http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/
its funny how these guys all vote allike. except Ron Paul.
who votes for the people/who votes for lobbys and special interests.
So you bring propaganda here...
When I got to the line "Votes Against Uncons utional Wars" it was clear this is a biased look. It is an opinion that the war is uncons utional. Not fact. Therefore, the rest of this can at best be treated as opinion.
Why should we care about something that is so blatantly biased?
WC the war is uncons utional. Show me where in the cons ution we're allowed to go to war for UN resolutions.
Thanks in advance, and good luck on that one.
I think in the cons ution (Article 1 section 8) only congress has the power to declare war, and that was never done. So any war declared not by congress would be uncons utional.
the president has the power to act independently only in the event of an immenent attack(presumeably nuclear). The War Powers Act. If there is no immenent threat then congress is supposed to give the yeah or nay.
Congress did give the yea. If it's illegal why didn't anyone take it to court?
THE PRESIDENT'S CONS UTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad cons utional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has cons utional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
September 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad cons utional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the cons utional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
guess using "the War Powers Resolution" and "the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001" it was cons utional as congress voted to override the need to declare war by congress.
Ryvin that was given for our invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq we went for UN resolutions, and it was not this act that gave the president the power to do so. It was the Bush Doctrine, and it's uncons utional.
Doesn't matter that congress said yea or nay, they do that all the time for uncons utional . It's a fact, the Bush doctrine itself is uncons utional. There was no amendment made to the cons ution allowing the president the authority without a declaration to go to war.
Thanks, just tried to look up what was mentioned, and it looks like it applied.
The cons ution does not spell out anything explicitly about wars. It does say that congress declares war, but it does not say a war must be declared either.
I'm not going to bother looking it over. Since there isn't a limitation on this type of war we are engaged in, it is cons utional.
Why are you guys so ignorant of words? Is it because you lemmings are told it is uncons utional, by liberal pundits knowing their pet lemmings have a 3rd grade understanding of words?
You are being used! They know better, or else the war would in fact be found uncons utional. You really think we list our judicial authority?
Oh that's right, you pet lemmings believe that too, because that is what you were told.
Please... Words have meanings... don't use words you don't understand.
From my 1906 dictionary:
Where does the definition anywhere imply a declaration is a type or order or permission. Don't like the definition from my 1906 dictionary? From wiktionary:Declare, v.t.
To make clear, to declare;
1) To clear; to free from obscurity; to ,make plain.
2) To make known; to tell explicitly; to manifest plainly by words.
3) To assert positively; to avow; to state in an unmistakable manner.
4) To announce the existence of; as; to declare that a war exists.
5) To make an unreserved statement concerning, as of goods liable to duty, or of taxes due.
6) In law, to state in a solemn manner before witness
Declare, v.i.
1) To make a declaration; to proclaim or avow some opinion or resolution; to make known explicitly some determination; with for or against.
2) In law, to recite the cause of complaint against the defendant.
Again, where does it say a declaration is either permission or an order.to declare (third-person singular simple present declares, present participle declaring, simple past declared, past participle declared)
1. (intransitive): To make a declaration.
2. (intransitive): To announce one’s support, choice, opinion, etc.
3. (intransitive), (cricket): For the captain of the batting side to announce the innings complete even though all batsmen have not been dismissed.
4. (transitive): To announce something formally or officially.
5. (transitive): To affirm or state something emphatically.
6. (transitive), (cricket): To declare (an innings) closed.
Think about it. When the cons ution was make, we didn't have a media like today. If we went to war, it was congresses responsibility to declare it to the people.
Article: 1
Section 8
Powers of Congress:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
There is no such power granted to the Executive branch. There was a bill on the table to declare war on Iraq, Congress voted against it. They called it obsolete. This war, like Vietnam is uncons utional. This isn't a new thing, our government does uncons utional all the time.
Yes, it's some liberal democrat media pundits who tell me it's uncons utional.
You know, like those guys, George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul....... democrat liberals.....
George Will isn't wrong often, but if he says it's uncons utional, then he is wrong too.
The powers of "The Commander in Chief" need not be specified in the cons ution. The le holds the powers.
