PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Biden to lead an effort to impeach Obama?


Taco John
03-23-2011, 08:33 PM
"I don't say it lightly..."


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Adpa5kYUhCA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BillSelfsTrophycase
03-23-2011, 08:37 PM
The only thing scarier than President Obama is President Biden...ugh

Taco John
03-23-2011, 08:38 PM
The only thing scarier than President Obama is President Biden...ugh

Oh, I don't know about that. The thought of President Franken sends my nervous system into recoil. And don't think there aren't people who are all for that...

ChiefsCountry
03-23-2011, 08:41 PM
The only thing scarier than President Obama is President Biden...ugh

President Pelosi.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 08:49 PM
According to orange this is all legal per the Constitution.

Obama is using the Nuremberg Defense when he says we're operating under the UN. He's just following their mandate.

orange
03-23-2011, 10:03 PM
According to orange this is all legal per the Constitution.
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/images/lurch31.jpg

That article you linked has been very informative, to wit:


U.S. Code Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations (in re U.N.)

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.


The UN Charter relevant portion:

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

...

Article 41 (for reference)

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.



Now, you may ask, "what does Obama have wrt Libya that Bush did not have wrt Iran?"

Any answer? I think Biden probably knows the answer.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:29 PM
I only need one article— Article 1 Section 8.

If you use the actual Constitution you'll find many laws unConstitutional particularly since the 20th century.

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 10:30 PM
President Pelosi.


President Palin

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 10:33 PM
I only need one article— Article 1 Section 8.

That's somewhat convenient.

To pick and choose.

Unfortunately the constitution isn't just Article I section 8, however it does seem to be your favorite.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:34 PM
That's somewhat convenient.

To pick and choose.

Unfortunately the constitution isn't just Article I section 8, however it does seem to be your favorite.

Wow! How ignorant. I was talking about using it for one principle—who gets to declare war. Ya' know what the video and Biden claimed. I didn't pick and choose. It goes with this thread topic.
Meanwhile, orange prefers to rely in the UN and codes that allows it and not what Biden was referring to.

BTW my favorite parts are the words "specific and enumerated" powers particularly as it regards the tax and spend clause and the Tenth Amendment. It's just that we're in a new war and that's what some threads are about.

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 10:37 PM
Wow! How ignorant. I was talking about using it for one principle—who gets to declare war.
Meanwhile, orange prefers to rely in the UN and codes that allows it.



Commander in chief section.

Presidents also have the right to attack other countries anytime they deem it necessary (and congress has the right to declare war). High school graduates know F.D.R. and Truman decided the outcome of World War 2, not congress.

The constitution gives presidents the right to attack countries without the permission of congress (Article II Section 2). Any attempt by congress to limit a president's constitutional right would violate "separation of powers".

1) Constitution:
Article II, Section 2
"President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Article II, Section 1.
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

2) SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
a) Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950) (President has authority to deploy United States armed forces "abroad or to any particular region")
b) Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850) ("As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual")
c) Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (The "inherent powers" of the Commander in Chief "are clearly extensive.")
d) Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 515-16 (1927) (Brandeis & Holmes, JJ., concurring) (President "may direct any revenue cutter to cruise in any waters in order to perform any duty of the service")
e) Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 1971) (the President has "power as Commander-in-Chief to station forces abroad"); Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. 6 (1992).



I'll even take it a step further. I don't agree with Biden's assertation that military action on Iran was an impeachable offense. He had the constitutional right.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:42 PM
Commander in chief section.
I already debated this at length in the other thread. Donger and orange were participants. Where were you?
I'm not doing it again. I will link it each time you respond after this post though.

I cited the part you cited but that's not the same as declaring a war. You're trying to compare apples and oranges—as was orange earlier today.
One power goes to the president under certain situations the other to the Congress.

I'll even take it a step further. I don't agree with Biden's assertation that military action on Iran was an impeachable offense. He had the constitutional right.

I see you are defending an imaginary event. You might try to keep up on current events. There "was" ( past tense ) NO military action on Iran.

orange
03-23-2011, 10:44 PM
BTW my favorite parts are the words "specific and enumerated"

Funny, I don't see either word anywhere in the Constitution.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

I DO see these words, though:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Article VI

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:46 PM
Funny, I don't see either word anywhere in the Constitution.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

I DO see these words, though:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Article VI

I know about the treaty power and I addressed what was wrong with our treaty with the UN because it actually erodes a part of the document. Not okay with me. That can be undone. Been there. Done that.
Meanwhile you make an argument for treaties to usurp the Constitution.

