Whip Count: Obama’s Syria war resolution headed for defeat

Editor’s note: Due to mounting opposition to military intervention, we’ve added the Senate numbers at the bottom of the page.

As it stands today, President Barack Obama’s push for military strikes against the Syrian government would lose — and it would lose in a very big way.

Looking at the various media outlets and blogs tracking the vote, most show a majority of the House of Representatives rejecting authorization of force against the Middle Eastern country. You can click on the links to see party breakdowns and more information.

Swing and a miss: How Firedoglake is way off target

David Dayen of Firedoglake, the liberal social democrat blogging community, has a recent post up about how we have almost reaching our spending cut targets. Since we know that spending has actually increased as of late, not gone down, I had to take a look and see what he was talking about. David writes:

Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has an important piece that reinforces something I’ve been saying for a long time. Contrary to the opinion of Michael Grunwaldthat there has been no austerity in Obama’s first term, Bernstein lays out the numbers that actually shows the austerity, in both the short- and long-term, that actually encompasses most of what deficit scolds seek in their grand bargain. And this is actually a bad idea, as Bernstein illustrates.

These developments are poorly understood by those—most vocally, SB advocates—who continuously inveigh that we’re not “serious” about cutting spending. In fact, that’s the only thing we’ve been “serious” about so far, such that we’ve actually achieved 70% of the discretionary spending cuts called for in the SB budget plan. This does not count war savings, nor does it include savings on interest payments, which would add another $250 billion to the savings.

REINS Not Unconstitutional; “Administrative Laws” are

Yesterday, a guest blogger from Americans for Prosperity, Joel Aaron, posted about the Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, an admirable bill to restore constitutional principles to Congress and take the power to make law away from unelected bureaucrats. Today, while looking for something completely different, I stumbled onto a post from FireDogLake about the same, which said:

Other than possibly being unconstitutional, one does wonder where Congress would get the time to consider such regulations between fund-raisers and, well, fund-raisers. Unless, of course, they were determined to make sure there are no regulations ever, creating a government that cannot possibly ever function.

…Oh, right.

FireDogLake, for those unaware, is a sort of liberal version of RedState, akin to DailyKos, so I think it’s pretty clear where this author (who goes by the pseudonym “Attaturk”) is looking for. Specifically, I just want to look at the sentence “Other than possibly being unconstitutional,” because, quite clearly, REINS is very constitutional.

I would like to look at Article I, Section I, of the United States Constitution:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Now, we should get into the nitty gritty of it and eliminate all ambiguity, so what does “legislative” mean?

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.