Reply With Quote
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 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.
I agree. Most were easy, and even most the ones I was unsure of were easy by the process of elimination.
Then I hope those same 2/3rds who didn't know where it was had no opinion of the war...
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
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 cons ution also grants to congress.
I answered the one they were looking for simply because one is defined, the other isn't, in the cons ution. To understand it is also a presidential power required on to know more of the roles of each during the period the cons ution was written.
For someone who takes such a ridiculously narrow view of Cons utional language in every other cir stance, this response makes you seem like a hypocrite.
Article I, Section 8 of the Cons ution 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 cir stances (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.
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 le "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 Cons utional framers. Please post some of your research on this topic; I'd prefer a source other than the Cheney Ins ute 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 Cons ution 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 cons utional canon.
It also would mean that some legislation -- the War Powers Act, in particular -- is entirely uncons utional. That, again, would strike me as entirely unlikely.
Even more than that, you have taken an extreme leap from your strictly textualist view of Cons utional interpretation here; you're arguing that the express limits set out in the Cons ution 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 Cons utional interpretation. I mean, given your as-yet-unsupported view of common law and the implied powers associated with a positive cons utional 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.
I don't know why they did that. I can guess, but that's all it would be.
I would say it is. You cannot remove the powers granted to the Commander-in-Chief without a cons utional 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.
I am one that reads the cons ution 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.
@ do your own research.
So your conclusion is nonsense. Fair enough.
I'm sure that they didn't do that; it's the much more likely explanation.
Unless, of course, those powers were never actually cons utionally granted ot the executive.
The override of Nixon's veto just makes it a validly-enacted law. , 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.
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.).
But if the words aren't in the Cons ution, 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause
Here's another source saying exactly the same thing:
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/fis041008.htm
For what it's worth, Louis Fisher is a Specialist in Cons utional 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-Cons utional authority to engage American troops -- but that all such such efforts have been extra-Cons utional.
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 cons utional 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 cons utional law. From that, people can decide for themselves what they think is correct.
Right now, it's my memory.
I'm not making it up. Read the written cons ution 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: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 ins utions and laws
beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.’’
It then goes into the War Powers Act.‘‘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 Cons ution it is the President who must decide
when an armed attack has occurred. He has also the cons utional
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 cons utionally
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 cons ution 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 cons ution. 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 en y 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 Cons ution 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.
I'm curious about your belief that common law somehow supersedes the Cons ution on matters that the Cons ution deals with expressly. If the Cons ution is at odds with common law, is it your argument that the common law practices before the ratification of the Cons ution would somehow support extra-cons utional 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 cons utional grant of congressional oversight to that matter?
Clearly, a common law practice that post-dates the Cons ution but which is violative of cons utional principles is uncons utional. Why on Earth would a common law practice that existed before the Cons ution but which was not expressly adopted into the Cons ution be not only authoritative but also conclusive of the powers possessed by any branch of government?
I say they left it ambiguous. Not rejected.
No. When they are at odds, the cons ution 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 cons ution. 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 cons ution. 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 cons ution say the power remains solely in congress.
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 Cons utional Convention. It was rebuffed by all other delegates to the Cons utional Convention. The Cons ution, as written, contains that rejection. I'm not sure what's ambiguous about that.
OK, John Yoo.
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 cons utional 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 Cons ution does not always mean what it says -- that there are implied powers and rights that the Cons ution 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 Cons ution and must be understood in broader contexts -- both legally and historically.
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 cons utional system of government. To conclude otherwise is, in essence, to vest the President with quasi-authoritarian power, I think.
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.
But never to undermine the policy determinations embodied in the Cons ution. 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution would be immediately suspect) power to wage war that nothing could undo that power absent an express disavowal of that power in the Cons ution. I'll tell you that the Cons ution 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.
Is the power to raise armies exclusive to Congress? Surely the executive had that power at common law and nothing in the Cons ution 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:
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.
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