Here you go if you want to re-read it.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:51 PM
“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” ~ Alexander Hamilton


“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” ~ Thomas Jefferson


The Framers expressly forbade this type of maneuver in Article VI if you rely on some grammar and attention to detail.

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 10:53 PM
I already debated this at length in the other thread. Donger and orange were participants. Where were you?
I'm not doing it again. I will link it each time you respond after this post though.

I cited the part you cited but that's not the same as declaring a war. You're trying to compare apples and oranges—as was orange earlier today.
One power goes to the president under certain situations the other to the Congress.



I see you are defending an imaginary event. You might try to keep up on current events. There "was" ( past tense ) NO military action on Iran.

I'm well aware. I was speaking to the time frame of the video and his assertation that it would be an impeachable offense. I used past tense because the video was in the not so recent past.

Point being, save the grammar lesson, action is and was well within their Constitutional rights.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:58 PM
Funny, I don't see either word anywhere in the Constitution.

What do the words below mean? The clearly state that federal government has been given "specific and enumerated" powers, those powers are named in the Constitution such as Article 1 Section with a list of specific powers for the Congress. ALL other powers remain the sole purvey of the states or the people. Then the powers of the president are listed specifically as well. Where it does not list a power or is silent means it doesn't exist. Pretty clear and straightforward.

Tenth Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 11:04 PM
“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” ~ Alexander Hamilton


“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” ~ Thomas Jefferson


The Framers expressly forbade this type of maneuver in Article VI if you rely on some grammar and attention to detail.


They also believed blacks were 3/5 a man. A major compromise that enabled the Constitution to be signed in the first place.

Problem being is people take the document literally which was fine when it was first signed. The thing that you don't see is that it's a living breathing document that was designed to grow and change with the times. Those times have changed. Interpretation has changed and then been changed again by the Supreme Court.

The problem I see with people who strictly interpret the Constitution is that they pick and choose which items to interpret literally. For instance you will interpret war powers within the strict writings of the Constitution. I doubt however that you would take the side of the literal interpretation of the 3/5 compromise.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 11:05 PM
I'm well aware. I was speaking to the time frame of the video and his assertation that it would be an impeachable offense. I used past tense because the video was in the not so recent past.

Point being, save the grammar lesson, action is and was well within their Constitutional rights.
You can poo-poo the grammar lesson all you want, but communicating what you actually meant as well as reading with comprehension relies on grammar.

Now as to the matter of Iran, not it isn't an authorized power given to the president to act without Congress, because it is commencing a war of aggression not defensively stopping an imminent action. That is the key difference that was discussed in the other thread as to which branch can do what regarding military action. Two different actions for different circumstances. The version under Congress also creates a legal state that aids in winning a war.

But here you go for the details. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

Fishpicker
03-23-2011, 11:05 PM
Oh, I don't know about that. The thought of President Franken sends my nervous system into recoil. And don't think there aren't people who are all for that...

that would be a real case of Trading Places

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 11:07 PM
What do the words below mean? The clearly state that federal government has been given "specific and enumerated" powers, those powers are named in the Constitution such as Article 1 Section with a list of specific powers for the Congress. ALL other powers remain the sole purvey of the states or the people. Then the powers of the president are listed specifically as well. Where it does not list a power or is silent means it doesn't exist. Pretty clear and straightforward.

Tenth Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


The Constitution also makes the president Commander in Chief. The Supreme court has interpreted that to mean he can use the military in any way he deems fit.

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 11:08 PM
You can poo-poo the grammar lesson all you want, but communicating what you actually meant as well as reading with comprehension relies on grammar.

Now as to the matter of Iran, not it isn't an authorized power given to the president to act without Congress, because it is commencing a war of aggression not defensively stopping an imminent action. That is the key difference that was discussed in the other thread as to which branch can do what regarding military action. Two different actions for different circumstances. The version under Congress also creates a legal state that aids in winning a war.

But here you go for the details. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

The supreme court disagreed

b) Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850) ("As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual")

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2011, 11:15 PM
You can poo-poo the grammar lesson all you want, but communicating what you actually meant as well as reading with comprehension relies on grammar.

