If people won't amend the constitution, it should be followed to the letter!

 In this case the war powers act,  As I have already pointed out, under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I have an interest in comparative constitutional law, and France's interpretation of the separation of church and state: Laïcité, which got me looking at the  constitution of the Fourth French Republic (1946), Article 7, which deals with declaring war:

War may not be declared without a vote by the National Assembly and the preliminary opinion of the Council of the Republic.

I've already pointed out that the executive, or the commander in chief of the military, should not be charged with this ability, which was something which concerned the founders. They expressed a dislike for a standing military.

Unfortunately, their fear has come to pass and the US has a large, standing military. And it is being used to pursue "forever wars".

Recent events have highlighted that the founders were right and some sort of legislation with teeth should be put in place to prevent military adventures. 

Why I think Juneteenth is nonsense

No one really cares about it. In fact, it kind of reminds me of the Greaseman's reaction to another black holiday.

On the other hand, there are things like Odunde and Notting Hill Carneval that have people who really get into them.

 Notting Hill Carneval has been in the public eye for a lot longer than Juneteenth: Sixty years!

Not that many people had heard about Juneteenth before 2020, let alone 1966!

HE'S GUILTY

The trial is ending with an admission. 

 Live with it.

Especially since you wasted your money on his defence:

This is what Karen Agnifilo Friedman had to say about him on the Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees That was aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00 ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01:

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did.  

Your energy would have been better spend trying to change the system through legal means: not violence. 

Former republican makes a shocking confession

 Back to what I have been saying about Bernie Sanders and his politics being popular if it was given a chance.

 

Presidents are not kings

I'm not sure how to characterise this slogan since pretty much all of the current monarchs are constitutional monarchs. The current batch are under significant constraints to ensure that constitutional monarchs serve as symbols of national unity rather than as active rulers, reflecting a balance between tradition and democratic governance. And this has been pretty much the case since the 17th and 18th Centuries.

I probably should define "constitutional monarchy" since it seems most people who chant this slogan are ignorant of this system of government where a monarch serves as the ceremonial head of state, with their powers defined and limited by a constitution. This allows the monarch to perform official duties while the legislative body holds the authority to create and repeal laws. Countries with constitutional monarchies often blend traditional royal ceremonies with modern democratic practices, providing a sense of stability amid political changes. 

In 2025, there were forty-three monarchies in the world, most of which were categorized as constitutional monarchies; fifteen of those shared King Charles III as their monarch, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several Caribbean nations.

A defining feature of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch respects the limitations set forth by the constitution and rarely seeks to alter such a document in his or her favor. Even in the United Kingdom itself, which has no written constitution but rather a series of foundational documents, the king or queen remains within the bounds set by customary rules.  This characteristic is the important one if one is going to run around ignorantly saying "no kings".

Monarchs don't act like Trump.

On the other hand, the United States is a dysfunctional democracy. Dysfunctional democracy refers to a political system where democratic processes fail to effectively represent the will of the people, often leading to dissatisfaction and instability among citizens. This can occur due to issues like ineffective governance, lack of accountability, and the erosion of civil rights.

A dysfunctional democracy can appear to have democratic institutions, but those don't really represent the will of the people. For a democracy to work, the democracy needs to be properly functioning.

This is a good transition to how the current duopoly system doesn't represent the people:

Very few people are talking about how Amazon came into existence during the Clinton administration with its intent of at least cornering the book market. Or to quote what the search came up with "mazon was named after the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, reflecting Jeff Bezos's vision of making his store the biggest bookstore."  Amazon has made it clear that it aims to dominate the e-commerce market by offering "a wide range of products and services".

Like Walmart, Amazon is good at killing small businesses and preventing the rise of competition.

But, to get us back to the subject of monarchs: which system has universal healthcare, housing, and works for the people: the US's "Democratic-republic" or a constitutional monarchy?

I'll take a monarchy if that's what it offers.