Officials flunk U.S. quiz

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120...ucationoffbeat

US officials flunk test of Amerian history, economics, civics
Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.

Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomly selected to take the test, including "self-identified elected officials," was one which asked respondents to "name two countries that were our enemies during World War II."

Sixty-nine percent of respondents correctly identified Germany and Japan. Among the incorrect answers were Britain, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Spain.

Forty percent of respondents, meanwhile, incorrectly believed that the US president has the power to declare war, while 54 percent correctly answered that that power rests with Congress.

Asked about the electoral college, 20 percent of elected officials incorrectly said it was established to "supervise the first televised presidential debates."

In fact, the system of choosing the US president via an indirect electoral college vote dates back some 220 years, to the US Constitution.

The question that received the fewest correct responses, just 16 percent, tested respondents' basic understanding of economic principles, asking why "free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning?"

Activities that dull Americans' civic knowledge include talking on the phone and watching movies or television -- even news shows and documentaries, ISI said.

Meanwhile, civic knowledge is enhanced by discussing public affairs, taking part in civic activities and reading about current events and history, the group said.

I guess palin is smarter then most of them huh

lol nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

I guess palin is smarter then most of them huh

---

She could have been one of them with a bad score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

I guess palin is smarter then most of them huh

---

Just you ducks. Just you.

Though I think if the quiz had been "Anything and Everything Alaska" she'd have had a perfect score most likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

I guess palin is smarter then most of them huh

---

As dumb as Palin is, there's a hell of a lot of Palins in our congress, so maybe so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

I guess palin is smarter then most of them huh

---

I guess thats one way to look at it. Another is to wonder how stupid people keep getting in office. Except I know how stupid people keep getting in office.

The GOP has waged a pretty calculated war on intelligence in this country. If you're intelligent, or professorial as Obama was called, then you're also labeled as an elitist. This is led to the stultification of American leadership.

Being intelligent is not a bad thing, and its actually something we should want out of our elected leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Except I know how stupid people keep getting in office.

The GOP has waged a pretty calculated war on intelligence in this country.

---

Amazing.

With a statement like that you leave me no alternative other than to conclude that you were among those that did not fare well in this "war".


Partisanship (ignorance) is bliss.

no
some thing havard is the only school to go to if you do not go there you are dumb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

no
some thing havard is the only school to go to if you do not go there you are dumb

---

hyperbolize much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

no
some thing havard is the only school to go to if you do not go there you are dumb

---

Is English your first language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

no
some thing havard is the only school to go to if you do not go there you are dumb

---

Seriously... whatever school you went to or are going to has failed you miserably.

:lmao

This goes back to how we learn things in school, not what we've learned. The traditional model of schooling is to memorize facts, recalling them on exams and then dumping that information for other information that follows the same pattern....the new model of education (and how the TAKS is structured coincidentally) is using the information for problem solving which requires much higher-order thinking skills....that's why kids don't do well on standardized tests.....but then go on to be successful adults....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Amazing.

With a statement like that you leave me no alternative other than to conclude that you were among those that did not fare well in this "war".


Partisanship (ignorance) is bliss.

---

Yeah, we didn't just have a Presidential campaign in which the guy whose degrees were from Ivy League schools was largely ridiculed by the other side for that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Yeah, we didn't just have a Presidential campaign in which the guy whose degrees were from Ivy League schools was largely ridiculed by the other side for that fact.

---

Seriously, politicians will say anything and everything if they think it translates into votes, it’s the old adage of throwing a ton of bs against the wall and hoping some of it sticks. This charge was certainly not against intelligence, but an effort to paint Obama as being an intellectual elitist, to the degree that he was out of touch with mainstream Americans.

And, IIRC, it was Hillary, back in April, that accused Obama of being an “elitist”…I’m not aware of Clinton’s affiliation with the GOP.

Do you seriously believe that the Democrats have cornered the market on intelligence?

FWD, is your post supposed to pass as being a persuasive argument supporting Manny’s contention that the Republicans are waging a war on intellectualism?






Slightly off topic:

FWD, do you consider yourself an intellectual?

If your answer is yes, do you believe that makes you a better person than someone that would not be considered an intellectual?

Would the CEO's of Fannie and Freddie be considered intellectuals? How about the CEO's of our failed financial instititutions; intellectuals or not?

Are intellectual less susceptible to corruption than those that don't fall into that category?

Of course here is the obligatory:

CLICKE HERE TO TAKE THE QUIZ MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE.

You answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 %

Average score for this quiz during November: 78.0%
Average score: 78.0%
Answers to Your Missed Questions:

Question #4 - [REDACTED- RG]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Do you seriously believe that the Democrats have cornered the market on intelligence?

---

No, but occasionally one wonders...

I heard an interesting bit on the radio the other day from an analyst who said that Obama's incoming team makes "evidence-based" decisions, implying that actual data and evidence weren't the basis for decisions under the current Republican administration.

I found that apt.

"Democrats have cornered the market on intelligence"

Of course not, but the Repugs and conservatives have let ideology and religion make them stupid, anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-American,
"know nothing" while pandering to the ignorant/red-state/rural/uneducated/Christian-supremacist demographics.

The campaign and intellects of McNasty and pitbull bitch epitomize the anti-intelligent, inane, lying, fact-free orientation of the Repugs. Their campaign and her nomination were an insult to most Americans, as reflected in polls and the overwhelming victory of Obama with centrists, moderates, independents, even among white men.

I got 88%, and I disagree with the free trade question. Their answer is clearly wrong with respect to our relationship with China, and sounds like conservative dogma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I got 88%, and I disagree with the free trade question. Their answer is clearly wrong with respect to our relationship with China, and sounds like conservative dogma.

---

My impression as well. The Institute mentioned in the OP is a conservative think tank.

