitution should be changed, and in some cases fundamentally. I have rarely met anyone, particularly anyone on the right, who thinks that the Constitution should remain as it is. Some want to move forward to a more modern understanding, some want to return to an earlier version or interpretation. Hardly anyone wants it to remain exactly as it is. Obama wants to change the Constitution a lot less than many of his opponents want to change it. So Skepti Cal is just throwing out a red herring.

Simply saying President is not a natural born citizen does not make it true. Anyone born in the United States of America is a natural born citizen..Hawaii IS part of the USA.

Governments don’t have rights. They have powers..People have both rights and powers..People in power don’t like restrictions on those powers. People in populous states don’t like the Senate system of two per state. They don’t like the Electoral College concept. Many don’t like the concept of states’ having certain powers beyond the reach of the federal government — except for their own state, of course. MANY don’t like freedom of assembly for those who don’t think exactly like themselves or of people who don’t worship the way they KNOW they should..And yet we survive with relatively little bloodshed.