Ok I think you just showed you inep ude regarding history and the power of les..... Give me a break and think about the "Rule of Law".
"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."
James Madison
Voting Record? What kind of liberal lefty pot smoking rhetoric is that?
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Rule of law... The cons ution is the highest law. The three branches are approximately equal, different, and are divided for the most part whereas they are not suppose to interfere with each other past reasonable differences of right and wrong. Laws beneath the cons ution only apply to the president when they do not abdicate the president's cons utional powers. Remember, the president is also the Executor of Law.
Still, there is no way to show the war as uncons utional. Remember also, congress did give their blessings for a broad authority. If you maintain the president doesn't have such powers himself, remember that fact.
Context? Opinion or fact? Looks like political positioning to me, not a legal fact. Funny how I should have found multiple links with it in context, but I couldn't. You should properly quote items so they can be found. There should be no commas in the text:
Now I think you are wrong about this being a Madison quote, rather this I believe is a response to Madison. During this period, Madison wrote under the pseudonym "Pubius." It was James Warren who wrote under the name "Helvidius Priscus." These words are found in his fourth letter dated 9/14/1793. The first of the letters using the name Helvidius talk about both Madison and Jefferson. I think this Warren was an anti-federalist, although these letters were written about 10 years after the federalist/anti-federalist letters.Every just view that can be taken of this subject admonishes the public of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received and the fundamental doctrine of the cons ution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right in any case to decide the question whether there is or is not cause for declaring war: that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the cons ution has deemed requisite or proper: and that for such more than for any other contingency, this right was specially given to the executive.
Can you show me where this is a Madison opinion, or is it a Warren opinion?
Now remember that the cons ution both grants and regulates power. I see no way it regulates the presidents war powers. While you try to come up with a reasonable answer to the contrary, chew on these definitions:
executive, a.
Having the quality of executing or performing; as, executive power or authority; and executive officer. Hence, in government, executive is used in distinction from legislative and judicial. The body that deliberates and enacts laws, is the legislative; the body that judges, or applies the laws to particular cases, is judicial; the body or person who carries the laws into effect, or superintends the enforcement of them, is executive.See how the signing statements are also legitimate?superintend, v.t.
To have or exercise the charge and oversight of; to oversee with the power of direction: to take care of or direct with authority; to control; to regulate; to supervise.
I am right on these points, otherwise the president would long ago been impeached!
anyone see the cavs-celts game tonight?
Obama gets a semi pass on his voting record cause IMO new senators and or congresspeople vote strong party lines their first years in due to party influence.
WC = Bush Apologists.................
It is a Madison quote....
The Cons ution clearly states the declaration of war is a power of congress and only a power of congress. This was done this way because all the founders agreed that war is most likely achieved when the power is given to that of the executive branch. I'm tired, I'm drunk, I'm pissed......
You go google it.
Recent expansion of the executive branch makes it possible. It's not quite uncons utional because the cons ution doesn't forbid or grant exclusivity to war declaration. The cons ution doesn't provide for an air force or central banking system, but it doesn't forbid them.
Lots of interpretations. It doesn't provide for political parties. George Washington despised them. Yet would the founding fathers be disgusted with present America? Maybe.
To make such a statement shows you know nothing of me.
I have supported president Bush when I thought he was right, and brought up points I thought he was wrong of. Just because I defend him of the lies people like to spew doesn't make me an appologist. I don't defend him when he's wrong.
Not from what I read. You source could be wrong.
How hard headed are you?
Did you read the definition of "declare?"
Yes, to a point. It was discussed that such power makes one hungry and abusive. Still, you have to take the cons ution as written, not as one of more of the federalists or anti-federalists wanted it.
You cannot place your personal agenda into it like activist judges do.
I have researched it. I came up with it coming from James Warren letter, the fourth of a series using the alias "Helvidius."
Why, because everything I say is rational, and you cannot factually support your position against mine?
Since when did conservatives believe in a cons ution that grows?
all of congress is responsible for green lighting this war, except those who voted against it. congress was easily duped by what has been explained as "deliberately misleading" evidence. this evidence came from the oval office. just ask colin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