A few of those questions were more dogmatic than actually testing economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120...ucationoffbeat

US officials flunk test of Amerian history, economics, civics
Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.

Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomly selected to take the test, including "self-identified elected officials," was one which asked respondents to "name two countries that were our enemies during World War II."

Sixty-nine percent of respondents correctly identified Germany and Japan. Among the incorrect answers were Britain, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Spain.

Forty percent of respondents, meanwhile, incorrectly believed that the US president has the power to declare war, while 54 percent correctly answered that that power rests with Congress.

Asked about the electoral college, 20 percent of elected officials incorrectly said it was established to "supervise the first televised presidential debates."

In fact, the system of choosing the US president via an indirect electoral college vote dates back some 220 years, to the US Constitution.

The question that received the fewest correct responses, just 16 percent, tested respondents' basic understanding of economic principles, asking why "free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning?"

Activities that dull Americans' civic knowledge include talking on the phone and watching movies or television -- even news shows and documentaries, ISI said.

Meanwhile, civic knowledge is enhanced by discussing public affairs, taking part in civic activities and reading about current events and history, the group said.

---

I got 6 wrong... not too shabby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My impression as well. The Institute mentioned in the OP is a conservative think tank.

A few of those questions were more dogmatic than actually testing economics.

---

I noticed that as well. Still got most of them right, but that's more being able to guess the intent of the author of the quiz than actually 'knowing' the right answer.

This stat is shocking, especially considering what a well-rounded, highly learned Renaissance man GW Bush is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Seriously, politicians will say anything and everything if they think it translates into votes, it’s the old adage of throwing a ton of bs against the wall and hoping some of it sticks. This charge was certainly not against intelligence, but an effort to paint Obama as being an intellectual elitist, to the degree that he was out of touch with mainstream Americans.

---

I'm not sure that your distinction is a valid one, though it is a simple way to charge one with simply being "too intellectual" I suppose. The point is that instead of Obama's academic credentials being seen as the sort of achievement that all should aspire to, those accomplishments were, instead, used as a means to suggest that he was "too smart." I'm not going to say that the GOP wages a war on intelligence, but I'm also going to say that it's a shortsighted argument to attack those who've reached tremendous academic accomplishment on the basis that they've attained those levels of education and achievement.

I do think, however, that many who are supporters of the GOP, in general, see academic intelligence as being largely a waste of time or, more peculiarly, nothing more than an indoctrination at liberally-bent universities. It's beyond absurd to think that those who have the sort of intelligence and drive that is necessary to thrive at our most academically-rigorous institutions are, at the same time, so incapable of original thought that they can only fall prey to (or cannot escape from) the rantings of those who are extremely leftist (or rightist for that matter).

The efforts to diminish the significance of an education at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, or any of the many other fabulous colleges in this country is both silly and counterproductive.

The fact that the presidential race in 2008 involved a great deal of suggestion that an education attained at those institutions results in an "intellectual elitism" that is distasteful, to me, underscores a sort of reverse classism -- an effort to say that great academic achievement is essentially a worthless end to pursue because it will, in the end, make you unable to relate to the mainstream of our society. It's nonsense on its face; but it is, at the same time (I think) an effort to diminish the utility of an education attained in schools that attract the best and the brightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

And, IIRC, it was Hillary, back in April, that accused Obama of being an “elitist”…I’m not aware of Clinton’s affiliation with the GOP.

---

If that's what she said, Hillary was wrong, too, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Do you seriously believe that the Democrats have cornered the market on intelligence?

---

What an absurd leap. There's a monumental difference between saying that one party is attacking intelligence/achievement and saying that the same party lacks intelligence/achievement.

Both parties have members and adherents who are insanely bright. Only one of those parties, however, seems to embrace those who ridicule the value of a great education and argue that the best universities in the nation are somehow valueless. It's not all Republicans, to be sure -- but it's a more and more pervasive turn of rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

FWD, is your post supposed to pass as being a persuasive argument supporting Manny’s contention that the Republicans are waging a war on intellectualism?

---

I suppose it is, to an extent. I don't think it's an organized effort and, as I've said, I don't think it's a pervasive belief. But it's my observation that when I do hear rhetoric about the lack of value in academic achievement and intellectual heft, I most frequently hear it from those who align themselves with the Republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Slightly off topic:

FWD, do you consider yourself an intellectual?

---

Not particularly. I consider myself someone who thinks independently. I read a lot and consider the arguments that advocates for various positions advance and from that, I try to reach my own understandings about issues and topics and decide for myself what my position is on any particular matter. I don't really know what an intellectual would be, definitionally.

I can say, however, that I believe a premium should be placed upon education; I believe that students should be encouraged to seek the highest levels of achievement they possibly can; I believe that achievement in academic realms is extremely important; I believe that while effort makes a big difference in what and how one learns, there is no substitute for the educational benefits of being surrounded by very bright people (students and instructors alike); I believe that an instructor's political philosophy is an overrated concern in higher education -- smart students will think for themselves and accept or reject philosophies based on their own views; and I believe that the elite schools in this nation are elite schools for an extremely good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

If your answer is yes, do you believe that makes you a better person than someone that would not be considered an intellectual?

---

Nothing could convince me that I'm better or worse than anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Would the CEO's of Fannie and Freddie be considered intellectuals? How about the CEO's of our failed financial instititutions; intellectuals or not?

---

I have no idea. I'd guess that they're probably people of great academic achievement. That one is possessed of such achievement does not make him mistake-free or foolproof. But it would be equally wrong to blame the failings of those institutions on the fact that those individuals were high academic achievers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Are intellectual less susceptible to corruption than those that don't fall into that category?

---

Absolutely not.

I got 31/33 on the quiz. I, however, spilled coffee on myself in the middle of the quiz and was corrupted by intellectualism to look up one of the answers; my moral compass guided me back to marking the question wrong.

