Reply With Quote
I didn't read the entire post, but remember this. We do have treaties. Treaties are authorized under the cons ution and the 9th and 10th don't apply.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...tutional-view/
wakedafuggup material.by Michael Boldin
With military action taking place in Libya right now, the essential question must be asked: Is it even Cons utional? For those of you who don’t want to read more than a sentence or two, here’s the short answer. Absolutely not.
DELEGATED POWERS
The ninth and tenth amendments, while they didn’t add anything new, defined the Cons ution. In short, they tell us that the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it in the Cons ution…and nothing more. Everything else is either prohibited or retained by the states or people themselves.
What does this have to do with Libya? Well, whenever the federal government does anything, the first question should always be, “where in the Cons ution is the authority to do this?” What follows here is an answer regarding American bombs being dropped on Libya.
WHO DECIDES?
Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Cons ution has been regularly cited as justification for the President to act with a seemingly free reign in the realm of foreign policy – including the initiation of foreign wars. But, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Cons ution that lists the power to declare war, and this power is placed solely in the hands of Congress.
Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.” What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.
Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized.”
Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Cons ution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”
In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President’s authority:
“would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the cons ution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”James Madison warned us that the power of declaring war must be kept away from the executive branch when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
“The cons ution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”WORDS HAVE MEANING
If, like any legal do ent, the words of the Cons ution mean today just what they meant the moment it was signed, we must first look for the 18th Century meaning of the words used. Here’s a few common 18th-century definitions of the important words:
War: The exercise of violence against withstanders under a foreign command.
Declare: Expressing something before it is promised, decreed, or acted upon.
Invade: To attack a country; to make a hostile entrance
What does this all mean? Unless the country is being invaded, if congress does not declare war against another country, the president is cons utionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so. Pre-emptive strikes and undeclared offensive military expeditions are not powers delegated to the federal government in the Cons ution, and are, therefore, unlawful.
HOW IT APPLIES TODAY
Here’s the quick overview of how this all plays out:
Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.
- In Cons utional terms, the United States is currently at war with Libya.
- Libya is not invading the United States, nor has it threatened to do so.
- Congress has not declared war. Barack Obama did.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Cons ution is congress given the authority to change the cons ution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Cons utional violation. More on that in a future article, of course.
James Madison had something to say about such a plan when he wrote:
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” [emphasis added]War Powers resolution or no war powers resolution – without a Congressional declaration, the president is not authorized to start an offensive military campaign. Period.
The bottom line? By using US Military to begin hostilities with a foreign nation without a Congressional declaration of war, Barack Obama has committed a serious violation of the Cons ution. While he certainly is not the first to do so in regards to war powers, it’s high time that he becomes the last.
I didn't read the entire post, but remember this. We do have treaties. Treaties are authorized under the cons ution and the 9th and 10th don't apply.
ok...but seriously...
read the whole post.
Obama's actions by his own decree are uncons utional.
then ponder how a treaty with a foriegn nation can increase the powers of the executive branch as granted in the cons ution.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/
2. In what cir stances, if any, would the president have cons utional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Cons ution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his cons utional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Maybe when I have more time.
thanks.
This is proof to me that Obama is a front to interests much larger and more powerful than our democracy...interests that actually control our foriegn policy, and I believe those interests remain in control since the Bush admin or before.
It is a conspiracy.
btw...I knew he had made these statements, but I still appreciate the link.
Parker, others can attest that I disagree that only congress can declare war. When our cons ution was created, it was accepted that the Commander in Chief can declare war. The cons ution also grants that right to congress, without taking it away from the executive.
Now I completely disagree with these actions. However, I see president Obama within his right.
I'll stick with the instruction from the founding fathers over your ty hack opinions all day.
from the stuff you conveniently didnt read in the op:
teach yourself something WC. Youll be glad you did.Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.” What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.
Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized.”
Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Cons ution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”
In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President’s authority:
“would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the cons ution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”James Madison warned us that the power of declaring war must be kept away from the executive branch when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
“The cons ution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”
the bush admin ed you in the head, WC.
And he's yet to talk to the American people and tell us why. Almost a week later.
I don't mind a president who is a hypocrite, in fact, I defy anyone to show me a politician at any level that is not.
Let's just hope the guy actually has some sort of plan and isn't the feckless piece of lost-in-the-woods erudite crap that some are making him out to be.
Those are not the end-all-be-all instructions. The text of the cons ution and common law as known then are what matters. Our founding fathers often disagreed on several things. I will maintain my contention that since the cons ution did not remove the understood role of a commander in chief to declare war, that the power remains within the presidency, and since the president is the commander in chief, he can declare war.
But that's his most endearing quality... He is totally feckless!
How odd, then, that the war power is expressly given to Congress.How do you account for that?
you continue to rebel against truth, reality, and the American way.
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.
Cons utional 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 cons ution taken literally then you need to call for a cons utional 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.
True enough. Sucks though.
These changed Cons utional analysis how?
If enumerated powers are all negotiable, why even have a written cons ution?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
