> Yeah, and why does it have to be that way? > For instance, Congress should have no ability to tell the military what weapons systems it's going to buy or fund

> Yeah, and why does it have to be that way? > For instance, Congress should have no ability to tell the military what weapons systems it's going to buy or fund R&D for. Umm? The Constitution? You do realize that the United States isn't even supposed to have a permanent standing army, and that it has to be reauthorized every two years? ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12: The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The appropriations clause of the constitution is generally interpreted as giving Congress the power to dictate how the money is spent. This was very specifically argued by the Founders, "The Power of the Purse" as a check on executive power by the people, and very specifically, assigned to the House of Representatives. You're telling me it can be done, I'm telling you 240 years of history and the very structure of law makes it very difficult. The US is crafted to have a weak executive power.