Where is the cover up? What did I post that was not accurate? Let's see some proof or sources GTech, you were doing so well and now you're slipping back to arguing strictly on semantics and rhetoric.
You have to remember that in Gtechs mind it's a seperate reality from everyone else, that's about all he's proven
I don't believe I ever said they didn't have the power did I? Congress' power lies in the ability to fund and defund. So yes, they have the power to do so. They can also pass a bill demanding that troops in action be returned home. It'd have to survive a veto, though. And that's where your problem always comes with congress. Congressional bills are not law until the president signs them - or they pass his veto. You know this, correct? I'm not sure if Hillary's bill demanding the president come to congress before engaging limited operations in Iran would pass muster, though. It seems like its more for show than anything else; especially given that no president would sign that. And it surely wouldn't survive a veto. Nope. We went to "war" many instances in the past. We've only declared war 4 (or 5, depends on how you look at it) times in our nation's history. Presidents, over the 200+ years, have used the military without a formal declaration. War Powers Act actually limited the presidential ability, because of Vietnam and Korea. I won't even get into Tesla's absurb post. He's just being reactionary now and not making sense. See, guerilla, the problem with saying "the constitution says this or that" is that the constitution is very generally worded. It is a framework of how things operate. Acts put the powers of the constitution into action and they cannot violate the constitution. But without the acts, the powers are just words. So championing one while ignoring another is silly.
That is why I mentioned the super majority. I know they have, I just do not believe it is legal. I know we cross swords regularly, but I really enjoy posting to you when we avoid getting personal. There are solid challenges and the motivation (on my part at least) to answer them if I can.
Who mentioned a cover up? I quoted and corrected your incorrect assertion that ron paul was the only candidate to carry a pocket book Constitution. That's a dishonest assertion, used in a moment of desperation. Can't you follow a post? On the good side, it appears you have a new cheerleader...GRIM. He's taken a side before he didn't take a side and he's for you before he was against you.
GTech, YOU mentioned a cover up. "Saying things like this to cover it up serves no one." We are not covering up anything, because Dr. Paul was right. You need Congress to go to war, short of an imminent threat. This is plainly clear in the War Powers Act. So he is correct. As I've said, technically, saying we need to "declare war" every time can be debated, but the War Powers Act makes certain that Congressional approval is required, whether in the authorization of military force, or a declaration of war. So while Ron Paul's wording may be off, his original answer to the question of "Do we need Congressional approval for military action in Iran" was "Absolutely", and he is correct about that.
Anyone had any luck yet? "Short of an imminent threat" was not a condition RP used. Try again. fletch, do you believe RP is the only candidate to carry the Constitution and if so, how do you come to that conclusion? Shouldn't be that hard to find in the Constitution, should it?
Uh...what were you saying? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you somehow missed him saying that, even though it's clear as day in the video. Maybe you should actually watch the video this time around! I know RP carries one, and I don't know whether or not others do. Granted, some of their knowledge of the Constitution leads me to believe most do not. I don't know for sure though, and I've never made any claims concerning that.
Last I checked, "authorization" implies approval, rather than consultation. Could you explain to me how the War Powers Act requiring a declaration of war (which again, only Congress can declare), or statutory authorization as the requirements for military force, could be spun into only meaning consultation?
http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm This is why you bug me, fletch, you omit parts of text that don't fit your cute little picture. By the highlighted part alone, the president is authorized to attack Iran anytime he wants. Iran -is- attacking our troops in Iraq. It -is- sending weapons to Afghanistan to kill troops there as well. Why ignore the obvious? You may not approve, but clearly the attack is authorized under war powers. I'm not saying I think attacking Iran is wise or necessary at the moment but your argument that it's illegal is ridiculous. Secondly, Maybe the big headline called "consultation"
Yes, there is an entire section on consultation, which sets the rules for the President reporting to Congress about military actions which were AUTHORIZED via Section 2. This does not override the requirements necessary in Section 2, to justify the use of military force in the first place, namely declaration, authorization, or national danger. Iran is not causing a national emergency with its actions in the Middle East. I don't know the exact intention of that line, and I'm trying to find some sources about it, but I'd venture a guess it relates again to imminent threats and the ability to act without Congress in a time-critical event. Remembering that the War Powers Act was passed in 1973, I'm sure a good example would be a nuclear missile launch from the USSR against our country. That creates a national emergency in which the President needs the ability to act without waiting on Congress. Or say a terrorist attack on our capital, in which Congress is not able to convene, the President needs to be able to act immediately. I'd also imagine something like 9/11 would also be a justification for that clause, but to twist that into our situation in Iraq as a justification for war is just silly. It's not a time-critical event, and there is still the burden of showing that Iran is attacking our armed forces. It should be clear that the clause is intended to allow the President power to act accordingly when seeking Congress first is not feasible, but to suggest that it is permissible in a situation like Iran, just sounds ridiculous. EDIT: Your completely literal interpretation sounds a lot like GTech quoting the treason clause. Using it the way GTech suggests, if I say "we shouldn't be in Iraq", that gives "comfort" to our enemy. Are you suggesting that is punishable by death as treason, or is it just some pointed criticism?