I consider myself better than Hitler, if you're talking about the 'morals' department, and not the 'accomplishments' one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

The point is that instead of Obama's academic credentials being seen as the sort of achievement that all should aspire to, those accomplishments were, instead, used as a means to suggest that he was "too smart." I'm not going to say that the GOP wages a war on intelligence, but I'm also going to say that it's a shortsighted argument to attack those who've reached tremendous academic accomplishment on the basis that they've attained those levels of education and achievement.

---

I"ll agree that academic achievement should be admired, not castigated, but I don't agree at all that the GOP attacked Obama on the front of being "too smart". Other than perhaps a few isolated, off the cuff remarks from someone who didn't play a central role in McCain's campaign, I don't recall any concerted attacks on his intellectual attributes.

Quote:

---

I do think, however, that many who are supporters of the GOP, in general, see academic intelligence as being largely a waste of time or, more peculiarly, nothing more than an indoctrination at liberally-bent universities.

---

I'll defer to your own statement that this view is not pervasive, and barring some scientifically gathered data that would incriminate this affront as being peculiar to the GOP, I have difficulty agreeing with this.

Quote:

---

It's beyond absurd to think that those who have the sort of intelligence and drive that is necessary to thrive at our most academically-rigorous institutions are, at the same time, so incapable of original thought that they can only fall prey to (or cannot escape from) the rantings of those who are extremely leftist (or rightist for that matter).
The efforts to diminish the significance of an education at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, or any of the many other fabulous colleges in this country is both silly and counterproductive.

---

I agree, but let's also agree that any such thinking doesn't belong to one Party more so than the other. I don't see either Party diminshing academic achievement.

Quote:

---

The fact that the presidential race in 2008 involved a great deal of suggestion that an education attained at those institutions results in an "intellectual elitism" that is distasteful, to me, underscores a sort of reverse classism -- an effort to say that great academic achievement is essentially a worthless end to pursue because it will, in the end, make you unable to relate to the mainstream of our society.

---

I don't believe that was a part of the political dialogue until Obama suggest that when the going gets tough, people cling to their Bibles and guns.
This charge of elitism, right or wrong, was initiated by Hillary and picked up by McCain, and not because of his Ivy League education, but because they interpreted his remarks as him being out of touch with mainstream America.
He brought that upon himself, and again, it was not an affront against intellectualism.

Quote:

---

What an absurd leap. There's a monumental difference between saying that one party is attacking intelligence/achievement and saying that the same party lacks intelligence/achievement.

---

It wasn't a leap at all, merely a question. Manny would have us believe that stupid people are being elected (which they are), and faulting the GOP for this. That arguement stinks of partisanship, and is without merit (aka absurd).

Quote:

---

I suppose it is, to an extent. I don't think it's an organized effort and, as I've said, I don't think it's a pervasive belief. But it's my observation that when I do hear rhetoric about the lack of value in academic achievement and intellectual heft, I most frequently hear it from those who align themselves with the Republican party.

---

So long as it's not a valued belief, that is, a belief without consensus, I just blow them off. If you look hard enough you'll find small pockets of dissent against anything and everything. I don't think those views are deserving of an audience, and prefer to write them off as ignominious, outlier thinking, no more righteous than the beliefs of the Aryan Nation or some of the extreme views of the Michael Moore types.

Quote:

---

I can say, however, that I believe a premium should be placed upon education; I believe that students should be encouraged to seek the highest levels of achievement they possibly can; I believe that achievement in academic realms is extremely important; I believe that while effort makes a big difference in what and how one learns, there is no substitute for the educational benefits of being surrounded by very bright people (students and instructors alike); I believe that an instructor's political philosophy is an overrated concern in higher education -- smart students will think for themselves and accept or reject philosophies based on their own views;

---

Well said FWD, and I would hope that everyone would agree with those thoughts.

One cannot blame the GOP for the low scores on that test unless there is some evidence that GOP officials scored significantly lower than their Dem colleagues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

One cannot blame the GOP for the low scores on that test unless there is some evidence that GOP officials scored significantly lower than their Dem colleagues.

---

I would be willing to make a small bet that Republicans, in general, know less about the world at large than Democrats, or that at the very least, Democratic politicians at the national level know more about geopolitics than Republican ones.

It has been my experience that knowledge of geopolitics, while not exclusive to either side of the political spectrum, tends to be more valued by those on the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

So long as it's not a valued belief, that is, a belief without consensus, I just blow them off. If you look hard enough you'll find small pockets of dissent against anything and everything. I don't think those views are deserving of an audience, and prefer to write them off as ignominious, outlier thinking, no more righteous than the beliefs of the Aryan Nation or some of the extreme views of the Michael Moore types.

---

The anti-intellectual bent on the right has a long history, dating back to the postwar period when any person who read a lot of books was feared by the populist right as an "egghead" with Communist sympathies. The generation of conservative leaders that led the movement from the 1960's to the 1990's worked hard to expunge that element, but they grew old and left the stage without successfully grooming replacements. The Reagan era is over, and what passes for "conservatism" today is a mix of the John Birch Society and the Dixiecrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I would be willing to make a small bet that Republicans, in general, know less about the world at large than Democrats, or that at the very least, Democratic politicians at the national level know more about geopolitics than Republican ones.

It has been my experience that knowledge of geopolitics, while not exclusive to either side of the political spectrum, tends to be more valued by those on the left.

---

But that is a hunch, not fact based upon evidence. My suspicion would be that GOP pols scored lower, but that suspicion could be wrong, so going out on that limb to make a point is imprudent.

I've learned to keep my mouth shut when good ol' boys try to explain that Sarah Palin would make a great President because:

1) she's got that thar horse sense rather than that fancy-pants book learnin' (no offense, ES, but y'ar a li'l bit of a queer what with yer big werds n' stuff)

2) she don't know nuthin' about the world 'cept what's in the Bible and that's all y'need to know.

