^You speak authoritatively, as one who is well versed in this "ability".
Printable View
^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.
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 baseline bum
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
Then I hope those same 2/3rds who didn't know where it was had no opinion of the war...Quote:
Originally Posted by BradLohaus
Buck up, Mid-term elections are just around the corner, and you can go back to cherry-picking polls to you heart's content.Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
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.
For someone who takes such a ridiculously narrow view of Constitutional language in every other circumstance, this response makes you seem like a hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
To declare war is one of two Commander-in-Chief powers granted to congress.
Getting congressional approval is not required, but keeps everyone happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Sorry to differ. I disagree. It is a historical function of the title "Commander-in-Chief."Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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?
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
I don't know why they did that. I can guess, but that's all it would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
:lmao @ do your own research.
So your conclusion is nonsense. Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm sure that they didn't do that; it's the much more likely explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Unless, of course, those powers were never actually constitutionally granted ot the executive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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
So explain where in Article II -- specifically -- the President's power to declare war can be found.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
(This entire riff on your part is on par with your nonsensical arguments about the Necessary and Proper Clause a few weeks ago.).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_ClauseQuote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Here's another source saying exactly the same thing:
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/fis041008.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis Fisher
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.
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 MaNuMaNiAc
Right now, it's my memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
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:
Now on page 473: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.’’
It then goes into the War Powers Act.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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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?
I say they left it ambiguous. Not rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
No. When they are at odds, the constitution clearly prevails. Thing is, they are not in conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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!
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
OK, John Yoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Are you sure you want to go there?
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
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
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If nothing else, carefully read the things that you quoted in your own post:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra