Reply With Quote
The cons ution 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.
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 cons utional framework for districting.
its pretty damn obviousl that jurists and lawmakers for well over 100 years have gone from interpreting reality of the do ent to intent.
its 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.
The cons ution 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.
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.
Congress does not have the power to "punt" new powers to the executive branch.
The Cons ution 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.
Last edited by Parker2112; 03-26-2011 at 08:13 PM.
how does population affect this issue in the least?
Answer: it doesnt.
but to reiterate...these dont have any affect on the issue at hand.
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 cons ution?
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.
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.
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 cons utional challenge either...it hasnt been tried.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
You are twisting my words.
It was how things worked at the time, and the cons ution 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.
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 le. Make sure you use period accounts. Not modern changes.
That's the received wisdom. Not everyone who disagrees with it is necessarily a literalist or a moron.
(Admittedly, many are.)
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