3) she's hot

4) she can hunt and field dress a moose

5) she likes us real Americans and not them Commie faggots in the big cities (no offense, ES)

6) us good ol' boys'd like t'do her

7) she's hot

I also keep my mouth shut when I hear the same arguments I heard back in 2000, such as "It don't matter how smart she is as long as she'd pick the right advisors. Them's the ones who need to know all that history and economy and stuff."

At least where I am in Texas, being a parochial idiot has become a prerequisite for staying in the conservative movement as this purge moves forward. So, of course, I'm out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

But that is a hunch, not fact based upon evidence. My suspicion would be that GOP pols scored lower, but that suspicion could be wrong, so going out on that limb to make a point is imprudent.

---

I agree. I would not be willing to say 100% one way or another, but I would be confident enough to place a small bet on the outcome of any objective study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

If you look hard enough you'll find small pockets of dissent against anything and everything. I don't think those views are deserving of an audience, and prefer to write them off as ignominious, outlier thinking, no more righteous than the beliefs of the Aryan Nation or some of the extreme views of the Michael Moore types.

---

I will remember this post the next time you wiegh in on one of the global warming threads and use the small minority of scientists who dissent against that theory as "proof" that AGW is a silly theory. :p:

One area where I am not keeping my mouth shut is when people who profess to be Bible-believing Christians openly advocate the assassination of the President-elect of the United States. I rebuke them immediately. Some people become contrite and repent, agreeing that we do have to respect our leaders even when we disagree with them. Others call me an abortion-loving un-American Communist liberal emergent metrosexual queer who probably cheats on my wife with men and that I better shut my mouth before they put their boot in my ass or kill me just like the n*****.

I suspect the faith espoused by the latter is just cultural veneer.

It's about 50/50 between the two responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

One area where I am not keeping my mouth shut is when people who profess to be Bible-believing Christians openly advocate the assassination of the President-elect of the United States. I rebuke them immediately. Some people become contrite and repent, agreeing that we do have to respect our leaders even when we disagree with them. Others call me an abortion-loving un-American Communist liberal emergent metrosexual queer who probably cheats on my wife with men and that I better shut my mouth before they put their boot in my ass or kill me just like the n*****.

I suspect the faith espoused by the latter is just cultural veneer.

It's about 50/50 between the two responses.

---

You encounter many people like that?

Just curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

You encounter many people like that?

Just curious

---

Specific responses (paraphrased):

1) Obama will expand abortion. We have to kill him. How can you not support killing him? Your position is basically advocating abortion.

2) This guy is basically a terrorist. You can't be an American and let him stay in office. I know you think you're being smart and reasonable, but this is a line in the sand.

3) Typical Communist response. Sorry, but I think you're a Communist.

4) Yeah, I've heard some of your stuff. You're one of those liberal emergent types who gets all scholarly on the Bible, so I'm not surprised.

5) You're a metrosexual queer. You probably cheat on your wife with other men.

6) Who are you to talk to me like that? You better shut your mouth before I put this boot in your ass. I can kill you just as easy as that n*****.

And those are just the people who say things directly to me. Who knows how many more want Obama to die but don't verbalize it, or how many are repentant to my face but say the same sort of things as what I listed above behind my back.

It's been a real eye-opener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Specific responses (paraphrased):

1) Obama will expand abortion. We have to kill him. How can you not support killing him? Your position is basically advocating abortion.

2) This guy is basically a terrorist. You can't be an American and let him stay in office. I know you think you're being smart and reasonable, but this is a line in the sand.

3) Typical Communist response. Sorry, but I think you're a Communist.

4) Yeah, I've heard some of your stuff. You're one of those liberal emergent types who gets all scholarly on the Bible, so I'm not surprised.

5) You're a metrosexual queer. You probably cheat on your wife with other men.

6) Who are you to talk to me like that? You better shut your mouth before I put this boot in your ass. I can kill you just as easy as that n*****.

And those are just the people who say things directly to me. Who knows how many more want Obama to die but don't verbalize it, or how many are repentant to my face but say the same sort of things as what I listed above behind my back.

It's been a real eye-opener.

---

Interesting stuff. I mean, I've experienced the Commie accusations first hand (on this board and outside of it) when it comes to supporting Obama. The "metrosexual queer" one, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

It's been a real eye-opener.

---

In what way? i.e. what did you learn that you were ignorant of before?

(sorry, but I have to get to work after this, but I will check back later)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

In what way? i.e. what did you learn that you were ignorant of before?

(sorry, but I have to get to work after this, but I will check back later)

---

I was ignorant of the fact that a lot of people who claim to be Christians, and who go to church, and get all giddy talking about all the things Christ is doing in their life, somehow think that murdering a President they don't like is acceptable, or even mandated by their faith, and will get belligerent, obscene, or threatening when somebody challenges that position using Scripture.

I've never heard anything like this. Nothing like this has been openly discussed about an American politician in my lifetime. It's as though I've entered Bizarro World, where a bunch of East Texans who were cryogenically frozen in 1948 got thawed out three weeks ago and sent to Houston.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Interesting stuff. I mean, I've experienced the Commie accusations first hand (on this board and outside of it) when it comes to supporting Obama. The "metrosexual queer" one, not so much.

---

I'm not talking about supporting Obama in terms of his political agenda. I'm talking about "supporting" him in the sense of "murdering him would be wrong."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I'm not talking about supporting Obama in terms of his political agenda. I'm talking about "supporting" him in the sense of "murdering him would be wrong."

---

:lmao

Communist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I'm not talking about supporting Obama in terms of his political agenda. I'm talking about "supporting" him in the sense of "murdering him would be wrong."

