Got me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Printable View
Got me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The whole point of the Constitution was to limit the powers of each branch. So it doesn't matter if it was an "assumed" function elsewhere for the CiC/king; the founders thought it gave the executive too much power, so they deliberately placed it in the hands of the people to go to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's spelled out in numerous areas. For the umpteenth time, canyou find anyone willing to back your assertion up?
Sure, I'll have one. Is it like a Black Cow?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What are you not getting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton
I would say otherwise because of the history, but we disagree there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
If you are not willing to show me wrong by the method I ask, then maybe you should stop wasting your time.
I don't need to back up my assertion past pointing out the understanding of the time frame. Past that, it is for those of you who disagree to prove me wrong. If you are not willing to show my understanding of the CiC role in history is incorrect, then please stop wasting our time.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I get that. He believed what he wrote. However, the federalist papers are a guideline with limitations. How many times must I repeat these points? Not all things discussed were put into the constitution. The CiC's understood power to declare war was not limited in Article II.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
What don't you get?
Again, if you cannot show my historical interpretation of the CiC role is wrong, please stop wasting our time.
Let me get this straight: you're saying that your "historical interpretation" is right and that the Federalist No. 69 - historical proof written by a framer that directly refutes your interpretation - is wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No, I'm saying that not everything in the Federalist papers made it to be incorporated as part of the constitution. My contention is that in the end, if they intended to remove that understood role of a CiC, then they would have stated so in Article II.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
You realize the Federalist Papers are authoritative interpretations of the Constitution, right? Do you have any reason for ignoring No. 69 other than "it's not in the text?"
By your logic, the President should be able to set a federal income tax. Does that sound right to you?
What difference does it make what the CiC did in OTHER countries? OUR CiC was deliberately denied that power, in order to make us DIFFERENT from what the commonly understood role was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What about that aren't you getting?
Honestly WC, your logic is laughable. "I said X exists, and if you can't prove it doesn't exist, then I win."
What more can we do? We've proven that SCOTUS disagrees with you, and the Founding Fathers who helped WRITE THE CONSTITUTION disagree with you. What more is left to disprove?Quote:
Again, if you cannot show my historical interpretation of the CiC role is wrong, please stop wasting our time.
Do you want us to resurrect the Founders, bring them to your doorstep, and have a chat about it over biscuits and tea?
I'll tell you what. You guys are right. The Federalist #69 really is the key. Don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I'm getting senile. Maybe I was just having too much fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Yeesh WC, it's like pulling teeth getting you to change your mind. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Enjoy the victory while you can. It doesn't happen very often.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
lol victory
I want to thank you guys on setting me strait on this issue. I really hated supporting Obama on this one.
You're welcome. :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"collective self-defense" as a way around Congressional authorization.
Tim Kaine to James Mattis:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3900...asses-Congress
Welcome to the era of the Imperial Presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
It was shitty when Obama asserted that kind of thing, and now hopefully Democrats will wake up to the dangers of being too deferential to presidential powers. Once we get back in that office we will need to limit that.
The dangers of having an omnipotent executive will be fresh on everybody's mind. It will be our best shot in a generation.
"we will need to limit that".
Constitutional issue will got to SCOTUS, and lose 5-4 (over and over and over and over)
boutons_bot
Give up hope, whine hole, AmeriKKKa is OVA (for the non-oligarchy)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
GOP (with the decisive help of a few Democrats) tramples the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to prevent debate on US involvement in the war in Yemen:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ting-yemen-warQuote:
In an odd spectacle, representatives went back and forth between speaking about wolves, who kill other animals, to the Saudi monarchy, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people – mostly civilians including children – and pushed 14 million people to the brink of starvation.
The Republicans had hijacked the “Manage our Wolves Act” – a bad but unrelated piece of legislation – to pass a rule that would prohibit the House from debating H Res 138, introduced by Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California. The latter resolution would give the president 30 days to get the US military out of the war in Yemen.