Obama’s War on Libya: A Constitutional View

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

These changed Constitutional analysis how?

---

The viability of the full faith and credit clause dealing with interstate trade and federalsim for starters.

I would get rid of the senate and use current transporation systems and the like to base a constitutional framework for districting.

its pretty damn obviousl that jurists and lawmakers for well over 100 years have gone from interpreting reality of the document to intent.

its shit like this thats why.

Jet propulsion and mass manufacturing has a pretty big effect on war.

i could go on.

Jules Verne had not even written anything by then. They had no clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

If enumerated powers are all negotiable, why even have a written constitution?

---

The constitution has a process written into it to amend and alter it.

It is negotiable. Always has been. Its why the bill of rights was not in it when it first got ratified.

I'm familiar with the amendment process, profe.

Uhm yeah, President doesn't have the right to declare war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I'm familiar with the amendment process, profe.

---

Sorry.

I just am very past the notion that our system of government works especially as written.

Now we just need a baby boomer to come in and tell me that if I do not like then i can just leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Eh, Congress punted its war power to the President in 73. All the POTUS has to do is tell Congress what he's doing a couple of days before the bombs start dropping and ask it for actual permission within 60 days.

---

Congress does not have the power to "punt" new powers to the executive branch. :lmao

The Constitution must be amended. Which doesnt happen by simple majority. You know this, you just accept what you've been handed by the MS.

Our country's ruin happens one "meh,..." at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Constitutional literalists are so adorable. My fave was the GOP speaker reading it before the 112th while he was of the party of Reagan whose AG thrashed it.

If you want the constitution taken literally then you need to call for a constitutional convention so we can actually get one thats not written on the basis of a population over 100 times smaller than it is now

So it can take into consideration things like electric light and independent propulsion systems.

The only things that the founding fathers claimed to be inalienable were your natural rights.

The division of powers and the VA plan and all that was a big compromise based on what people wanted 250 years ago. Thus it was called the great compromise.

---

how does population affect this issue in the least?

Answer: it doesnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

The viability of the full faith and credit clause dealing with interstate trade and federalsim for starters.

I would get rid of the senate and use current transporation systems and the like to base a constitutional framework for districting.

its pretty damn obviousl that jurists and lawmakers for well over 100 years have gone from interpreting reality of the document to intent.

its shit like this thats why.

Jet propulsion and mass manufacturing has a pretty big effect on war.

i could go on.

Jules Verne had not even written anything by then. They had no clue.

---

but to reiterate...these dont have any affect on the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

The constitution has a process written into it to amend and alter it.

It is negotiable. Always has been. Its why the bill of rights was not in it when it first got ratified.

---

link to the amendment process? link to the amendment that shifted power to declare war? link to just how hard it is to amend the constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Congress does not have the power to "punt" new powers to the executive branch.

---

Except they did.

Almost 40 years ago.

Funny thing is that Nixon vetoed it because it actually put limits on Presidential power -- but you didn't realize that, did you?

No, you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Except they did.

Almost 40 years ago.

Funny thing is that Nixon vetoed it because it actually put limits on Presidential power -- but you didn't realize that, did you?

No, you didn't.

---

Your claim for executive authority under the war powers resolution (I presume) fails completely.

Quote:

---

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

How odd, then, that the war power is expressly given to Congress.How do you account for that?

---

It say that congress shall have power to declare war. It doesn't say exclusively.

and you dont know the war powers res would withstand a constitutional challenge either...it hasnt been tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Your claim for executive authority under the war powers resolution (I presume) fails completely.

---

Quote:

---

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

---

Considering it attempts to limit that the president cannot declare war without congressional approval, my contention stands that the Commander in Chief already has that power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Your claim for executive authority under the war powers resolution (I presume) fails completely.

---

You should actually read the resolution. You fail repeatedly by misinterpreting third hand explanations -- like your declaring it executive authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You should actually read the resolution. You fail repeatedly by misinterpreting third hand explanations -- like your declaring it executive authority.

---

your interp? and please cite in the resolution to support your position

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

your interp? and please cite in the resolution to support your position

---

You already have a link to it.

Read it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand.

WC, care to provide any proof that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presiden to be able to declare war, in spite of the numerous Founding Fathers who were against that very notion?

Tell me, does the President also have the right to try criminals? It doesn't specifically say he can't, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You already have a link to it.

Read it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand.

---

Someone has already told you what it says, and you have taken their hand pretty readily.

If you really want to know, youll read the damn thing. Your the one trying to contradict wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC, care to provide any proof that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presiden to be able to declare war, in spite of the numerous Founding Fathers who were against that very notion?

Tell me, does the President also have the right to try criminals? It doesn't specifically say he can't, after all.

---

You are twisting my words.

It was how things worked at the time, and the constitution didn't change it. If they agreed to take away that option of The Commander in Chief, they would have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You are twisting my words.

It was how things worked at the time, and the constitution didn't change it. If they agreed to take away that option of The Commander in Chief, they would have.

---

Please give evidence that was "how things worked at the time", and explain why numerous Founding Fathers, as evidenced up thread, were completely against having the executive be able to declare war, instead leaving it to the people.

Feel free to cite any court precedent or legal theories that back you up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Please give evidence that was "how things worked at the time", and explain why numerous Founding Fathers, as evidenced up thread, were completely against having the executive be able to declare war, instead leaving it to the people.

Feel free to cite any court precedent or legal theories that back you up.

---

You ask a lot there. I don't even know where to find it any more. I'm heading to work in a few minutes. If you have the ambition, search for related material with key phrases "declare war," "18th (or 17th) century," and "commander in chief." You will find it commonly accepted that during the mid 1700's, the commander in chief had such powers associated with that title. Make sure you use period accounts. Not modern changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Sorry.

I just am very past the notion that our system of government works especially as written.

---

That's the received wisdom. Not everyone who disagrees with it is necessarily a literalist or a moron.

(Admittedly, many are.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You ask a lot there. I don't even know where to find it any more. I'm heading to work in a few minutes. If you have the ambition, search for related material with key phrases "declare war," "18th (or 17th) century," and "commander in chief." You will find it commonly accepted that during the mid 1700's, the commander in chief had such powers associated with that title. Make sure you use period accounts. Not modern changes.

---

For America, or other countries? Because, ya know, America explicitly created checks and balances to limit the powers if the gov, especially the executive, to prevent tyranny.

So saying "they did it in other places" has no bearing here. And why would so many Founding Fathers specifically state reasons for not allowing the executive to declare war?