---

aah I see

so we're talking all-around fucked up people here

where's my buddy phenom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I will remember this post the next time you wiegh in on one of the global warming threads and use the small minority of scientists who dissent against that theory as "proof" that AGW is a silly theory. :p:

---

It's been quite some time since I weighed in on that issue, but I'll be sure to hold you to that.

Actually I did qualify the small pockets of dissent as being ignominious and outlier in nature, but dissent need not be large to warrant credibility (I'll be the final arbiter of it's credibility). :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

One area where I am not keeping my mouth shut is when people who profess to be Bible-believing Christians openly advocate the assassination of the President-elect of the United States. Others call me an abortion-loving un-American Communist liberal emergent metrosexual queer who probably cheats on my wife with men and that I better shut my mouth before they put their boot in my ass or kill me just like the n*****.

I suspect the faith espoused by the latter is just cultural veneer.

---

You suspect?

That's bizarre Stout (the bolded text), and if I didn't know better, I'd say that sounds like the rant of someone that had just chugged a bottle of mezcal.

Tragic. Almost beyond comprehension.

^Human beings have a remarkable ability to not see and not hear whatever they don't wish to acknowledge.

^You speak authoritatively, as one who is well versed in this "ability".

The average person can't answer more than half of those questions correctly? That's truly frightening.

I read a few weeks ago that only 1/3 of Americans can find Iraq on a globe... and I was pleasantly surprised.

Well, I missed two. 93.94%

Question #13 - About Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas
Question #14 - The Puritans

From what I read about the Puritans I answered more correctly, but the answer they say is correct also apllies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I got 88%, and I disagree with the free trade question. Their answer is clearly wrong with respect to our relationship with China, and sounds like conservative dogma.

---

The key to that question is that they say "and specialization" If you are the only one supplying a sertain product, skill, etc. then others buy from you. That is why China has the market now. They specialize in cheap products at high volume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradLohaus

The average person can't answer more than half of those questions correctly? That's truly frightening.

---

I agree. Most were easy, and even most the ones I was unsure of were easy by the process of elimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradLohaus

I read a few weeks ago that only 1/3 of Americans can find Iraq on a globe... and I was pleasantly surprised.

---

Then I hope those same 2/3rds who didn't know where it was had no opinion of the war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

^You speak authoritatively, as one who is well versed in this "ability".

---

Buck up, Mid-term elections are just around the corner, and you can go back to cherry-picking polls to you heart's content.

31 of 33.

btw, I'd be very interested in know which members of Congress missed question #22

Quote:

---

22) What part of the government has the power to declare war?
A. Congress
B. the president
C. the Supreme Court
D. the Joint Chiefs of Staff

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

31 of 33.

btw, I'd be very interested in know which members of Congress missed question #22

---

Problem there is that both congress and the president have the power. That is one of two "Commander in Chief" powers that the constitution also grants to congress.

I answered the one they were looking for simply because one is defined, the other isn't, in the constitution. To understand it is also a presidential power required on to know more of the roles of each during the period the constitution was written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Problem there is that both congress and the president have the power. That is one of two "Commander in Chief" powers that the constitution also grants to congress.

---

For someone who takes such a ridiculously narrow view of Constitutional language in every other circumstance, this response makes you seem like a hypocrite.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly provides that Congress has the power to declare war. There is no analogue to that provision in Article II; even the language making the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces doesn't reveal any power other than the power to lead forces that have been engaged.

Time -- and the passage of statutes -- has allowed the President to commit troops in certain circumstances (without a declaration of war), but even that effort requires the authorization of Congress within a short period of time following the commitment. Thus, the President cannot even commit troops to efforts short of war without Congressional approval.

In no event, then, would it be accurate to say that the President has any power to declare war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

For someone who takes such a ridiculously narrow view of Constitutional language in every other circumstance, this response makes you seem like a hypocrite.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly provides that Congress has the power to declare war. There is no analogue to that provision in Article II; even the language making the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces doesn't reveal any power other than the power to lead forces that have been engaged.

---

It in no way implies that congress has the sole power to declare war. Common law at the time provides for the president, as Commander-in-Chief to do so, therefore it was not necessary to say so.

To declare war is one of two Commander-in-Chief powers granted to congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Time -- and the passage of statutes -- has allowed the President to commit troops in certain circumstances (without a declaration of war), but even that effort requires the authorization of Congress within a short period of time following the commitment. Thus, the President cannot even commit troops to efforts short of war without Congressional approval; to say that the President has power to declare war is, at best, a riff on the Cheney notion of a unified executive, which is, at bottom, little more than a stilted reading of the Constitution just the same as so many of the interpretations that you scream about being impermissible.

---

Getting congressional approval is not required, but keeps everyone happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

In no event, however, would it be accurate to say that the President has any power to declare war.

---

Sorry to differ. I disagree. It is a historical function of the title "Commander-in-Chief."

Do some historical referencing to the term in regards to the 1700's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It in no way implies that congress has the sole power to declare war. Common law at the time provides for the president, as Commander-in-Chief to do so, therefore it was not necessary to say so.

To declare war is one of two Commander-in-Chief powers granted to congress.

Getting congressional approval is not required, but keeps everyone happy.


Sorry to differ. I disagree. It is a historical function of the title "Commander-in-Chief."

Do some historical referencing to the term in regards to the 1700's.

---

I'm interested in seeing what your historical information is to support a view that would essentially render the War Powers Clause of Article I a completely superfluous statement by the Constitutional framers. Please post some of your research on this topic; I'd prefer a source other than the Cheney Institute on Presidential Power, but even that would be mildly illuminating.

And none of this "I don't have time to find that" or "Do your own research" crap. If you have information to support this incredible position of yours, post it -- otherwise, I think the fair conclusion is that your assertion is utter nonsense.

