Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID Act, No Fly list, wiretaps, etc.
These are the result of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wrong! Try again.
But even so, you still fail. Because you failed to specify what about each constitutes expansion of government power. But you couldn't anyways because yuo deal in cliches rather than logical arguments.
Homeland security simply consolidated government agenices, there was n expansion of power resulting from it. The Patriot Act was merely a consolidation of existing authority. Military Commissions long preceded these two wars. "King george" by the way, and acting very monarchial, allowed his executive authority to administer these to be swallowed up by Congress resulting in new legislation. REAL ID, too, preceded both wars and, besides, represents no new power. No-fly lists were maintained before even 9/11. Wiretaps, too.
You have nothing but tired partisan rhetoric.
Plus spending what is it, a trillion or so on a war, setting up a puppet governmnet, occupying sovereign land, going to war without formal declaration, etc. How did the government not increase in size? More laws, more control, more surveillance. We need less of all these things, not more.
I wasn't responding to an argument about govt expanding in size, but to one about govt waging war to expand its power and military. Have you abandoned that now?
Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress.
:roll:
And congressional resolutions don't...?
The President for all intensive purposes fully and always controls the military. He can use it as he sees fit, that sounds like the power of a King; not that of a public servant.
You meant, "intents and purposes." But you're still wrong. The War Powers Act is what you're referring to, not the Constitution. The phrase declaration of war does not even appear in the Constitution.
Yes, Congress and the SCOTUS have some say in this. The President isn't to be king. In fact, I would say the President wasn't meant to be the most powerful political position in the US. The President is merely the Executive, the most powerful branch was to be Congress.
Hmmm, so the founders when contemplating the separation of powers didn't really desire co-equal branches, but a supreme legislative branch? LOL!!!
There must be friction between the 3 branches, there must be checks and balances.
So who/what checks the supreme legislative branch?
As it stands now, the President has well too much power; we weren't meant to be ruled by a king.
Were not you ignorant clown. If we were the President would not have sought congressional approval for war post-9/11 nor would he have acquiesced to judicial direction to pursue a legislative remedy to the military commissions issue nor would he have permitted elections to take place in 04 or 08.
Maybe the younger generation is just getting sick of bowing their heads to government.
Now this is funny considering that the younger voters overwhelmingly support Democrats.
Distrust the government, watch it and constrain it.
My sentiments exactly. But they don't lead me to the absurd conclusions you're posting about King George, a supreme legislature, etc.