Reply With Quote
are which?
Already read it. I asked you to do the same. Have you read it?
There are not enoughYour the one trying to contradict wikipedia.in the world to express my feelings. I guess you consider wikipedia to be prima facie evidence.
are which?
Literalists, morons or both.
Not at all, but its right on this issue right off the bat, and you have yet to presnt anything other than brief and conclusory personal opinion backed by nothing. Even less than wikipedia...if you will.Already read it. I asked you to do the same. Have you read it?
There are not enough
The reason is you cant rely on anything for your take, other than your past flawed understanding.
Since when did you start using WC logic, chump?
Conceded in the first 4 paragraphs of the resolution:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/a...solution.shtml(c) The cons utional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the cir stances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the cir stances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Reporting after the fact is only allowed where...
REPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the cir stances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House
Notice there are no provisions that allow unilateral military action initiated by the executive branch in situations other than attack or imminent involvement of our forces.
This would rule out military action for HUMANITARIAN efforts.
Reading skills failing you much, chump?
now fix your hair.
Parker, that is not the cons ution, and congress cannot pass laws that deny the president his powers.
Except you already said that the provision that says the exec may declare war is t in the Cons ution. So if Congress passed a law stating that, how would it go against the Cons ution?
There was no reporting after the fact in this case. Everybody in the world knows this except you.
You don't even understand the simplest concepts here.
This is general schooling that goes back to my first point..I didnt address this case specifically...nice try on saving face though.
whether you admit it or not, you now understand that without either(1) prior agression against us or (2) threat of imminent conflict, then (3) exec branch must have congressional approval to take military action.
You should quit trying to save face if it means confusing others at this point, Chump. Let the truth prevail, even if it stings a lil.
Last edited by Parker2112; 03-27-2011 at 12:36 PM.
You thought you had a point, but you didn't even know that there was prior reporting to Congress before the Libya action. You have been kicked in the balls by your own ignorance.
Again.
reporting doesnt mean unless we have been attacked or there is imminent threat, ya dumb-sum- .
Left something out this time around, didn't you?reporting doesnt mean unless we have been attacked or there is imminent threat, ya dumb-sum- .
You make this so easy....
picking at words trying to make a scab bleed when your ing legs have been lopped off...hilarious...
your ego runs on high octane, chump.
They're your words.
Why did you leave them out the second time around?
You had them right the first time, even though you failed to actually understand them.
consider yourself dumped. Have a great sunday chump.
I figured you would have to run away at some point. You embarrassed yourself and you don't even know how you did it.
I'm thinking that the American people can figure out why on their own; I mean with the ruthlessly efficient machine that is Congress, they probably would have taken another couple of weeks to decide on the matter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
