That's disingenuous. The 9-11 report indicates quite clearly that the government knew about the Al Queda terror threat and plane jacking and did nothing about it. Everything since has been reactionary, and in some cases, totally without merit. Ironic that you would post a story that ends in diplomatic, not military victory.
How is this so difficult to understand, it's sad truthfully. Congress was given a power, they can not give this power to anyone else, therefore they and they alone have this power. The founding fathers seperated powers for a reason, the president does not have almighty powers to attack anyone he feels fit. He is able to lead the national army, to repel attacks, not to choose the battlefield. Nobody still can show where the president has this power, the lame attempt to discredit comes from the fact the constitution does not specifically state 'only' even though it's a given as powers given to congress are congress's powers and theirs alone. They can not share, give away or anything else to these powers. Yet someone will still try to twist this, absolutely unreal. There is no case here to say anyone other than congress has the power, truthfully makes me sick to my stomach seeing someone claim otherwise as it shows just how little someone knows of the constitution. Next we have the war powers act which has yet to be ruled upon in any manner at the supreme court level. Who knows it might never be. To use this as the end all of why someone else has power though doesn't equate as you first have to look at what the constitution allows, not what an act after the fact allows. An act does not over rule the constitution. It's pretty obvious to me here, on one side you have those who put the constitution above all, on the others 'sides' you have the left and the right who pick and choose depending on how 'the wind blows' as somone here loves to put it. Now the wind is blowing to say congress doesn't have this almighty power, but if the left were in charge the wind would blow the other way. This makes both the left and the right nothing more than hypocrites who use the current political climate to their advantage, in other words opportunists. You have the middle which at this point is Paul who doesn't care how the climate is, he goes back to that little peice of paper that helped this country become the great land that it is. The US constitution.. To me the choice is simple, not only should the constitution trump all, but those who support it should as well, those who do not change their position due to political climate also shows me a bit more integrity than most politicians. The right wing using so much energy to discredit Paul is making him more powerful, making his points more valid, overall helping him. My question now is why do you fear him so much? You must see something and have something to worry about, perhaps you see his message being accepted more and more weekly that you spend so much more time trying to discredit him. If he had no momentum or chance afterall there would be no point in going after him now would there?...
It seems like a disconcerting number of people just want an alpha dog to follow around. He's not really an alpha dog so much as he is a alpha puppet, but he serves the purpose. It is sad
Wow. Stunning. So your argument is that the power of presidency extends to our borders and no further and that each instance of a president using his authority under the act is unconstitutional? Really? Seriously. Listen to yourself Grim: First you moan about separation of powers; then you suggest that the congress and president have to get permission from the courts to use their powers. The three branches are equal, no one holds sway over any other. Acts define powers how used. President is the commander in chief; congress holds the purse strings. That is your separation right there. I'm not sure what more you want. If you wish to start a case for the courts challenging war powers act, no one stops you. I'm not sure how hard it'd get. But it'd be a real hoot, that's for sure.
Imminent, I would define, as an event that is highly probable to occur, and either now or very near in the future. Imminent would be how I would describe our knowledge of the hijackers prior to 9/11. We were aware of a threat within our country and could have acted in the best interest of the national security of the United States. We knew these men were motivated to inflict harm on our country, had the means to do so, and were in a position (in America) to inflict this harm. I don't think the term applies to Iran, for the same reasons. Imminent does not describe a country that is just barely beginning to explore nuclear technology. Imminent does not describe a country, that according to the IAEA, is not near capable of producing weapons as the USA is suggesting. Imminent does not describe a country half the world away, that even if they were to develop nuclear weapons technology, has no means with which to attack our country. North Korea, which is much further along in their nuclear program, had their huge failure last year. Imminent does not describe the possibility that even if they could develop nuclear weapons, they would sell these to terrorists who would be able to use them in the United States. Given that any support of terrorism is pretty much exclusively local to the Middle East, I don't think there is an imminent threat of that, EVEN if you get past the previously-mentioned list of hypotheticals. Also, if you want to look at it from a different angle, how about from the other side. We (the USA) have sponsored the toppling of their government in the past, have supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. We have questionable ties to terrorist groups in the Middle East, such as the one that continues to assassinate ranking Iranian military officials and politicians (forgive me, forgot their name). We have nuclear weapons, thousands in fact, and we have been discussing the possibility of war with Iran quite publicly. If you want to turn it around, it would appear that we are an imminent threat to Iran's sovereignty. So yea, above is my definition of imminent, and by no stretch of the imagination do I believe it applies to Iran. EDIT: To respond to the post right above me directed at Grim..as I've quoted from the War Powers Act quite extensively, short of an imminent threat, the President needs congressional AUTHORIZATION to use military force. He doesn't need to just tell them, he needs AUTHORIZATION. It is not as simple as one's got the guns, the other has the wallets, he needs their approval through authorization (such as the 2002 authorization for Iraq) to use the military. Constitutionality of the War Powers Act aside, this is clear as day within the text of the legislation.
Did I say that? Not choose the battlefield as in not able to simply start a war w/o imminent threat. This phrase is used by many scholars of the constitution, never was it intended 'by me at least' to state not outside of the borders of the US. Gladly. I suggested they have to get permission from the courts? Seriously? I dont' remember saying that, care to show me where I state this? If I did I can assure you I either mistyped or you took it incorrectly. The act allows for the president to have more power than originally granted under the constitution. The seperation is congress not only funds, but is holds the power to declare war, the president then leads the armies, that is the seperation not congress simply holding the purse strings. Some love to quote acts and laws put in place AFTER the constitution was written, I wonder why that is. Many actually would like to, just because something doesn't get anywhere in the courts doesn't = it being constitutional now does it? But I guess when things are put into place that are not what the founding fathers intended we should just sweep it under the rug.
Anyone had any luck? I see lots of continued distorting, twisting, opinions, deflection, topic changing, but I'm still left wondering how a third tier candidate can invoke the Constitution on something that doesn't exist in it, and still run on the platform. Oh well, I guess opinions, for some, are more important than the facts.
Yet again first you need to show where someone else has this power Since you can't do that I guess you should wear a sign, something that says owned perhaps.
Are you done yet? Find me in the Constitution where it says that Congress or any other branch of the government has the authority to use the military aside from declaring war. Neither of us is going to be able to end this argument, because the Constitution is very vague on the subject. So yes, any debate will be very much based in interpretation and opinion. It's like the debate over God; you say prove he doesn't exist, I say prove he does. It's just a cyclical argument that will never end. So what's left to do? Well...Acts of Congress clarify the Constitution into more applicable terms, so let's go there.... The War Powers Act clarifies the power to declare war, and explains the situations where military action is permissible. Did you miss the last 20 posts or so explaining this situation? It describes that the only times military action is permissible is a declaration of war, an authorization by Congress, or a national emergency. It also allows for immediate action if there is a time-critical event and there is not time to consult Congress -- nearly everyone agrees on this, including Ron Paul. So what point exactly are you trying to make? The Constitution is vague on the topic, War Powers Act clarifies it. It basically says what Ron Paul answered to the debate question, that we need Congressional approval to go to war. What are you contending?
I suppose I am. I really thought someone might know where in the Constitution it says that Congress must declare war, before going to war. I can garner from the deflection, topic changes, red herrings, avoidance and other tactics that it simply does not exist in our Constitution. It would appear, that one man's honor is placed above the Constitution in this example. Quite an observation. I'll check back later to see if anyone has found the Article/Section.
Again, what point are you trying to make here by pointing out that said text is not in the Constitution? Ron Paul contended that following our Constitution means that we need Congressional approval to go to war and use military action. The War Powers Act backs up this claim, by requiring almost 100% of the time that Congress approve any military action. The War Powers Act technically isn't the same as the Constitution, but is an extension and clarification of the text of the Constitution. So while technically following our Constitution doesn't explicitly state this exact claim, laws following it support this point.
I didn't ask for your response..........I asked for Gtech to answer the question. Iran is not a threat, North Korea is more of a threat than Iran, they actually have a nuke, and everybody wants to fear Iran, a country that doesn't even have one. The president has to go to Congress to declare war. Its that simple, Get past the BS technicalities and just listen to Ron Paul, because he is right. The president can't just declare war whenever he chooses, such an ability allows the president to essentially become dictator, and if that is the case, we don't even need a Congress.
This means that the act Lorien linked to is Unconstitutional since, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Yeah, I bet if a new statute eradicated the first two amendments of the Constitution, Lorien would say that is okay.
See Lorien's post. Iran is a threat and continues to threaten Israel AND the US. North Korea has agreed to disarm, thanks to diplomacy. They are no longer a threat. See Lorien's post again. This is not factually correct. Ron Paul was wrong. As of this post, no one has been able to show that his comment was correct and Constitutional. Only deflection, distortion, twisting, topic changing. RP needs to read the Constitution before spouting off things he doesn't know about. Or someone needs to source the Article/Section that says Congress must declare war as opposed to Congress can authorize war.
Are you saying that Congress does not have the power to legislatively end the war? That they could not pass with a supermajority, a bill to reverse the AUMF? I know what you are saying, but no law or act trumps the Constitution, and before the War Powers Act, the President had to seek authority from the House to go to war, correct? Ron Paul is the only candidate who carries a pocket sized Constitution around with him at all times. Can you provide the exact quote of what Paul said that was incorrect? Lead in and lead out phrases for context would be a plus. Thanks in advance.
Might want to watch the debates again. He's most certainly not the only one carrying a pocket size Constitution. Paul was wrong. I've proven that. Saying things like this to cover it up serves no one. Really disappointing.