well first off i agree with one thing that is, save america and fix the borders. but if you are saying that bush went to war unconstitutionally, you are infact wrong. congress agreed with his decision, the congressman the american people have elected to make further decisions. so in no way has he voiced out the american people. you can argue, there are alot of people that want to pull out of iraq but.. there are alot of people that want to stay, he doesn't base his decision off of a CNN confidence poll. if america wanted out badly enough, they would elect the congressman who best suited their interests. that's how it all works.
I am in fact, right. There has been no declaration of war by Congress. If there was, our whole country would gear up to produce armor, to raise taxes, and to increase the size of the army. You should check the constitution on this. What Congress did do, is Authorize Military Force to go in under UN Resolutions. Even the leader of the UN has called this an illegal war, and the UN did not endorse the US going in under their resolutions. Ron Paul did try to get Congress to formally declare war so that War measures could be enacted. This was a good thing for the troops btw because they would have had the numbers to rotate for leave properly, and the resources to provide all of the equipment they required to be safe. But Congress refused to formally declare war against Iraq and Bush did not prod them to do so. America did turn over a Republican Congress for a Democratic one, primarily it is reasoned, because bringing in the Dems would force Bush to begin withdrawing American troops. But once elected, as typical liberals do, they folded and continued with the neocon agenda of fighting foreign wars at the expense of the American people. Recent polls have shown the # of Americans who want to get out of Iraq on a schedule or sooner, around 70%. That's more people than elected Bush.
well i have no intentions on debating the details of history. if there was something truly unconstitutional going on it would have the attention of everyone. if those 70% really want out, then don't elect a politician. get some new faces in there.. in any case, we haven't strayed from the constitution. Bush has the rights to declare war as does any president, he is after all the Commander in Chief.
That is incorrect. Under the constitution, Bush is the Commander in Chief of the military, however only Congress can declare war. Once war is declared, Bush has powers transferred to him to handle how the war is conducted. He does not have sole prerogative to determine who to fight, why we are fighting, or how long we will fight. Our Constitution was created with checks and balances, and those prevent any one man from plunging our nation into a war. Unfortunately, many Americans have the same misconception about our Constitution that you do. That Bush does have these powers, and that is why we are in a war that the majority of Americans no longer support. Because too much power has been taken unconstitutionally.
alright i think you're reporting only part of the law. somebody find this for me cause i'm too lazy to find it, but i'm pretty sure the commander in chief can declare war on whoever he wants but he/she (hope not) has a limit on how long he/she (hope not) stays there. basically if bush wanted he could start fighting britain for the hell of it, but after 60 days congress has to approve. reps to whoever finds that.