impeachment requires a different standard. i know you have BDS but it doesn't apply to this discussion.
Lorien, Ron Paul's point was that a situation like Iran requires Congressional consultation. He himself admitted during the debate that if there was an imminent threat, the President would be justified in acting without checking with Congress, if time was such a factor. His point was that a situation like Iran, which is what they were eluding to in the original question posed, would almost certainly require Congressional approval, unless somehow Iran posed an imminent threat to our society. Guiliani went off on a tangent about 9/11, distracting from the original idea, but what Dr. Paul was saying is that in a situation with a country like Iran, we need to go to Congress for any military action, short of waking up one day and finding Iran has an ICBM pointed at us or something similar.
Commander and chief gives the power to control on the battle field, not to select the battle field. Selecting the battle field would be declaring war, congresses power. I don't see how anyone could even try to interpret it that way as he does not have those powers under the constitution. You could also try to say he's above all laws, he is a king, it doesn't make it constitutionally legal. The intent was to try to force the president to adhere a bit more closely to the law of the land. Laying out details that must be followed by the president. Congress however can not give up power to anyone, in the war powers act they pretty much are giving up powers and giving them to the president in hopes that the president would adhere closer to the constitution. IMHO this should never have been done, nor is it legal under the constitution. I'm sure you'll disagree. To me it's like putting restrictions on gun ownership, any restriction IMHO is against the constitution. In the above case however it goes even further as congress is giving up a power and allowing the president a free pass for a set amount of time. I wont disagree with a beef about why Clinton did what he did. That however has nothing to do with constitutionality of a given power. Honest or how I see it, both sides dishonest, but I think we see that part the same way just a slight different view I take it seriously as I take the constituion seriously and in this case I see Paul being correct in the matter. One would think that makes Paul even further correct
You sure have an interesting perspective on things. I think Ron Paul is exciting people because he speaks the truth. Not only on the war in Iraq but also our civil liberties. I'll tell you what, I have no fear of terrorists from Iraq. My fear is from terrorists from our own government. These are the people who are a real danger to the average American. It's time for Americans to have the civil liberties we deserve to have.
We don't have a congress here in the UK and one thing puzzles me about the US. Maybe one of our American DP fans can help. Why is it that the President can veto congress? Is there any point having a congress if he can just veto them?
AGS, Congress can override a Presidential veto with 2/3rds majority. The idea is that Congress can pass a law with a simple majority, but they need to get 2/3rds majority to override a President's wishes. It goes way back to Robespierre in France and a system of checks and balances. The general theory is that by splitting power between different groups, all with different powers, you further eliminate the chance for tyranny and totalitarianism. This is also why you hear a lot of talk about "unconstitutionality" in America; this system of checks and balances is established by the Constitution, among other things, and many Americans believe that once you start granting additional powers or eliminating checks and balances, the chance for dictatorship increases dramatically. http://missmax.com/8th_grade/check_balances.jpg That oughta help explain it better.
The idea is to make it difficult for new laws to be passed. That may seem counter intuitive but I think the system is designed specifically so it's hard to make new laws. It should be hard, if you think about it. This keeps situations like one group coming into power and messing things up too easily from happening. The whole idea of checks & balances. Anyway if you get a high enough amount of support in Congress you can over ride the president's veto. I believe it is a 2/3 majority that is required but I may be wrong on that.
No takers? Guerilla claims he has refuted such, but I don't see it. Lots of deflection, attempts to change the subject, distort, twist, but the bottom line remains, RP was wrong and his maniacal behavior on stage put him in yet another position to be owned again.
Yet Gtech you have been unable to prove where someone else has this power other than congress. This is a power congress can not give away, not hard to see with it being that case that only congress has this power.. It has been refuted, you are the one who has yet to prove otherwise.
The constitution doesn't have to say that something cannot be done. It enumerates powers. If they aren't given, they aren't powers of that branch of government. I know it's inconvenient for the war profiteers, but George Bush cannot do just anything he wants.
GTech, I've got you off my ban list. You seem to have been more reasonable lately, so I'll try and interact with you again Some of the other people will remain on it though. To answer what you were saying: You can deduce whether the government has the power to do something based on what the Constitution grants them to do. The 10th amendment, besides upholding states' rights, also makes clear that the federal government has only the powers granted to it explicitly, with one exception. The exception to this rule is the Necessary and Proper clause, which also in Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the implied power to make laws as necessary for the people. So go through the Constitution, and find me one instance that allows the President to act militarily. There is not. He is Commander-in-Chief of the military, but that explains his role in commanding and leading the army, it does not authorize him to act militarily. The only text in the Constitution authorizing the use of force is the delegation to Congress of the power to declare war and to grant Letters of Marque, so aside from that, and its extension via the War Powers Act, the President MUST consult Congress to act militarily. As others have stated, the Constitution is more of a "you can do this and that and this, but anything else, you cannot" rather than a "you can't do this or that". It grants powers, rather than prohibits them. This is intentional to limit the power of the federal government.
Sorry Briant, deflection. Let's refer to the Constitution, once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress In a sentence: Congress shall have power to declare war. It doesn't say "Congress MUST declare war." It simply states they have the power to.
Anyone deflecting or being dishonest is you. Post your reference that gives anyone other than congress this power. Post where it's ok for congress to give away this power. This power is exclusive of congress and can not be given away. That is not deflecting at all, you might want to learn that definition as well.
Yea, Congress is granted the power to declare war. I agree with you there. You are trying to make the suggestion that Congress doesn't need to declare war to act militarily, but again, that is not the intention of the Constitution. The Constitution dictates what our government can do. "Congress, you are permitted to declare war". I can't see how you are extending that to "Congress, you don't need to declare war to act militarily." By granting Congress a power, the Constitution is defining by which methods the government can act in that manner; in this case, the way in which our government can attack other governments and outside groups. It is making clear that it may declare war through Congress to act militarily. Aside from that, no other power is granted.
omg, thanks. I try to give in return what I receive. This is an interesting point, but I don't raise this as an issue. I don't argue against it either. I'm simply comparing what RP said to the Constitution. Anyone that *honestly* looks at what he says, and compares it to the Constitution, can see this point. They may not like the point, but it's no less what RP said, compared to the Constitution. I invite anyone here to counter the Constitution and post a link to the Article/Section, as I have. So far, there have been no takers. That offer is still open and would sure clear things up.
In order to disprove it Gtech you need to show where some other government form has this power. If you can not you have been totally owned, just admit to it
If they don't declare war then what are they doing? Delegating the responsibility to Bush? They cannot do that. The do not have the power to delegate the power to declare war (or endless hostilities) to George Bush. They have this power: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html And they need to use it to suppress this insurrection GB is making.
Thank you! This is the point I was trying to make. Now let's review what RP said: source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1191...googlenews_wsj Note the bold part. This is incorrect. Congress has the power to declare war. If anyone can show in the Constitution where "You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war," please post it. So far, no one seems to know where that is coming from. As I've illustrated, several times, the only thing the Constitution says in this regard is, that Congress has the power to declare war.