In the meantime, your argument necessarily means that the carefully-framed delineations of power in the Constitution include wholly unnecessary redundancies. If the President is implicitly vested with the power to declare war, there's absolutely no need to expressly for Congress to have that power. I'm not a big believer that the framers chose to render their divisions of power essentially superfluous -- it would be unprecedented in the constitutional canon.

It also would mean that some legislation -- the War Powers Act, in particular -- is entirely unconstitutional. That, again, would strike me as entirely unlikely.

Even more than that, you have taken an extreme leap from your strictly textualist view of Constitutional interpretation here; you're arguing that the express limits set out in the Constitution are absolutely irrelevant if there's some historical precedent to read beyond the text. More than that, I'd be interested to see where you arbitrarily draw lines in your view of Constitutional interpretation. I mean, given your as-yet-unsupported view of common law and the implied powers associated with a positive constitutional assertion (the commander-in-chief's implied (and entirely extra-textual) power to declare war in this case), you would have to agree as well that the positive assertion of other powers and rights necessarily implies the recognition of other things as well (for instance, the right of privacy), right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I'm interested in seeing what your historical information is to support a view that would essentially render the War Powers Clause of Article I a completely superfluous statement by the Constitutional framers. Please post some of your research on this topic; I'd prefer a source other than the Cheney Institute on Presidential Power, but even that would be mildly illuminating.

And none of this "I don't have time to find that" or "Do your own research" crap. If you have information to support this incredible position of yours, post it -- otherwise, I think the fair conclusion is that your assertion is utter nonsense.

---

Sorry, but do your own research applies here. It's rather hard for me to post a 70 year old book that's not on the internet, and other hardback material I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

In the meantime, your argument necessarily means that the carefully-framed delineations of power in the Constitution include wholly unnecessary redundancies. If the President is implicitly vested with the power to declare war, there's absolutely no need to expressly for Congress to have that power. I'm not a big believer that the framers chose to render their divisions of power essentially superfluous -- it would be unprecedented in the constitutional canon.

---

I don't know why they did that. I can guess, but that's all it would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

It also would mean that some legislation -- the War Powers Act, in particular -- is entirely unconstitutional. That, again, would strike me as entirely unlikely.

---

I would say it is. You cannot remove the powers granted to the Commander-in-Chief without a constitutional change. The War Powers Act was vetoed by Nixon, yet congress did a veto override. I don't think a single president has treated it as law. Not even president Clinton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Even more than that, you have taken an extreme leap from your strictly textualist view of Constitutional interpretation here; you're arguing that the express limits set out in the Constitution are absolutely irrelevant if there's some historical precedent to read beyond the text. More than that, I'd be interested to see where you arbitrarily draw lines in your view of Constitutional interpretation. I mean, given your as-yet-unsupported view of common law and the implied powers associated with a positive constitutional assertion (the commander-in-chief's implied (and entirely extra-textual) power to declare war in this case), you would have to agree as well that the positive assertion of other powers and rights necessarily implies the recognition of other things as well (for instance, the right of privacy), right?

---

I am one that reads the constitution carefully. I remember that words over time change meaning, and the highest law of the land does not change because we choose to interpret the words differently.

:lmao @ do your own research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Sorry, but do your own research applies here. It's rather hard for me to post a 70 year old book that's not on the internet, and other hardback material I have.

---

So your conclusion is nonsense. Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't know why they did that. I can guess, but that's all it would be.

---

I'm sure that they didn't do that; it's the much more likely explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I would say it is. You cannot remove the powers granted to the Commander-in-Chief without a constitutional change.

---

Unless, of course, those powers were never actually constitutionally granted ot the executive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The War Powers Act was vetoed by Nixon, yet congress did a veto override. I don't think a single president has treated it as law. Not even president Clinton.

---

The override of Nixon's veto just makes it a validly-enacted law. Hell, George W. Bush complied with it before sending troops into either Afghanistan or Iraq; his father did the same before sending troops into the Middle East in 1990. I'm not sure what other proof you'd need of a President treating that statute as law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I am one that reads the constitution carefully.

---

So explain where in Article II -- specifically -- the President's power to declare war can be found.

(This entire riff on your part is on par with your nonsensical arguments about the Necessary and Proper Clause a few weeks ago.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I remember that words over time change meaning, and the highest law of the land does not change because we choose to interpret the words differently.

---

But if the words aren't in the Constitution, you feel obliged to imply them -- except, of course, where it doesn't suit your view of things.

If Wild Cobra were not simply making it up as he went along, or claiming crackpot sources as authoritative, he would have been eager to reveal who those sources are, even if he didn't want to spend time excerpting them at length.

Since Wild Cobra frequently relies upon Wikipedia for his research, here's a tidbit that I found on Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

As to the Philadelphia Convention and the intent of the American founders, there was only one delegate who suggested giving the Executive the power to take offensive military action: Pierce Butler of South Carolina.[1] He suggested the president should be able to, but in practice would have the character not to do so without mass support. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, summed up the majority viewpoint saying he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and others voiced similar sentiments.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

Here's another source saying exactly the same thing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Fisher

The British model gave the king the absolute power to make war. The American framers repudiated that form of government because their study of history convinced them that executives go to war not for the national interest but to satisfy personal desires of glory, ambition, and fame. The resulting military adventures were disastrous to their countries, both in lives lost and treasures squandered. I have submitted to your subcommittee a number of my recent articles that elaborate on the lessons drawn from that history.[7]

At the Philadelphia Convention, only one delegate (Pierce Butler of South Carolina) was prepared to give the President the power to make war. He argued that the President “will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it.” Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, objected: “The Executive shd. be able to repel but not to commence war.” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.” George Mason of Virginia spoke “agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not <safely> to be trusted with it; . . . He was for clogging rather than facilitating war.”[8]

The debates at the Philadelphia Convention and the state ratification conventions underscore the principle that the President had certain defensive powers to repel sudden attacks but anything of an offensive nature (taking the country from a state of peace to a state of war) was reserved to Congress.

