Because they want you to forget about Congress

Congress sleeps until the public demands their action?

Illegal wars and tacit terrorist support

i sleep

Anti-Semitic phonecalls and boycotting apartheid

real shit

The even more important question is- why isn't Congress bringing up the role that they should play? They have given up so much responsibility that they are effectively neutering themselves as time goes on. They gave the power of the purse to the Fed, they've given the power of war to the President. I would say it's time for Congress to step up and do their fucking job, but we all know they won't, because they don't want to.

Also, I personally think Congress should be expanded, in line with the idea of the original founding fathers. Washington said no HoR Rep should have a district of greater than 30k people- well the current average district size is 700k+, because the HoR capped their membership in the 20's to preserve their power. I believe Congress should be doubled or tripled in size, to roughly 1200 Representatives- with this you could stop creating alphabet agencies to do Congress' job, and instead appoint actual fucking Congressman to run the goddamn government, instead of bureaucrats.

I think impeachment would come down to inherently political lines. I don't know if the Reps would be willing to do it for something like this- even though it could be interpreted that way. But if the Dems win Congress in November this year, it might be a different story, though they seem to be looking to take him down for some nebulous Russian collusion (which is funny, because escalating tensions in Syria doesn't help Russia at all, but don't try and explain that to them, they'll just get pissy).

I honestly don't even have enough faith that this would piss Congress off- so far both sides have shown they're willing to escalate the war in Syria (funny how no one ever declared war, but it most definitely is one, eh?). I think the MIC has their claws sunk deep into Congress- I just don't see them impeaching him over a military strike. They might get on national TV and pretend to be upset but their donors and the intelligence agencies will talk to them behind closed doors and convince them that this is "the right course of action" as they always seem to do...

But no matter what you're right...we are in dangerous waters right now.

Sounds about right. Good catch.

I read your opening sentence in Professor Farnsworths' voice :P

So then the question remains- will Congress assume that responsibility? My money is on no, but it seems like life and politics in this country has just gotten more insane since mid-2015, so anything is possible going forward lol.

That was intense just reading it

I actually like this idea. The ratios of representation are ridiculous. The electoral college is also way out of wack. Less concentration of power would be a great start.

Smart man

This is one of the most rational and well spoken posts Ive seen in a while. I think I have been remiss in scaling the intent of our founding fathers. I tend to think they had no idea how big the US would get, so what they felt 30,000 meant or any other number needs to be scaled to our current population. I think you are right, we may need more, not fewer representatives.

The chances of a sensible voice aneaking thru would be greater. The voices of the average people would be multiplied and the lunatic fringe would be abated.

Great post and thanks for something to think about

If congressional power is derived from the people they represent then that power isn't theirs to delegate, transfer, or barter away.

They merely hold it "in trust" for the people and the separation of powers are clearly defined under the Constitution in order to prevent any possibility of that, which means what they've actually done is both illegal and unconstitutional.

This great, first time hearing about it. All for no more alphabet orgs.

Because Congress refused to do anything about the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists act, that gives too much authority for the president to attack anyone they deem "associated".

TBH, I don't know what's going to happen with Syria. I'm too ignorant about it, but I do feel like something is fishy about all of this.

I think it all has to deal with going to war with Iran somehow, on behalf of Israel.

Obama went to congress after the chemical attack in 2012. iirc they didn't even take up the vote. MSM botched and moaned about the red line Obama talked about but on the the few times voted (or refused to vote) against war and military intervention was in regards to Assad and chemical weapons

Nazis gonna nazi

"Big price to pay" could mean many things, people are jumping to conclusions.

Yeah you're jumping to conclusions. express.co.uk is a shitty source. Why are you linking me a UK news website?

The Pentagon is denying claims by Syrian state television that the United States launched missile strikes against an airbase in western Syria.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/pentagon-denies-syrian-media-claims-us-airstrikes-syria/story?id=54329726

https://www.rt.com/news/423545-israel-planes-syria-strike/

Oh seems you were jumping to conclusions.