Once again. Read the entire thing. Not what you want to read. Iran -is- attacking our troops and killing our troops in Iraq. I cannot make the sentence more simple for you. Sorry. I'd suggest you actually -read- the Iraq War authorization bill. That wasn't the justification. Don't be stupid. Yep. Anyone who disagrees with me is worse than Hitler and should killed. Are you trying not to make sense or is it accidental?
Lorien, what I'm trying to show with the reference to the treason clause to our Constitution is that taking everything within the Constitution literally is ridiculous, and not the intention of the law. Also, what I was saying with 9/11 is that 9/11 would be an appropriate situation for the President to invoke the national emergency clause and retaliate militarily, at least until our country was back under control. When I mentioned Iraq, I meant our current situation *in Iraq*, being attacked by insurgents with possible Iranian influence; I'm not suggesting we justified Iraq with 9/11, I'm saying that action against Iran is clearly not justified as being a national emergency based on their influence on Iraqi insurgents. If we want to go to Congress and have them approve it, that's fine, but the Iranian situation is not a time-critical event or a national emergency, and as such we can't sidestep Congress. EDIT: More particularly, I simply don't get why you people want to give the power to start military action to a single person in our government. As I quoted many posts ago, the Cato Institute had a paper explaining that all but one member of the original Continental Congress felt that giving the power to start military action to one man, the President, was incredibly dangerous, and that is why they choose to give Congress the power to declare war under the Constitution. It also went on to explain that even though they felt one man should not be able to start military actions, they had concerns about a large, rarely-meeting legislative body being in control of military actions, so they sought fit to grant the President the power of being Commander-in-Chief. The Founding Fathers realized that one man makes for a good military commander, but that one man makes for a bad decision maker in deciding WHEN to use the military. Why do you all seek to avoid those concerns?
That's fine if you believe that. But authorization is there. Unless you do not understand the defintion of "or" *cough* a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. I see. So the constitution means what it says when it suits you; but when it doesn't it can mean something else? Gotcha Now we are gettin' to good comedy here. You are spinning around here, quite a bit aren't you?
Lorien argues a lot for the sake of clarity, not necessarily because he endorses the position. GTech on the other hand will argue just to argue.
Lorien, what you are saying is that any time there is an attack, it creates a national emergency, hence justifying military action without Congressional approval. What I'm saying is that an attack on our armed forces, while maddening, does not necessarily create a national emergency, and as such, we can't necessarily overstep Congress. I'm not putting spin on it, I just don't think every single attack necessitates a national emergency...I'm curious what other people think. Read my EDIT in my post above, that clarifies my point a bit.
Oh I definitely agree fletch. I think we should sit by, thumbs firmly implanted in our asses, while our soldiers, civilians, etc in various parts of the world get shot at and killed. I'm curious when does it approach a point where you'll stand up and stop taking it? 10? 100? or what? Gimme a point at which you'd say - hey, that's not nice killing our people. And be willing to let the gubmint do somethin?
It reaches that point when Congress sees fit to engage in military conflict overseas. Congress, of all branches of government, is supposed to echo the will of the people of the United States the most. So while my opinion is unimportant in the vast scheme of things, a Congress which represents the general will of the American people is the best to make a determination of when enough is enough. The question I pose to you again is: The founding fathers realized that one man alone makes a good military commander, but one man deciding WHEN to use the military was a dangerous habit. Why do you believe one man should be able to make the decision of when we go to war? As I stated in my first paragraph, there are many factors that go into military action, and it isn't all "well they did this"...there are questions of politics, economic issues, blowback, international law and sentiment, and 100 other different things that should be debated when we decide to use our military. That's why short of a national emergency, which our country is not in currently as a result of Iran, we need to let Congress make that determination, not a single man.