---

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/fis041008.htm

For what it's worth, Louis Fisher is a Specialist in Constitutional Law for the Law Library of the Library of Congress. His statements came in the context of a report provided to a subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. That report was delivered to the Committee on April 10, 2008. His ultimate conclusion is that Presidents have sought and obtained extra-Constitutional authority to engage American troops -- but that all such such efforts have been extra-Constitutional.

Wild Cobra lives in his own little world, impervious to reality. I still don't understand why people choose to continue arguing with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Wild Cobra lives in his own little world, impervious to reality. I still don't understand why people choose to continue arguing with him.

---

I do it for two reasons. First, it's an interesting exercise. More than that, I shudder at the thought that anyone might read the forum and actually believe some of the nonsensical views of constitutional law that Wild Cobra espouses; I certainly don't consider my responses to be authoritative, but I do try to offer a counterpoint grounded in actual principles of constitutional law. From that, people can decide for themselves what they think is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

If Wild Cobra were not simply making it up as he went along, or claiming crackpot sources as authoritative, he would have been eager to reveal who those sources are, even if he didn't want to spend time excerpting them at length.

---

Right now, it's my memory.

I'm not making it up. Read the written constitution and apply it to what the words of the time mean. I was trying to find good source material, still haven’t. For now, here's one:

Article I. Legislative Department

Start on page 324. You will note the founding fathers had different ideas. In the end, the written language agreed upon didn't put to rest an absolute answer. I would say that’s why is ambiguous. It allowed each to be happy that they could later argue their ideals.

Now in Article II, starting on page 460:

Quote:

---

In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for
the Court, said: ‘‘His duty and his power are purely military. As
commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of
the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and
to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass
and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile
country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the
United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of
this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws
beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.’’

---

Now on page 473:

Quote:

---

‘‘In 1787 the world was a far larger place, and the framers
probably had in mind attacks upon the United States. In the 20th
century, the world has grown much smaller. An attack on a country
far from our shores can impinge directly on the nation’s security.
In the SEATO treaty, for example, it is formally declared that
an armed attack against Viet Nam would endanger the peace and
security of the United States.’’

‘‘Under our Constitution it is the President who must decide
when an armed attack has occurred. He has also the constitutional
responsibility for determining what measures of defense are required
when the peace and safety of the United States are endangered.
If he considers that deployment of U.S. forces to South Viet
Nam is required, and that military measures against the source of
Communist aggression in North Viet Nam are necessary, he is constitutionally
empowered to take those measures.’’

Opponents of such expanded presidential powers have contended,
however, that the authority to initiate war was not divided
between the Executive and Congress but was vested exclusively in
Congress. The President had the duty and the power to repeal sudden
attacks and act in other emergencies, and in his role as Commander-
in-Chief he was empowered to direct the armed forces for
any purpose specified by Congress. 172 Though Congress asserted
itself in some respects, it never really managed to confront the
President’s power with any sort of effective limitation, until recently.

---

It then goes into the War Powers Act.

I haven't yet found the definitive reference for Commander-in-Chief powers, but the above two references are interesting reads, and I got caught up in them.

I ask again. Where does it say in the constitution that congress’ power to declare war is their power alone.

Now I will accept the “Declare War,” as in article I, to mean only congress has the power if you interpret it to include starting a war for any agreed reason by the people’s representatives. I will agree that the framers meant it to be that way, even though legally, the common law allows otherwise with the text of the constitution. Afterall, who authorized the slaughter of Indians. Congress rather than the president, right? I maintain that, in any capacity the president sees fit, to attack an entity is legal, as long as he faithfully sees it as part of protecting the USA. You see, Congress can start hostilities just because they want to steal a nations resources, with no reason for defensive purposes. They did it to steal Indian territory. If that's the will of the people, so be it. The president cannot under that interpretation. He must have a defensive reason. Even if others don’t agree with it. He has the power to use forces, but not for malicious reasons.

Time and time again, presidents have used force without the approval of congress. Each time, there was a reason in defense of our nation. Even Viet Nam, as lame as that one was.

The Constitution has over 470 pages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I will agree that the framers meant it to be that way, even though legally, the common law allows otherwise with the text of the constitution.

---

I'd think you're pretty much left to conclude that the Framers expressly rejected your argument, but that's just me and my authority.

I'm curious about your belief that common law somehow supersedes the Constitution on matters that the Constitution deals with expressly. If the Constitution is at odds with common law, is it your argument that the common law practices before the ratification of the Constitution would somehow support extra-constitutional conduct? Say, for instance, that the common law practice was that the executive's appointments for certain positions in government did not require confirmation by the legislative body -- would you argue that such a practice would allow an executive to simply disregard the express constitutional grant of congressional oversight to that matter?

Clearly, a common law practice that post-dates the Constitution but which is violative of constitutional principles is unconstitutional. Why on Earth would a common law practice that existed before the Constitution but which was not expressly adopted into the Constitution be not only authoritative but also conclusive of the powers possessed by any branch of government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I'd think you're pretty much left to conclude that the Framers expressly rejected your argument, but that's just me and my authority.

---

I say they left it ambiguous. Not rejected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I'm curious about your belief that common law somehow supersedes the Constitution on matters that the Constitution deals with expressly. If the Constitution is at odds with common law, is it your argument that the common law practices before the ratification of the Constitution would somehow support extra-constitutional conduct?

---

No. When they are at odds, the constitution clearly prevails. Thing is, they are not in conflict.

Again. Please tell me how the power that grants congress to declare law is exclusive to congress. My point is that since it wasn't a normal legislative function in common law, it had to be placed in the constitution. Declaration of war is a given power for the Commander-in-Chief, therefore was not required to be spelled out. If the founders wanted top remove such a known power of the period, they would have had to exclude it from the executive powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Clearly, a common law practice that post-dates the Constitution but which is violative of constitutional principles is unconstitutional. Why on Earth would a common law practice that existed before the Constitution but which was not expressly adopted into the Constitution be not only authoritative but also conclusive of the powers possessed by any branch of government?

---

There have been past court cases that relied on common law that were not part of US law and not addressed by constitution. It is accepted by the courts that past common law still applies, unless rescinded.

Again, show me how the power that grants congress to declare law is exclusive to congress. Where does the constitution say the power remains solely in congress.

:lmao

So there is nothing stopping the Supreme Court from declaring war.

Or me for that matter.

It's legal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I say they left it ambiguous. Not rejected.

---

Your argument was raised by a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. It was rebuffed by all other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution, as written, contains that rejection. I'm not sure what's ambiguous about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No. When they are at odds, the constitution clearly prevails. Thing is, they are not in conflict.

---

OK, John Yoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again. Please tell me how the power that grants congress to declare law is exclusive to congress.

---

I get that your argument is that the power is implied into the executive. But if that's true, then why can't you deal with the consequence of implied understandings of power and rights in that sort of constitutional structure. While I fundamentally disagree with your argument that an express grant of power is somehow a non-exclusive grant, the functional consequence of your argument must be that the Constitution does not always mean what it says -- that there are implied powers and rights that the Constitution recognizes. If that's true, then arguments about how the Supreme Court, for instance, interprets the Fourth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment (or how Congress applies the Necessary and Proper Clause) cannot be resolved solely by the text of the Constitution and must be understood in broader contexts -- both legally and historically.

Are you sure you want to go there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

My point is that since it wasn't a normal legislative function in common law, it had to be placed in the constitution. Declaration of war is a given power for the Commander-in-Chief, therefore was not required to be spelled out.

---

Except that the Framers debated that issue and, seemingly, concluded that such power is not a given of the commander-in-chief's position. In fact, it's exactly consistent with separation-of-powers notions to vest the right to declare war in the Congress while vesting the right to prosecute war in the executive. Certainly, there are exigent times that permit extreme departures from that structure, but even your own source material demonstrates that, historically, the executive's limited right to wage war has always been subject to legislative checks under our constitutional system of government. To conclude otherwise is, in essence, to vest the President with quasi-authoritarian power, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If the founders wanted top remove such a known power of the period, they would have had to exclude it from the executive powers.

---

Perhaps they believed themselves to be doing just that by expressly vesting the power in Congress. It's a dicey game to imply powers and rights from silence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There have been past court cases that relied on common law that were not part of US law and not addressed by constitution. It is accepted by the courts that past common law still applies, unless rescinded.

---

But never to undermine the policy determinations embodied in the Constitution. You're basically saying that because there was a common law recognition of an executive (though I'd argue that in the time we're considering, there was no real executive either and that the right that you speak of was vested in the monarch; obviously, the Constitution and all that it creates expressly rejected monarchical notions of power and one would think that resort to historical notions of monarchical power as a basis to assess Presidential power under our Constitution would be immediately suspect) power to wage war that nothing could undo that power absent an express disavowal of that power in the Constitution. I'll tell you that the Constitution redistributes various governmental powers among the co-equal branches of a non-monarchical government in a manner that is both express and definite; implying power to one branch by the failure to deny that branch that power is a dangerous game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, show me how the power that grants congress to declare law is exclusive to congress. Where does the constitution say the power remains solely in congress.

---

Is the power to raise armies exclusive to Congress? Surely the executive had that power at common law and nothing in the Constitution expressly forbids the executive from raising armies. I suppose then, the executive can raise armies, too?

If nothing else, carefully read the things that you quoted in your own post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: ‘‘His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and
to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of
this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.’’

---

What Chief Justice Taney recognizes is the executive's power to wage war once such a thing has been authorized -- the conduct of war requires directing the movements of forces and employing those forces in the manner necessary to win. Where war has been authorized, the commander in chief certainly has the power to invade other countries, too. But nothing in Taney's statement says anything about a Presidential power to unilaterally declare that war should be undertaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

‘‘In 1787 the world was a far larger place, and the framers probably had in mind attacks upon the United States. In the 20th century, the world has grown much smaller. An attack on a country far from our shores can impinge directly on the nation’s security.

In the SEATO treaty, for example, it is formally declared that an armed attack against Viet Nam would endanger the peace and security of the United States.’’

‘‘Under our Constitution it is the President who must decide when an armed attack has occurred. He has also the constitutional responsibility for determining what measures of defense are required when the peace and safety of the United States are endangered.
If he considers that deployment of U.S. forces to South Viet Nam is required, and that military measures against the source of Communist aggression in North Viet Nam are necessary, he is constitutionally empowered to take those measures.’’

Opponents of such expanded presidential powers have contended, however, that the authority to initiate war was not divided between the Executive and Congress but was vested exclusively in Congress. The President had the duty and the power to repeal sudden attacks and act in other emergencies, and in his role as Commander-in-Chief he was empowered to direct the armed forces for any purpose specified by Congress. 172 Though Congress asserted itself in some respects, it never really managed to confront the President’s power with any sort of effective limitation, until recently.

---

At best, I think this passage just confirms that the President may react defensively to aggressions that threaten national security, but that is a far cry from affirmative authority to declare war. At that the passage seems to me to come around to the notion that while the President may repel attacks and act in emergency situations by deploying the armed forces and while the President undoubtedly has the power to use forces as he or she sees fit in war, the ultimate power to declare war and to make troops available to wage war is a matter committed to Congress. I'm not sure that it helps your argument.

I bombed the economic questions. Other than those, I did well.

28/33