Only BEP would dare post a grammar lecture followed immediately by a semiliterate hash such as this:

Now as to the matter of Iran, not it isn't an authorized power given to the president to act without Congress, because it is commencing a war of aggression not defensively stopping an imminent action. That is the key difference that was discussed in the other thread as to which branch can do what regarding military action. Two different actions for different circumstances. The version under Congress also creates a legal state that aids in winning a war.

But here you go for the details. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 11:17 PM
They also believed blacks were 3/5 a man. A major compromise that enabled the Constitution to be signed in the first place.
Irrelevant to this argument.

Problem being is people take the document literally which was fine when it was first signed. The thing that you don't see is that it's a living breathing document that was designed to grow and change with the times.

Ahhhhhhhhhh soooooooooo that explains it you're a leftist: modern liberal or progressive.

You are absolutely right about my not seeing it as a "living breathing document" which is rhetoric that can change the meaning because some people, usually politicians and progressives because it gets in their way, don't want to be bound down by the "chains of the Constitution". Some would like to do whatever they'd like justifying it on "changing times."

It was not written on rubber. And the whole idea of having it was to prevent what you are defending. Because there are some things that don't change and that is man's nature and the nature of power. That NEVER changes.

You're making an argument for not really needing the Constitution then. Nothing to restrain power which threatens liberty. Liberty is out of date to you. Very bad idea imo.

Those times have changed. Interpretation has changed and then been changed again by the Supreme Court.
Not regarding the use of power which men are greedy about. The document was written primarily to restrain the Federal govt in order to preserve liberty. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents changes that are vital.
It just makes them not so easy to bring about—a good thing imo.

The mechanism for change is the Amendment process. The other place it allows change is customs, values and mores which is dealt with at the state level in local laws because general laws were left to the states.

You need to use the search on this forum because there's been a lot of discussion on this for over 5 years here.
So it would just be a re-hash. I am familiar with all your arguments in advance of you continuing.


The problem I see with people who strictly interpret the Constitution is that they pick and choose which items to interpret literally. For instance you will interpret war powers within the strict writings of the Constitution. I doubt however that you would take the side of the literal interpretation of the 3/5 compromise.

I think you can say the same for the "anything that goes crowd" too. Besides it's just you opinion that strict Constructionist pick and choose. BTW I am not merely a strict constructionist—I believe in original intent. I know some say that can't be found but I disagree.

And no, the 3/5ths compromise was real and existed. Otherwise, there would have never been a Constitution at all without it. So slavery remained. I mean don't forget the original Constitutional Convention WAS a runaway convention because they were only to amend the Articles which were written in perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously.

But the point about the 3/5ths compromise is that the 13th Amendment came along which outlawed involuntary servitude by Constitutional amendment. Like I was saying, that is the mechanism for change. Get it now?

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 11:25 PM
The Constitution also makes the president Commander in Chief. The Supreme court has interpreted that to mean he can use the military in any way he deems fit.

I don't care what some black robed deities say sometimes. They don't all agree with each other anyway. Some of them are part of the problem too. Remember FDR packed the SC for a reason.

However, as far as I know, the specific argument and point I am making about "declaring war" has yet to be argued before the SC as I mentioned in the other thread. Carter prevented that, and I believe intentionally, when he granted draft dodgers on Vietnam amnesty. I believe there were plans to take that through the system on the basis that the war was illegal due to no declaration.

If you want a case though I would use Ex Parte Quirin where the SC states "a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government's use of the tools of war." -Judge Napolitano.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/1/case.html

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 11:37 PM
Irrelevant to this argument.



Ahhhhhhhhhh soooooooooo that explains it you're a leftist: modern liberal or progressive.

You are absolutely right about my not seeing it as a "living breathing document" which is rhetoric that can change the meaning because some people, usually politicians and progressives because it gets in their way, don't want to be bound down by the "chains of the Constitution". Some would like to do whatever they'd like justifying it on "changing times."

It was not written on rubber. And the whole idea of having it was to prevent what you are defending. Because there are some things that don't change and that is man's nature and the nature of power. That NEVER changes.

You're making an argument for not really needing the Constitution then. Nothing to restrain power which threatens liberty. Liberty is out of date to you. Very bad idea imo.


Not regarding the use of power which men are greedy about. The document was written primarily to restrain the Federal govt in order to preserve liberty. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents changes that are vital.
It just makes them not so easy to bring about—a good thing imo.

The mechanism for change is the Amendment process. The other place it allows change is customs, values and mores which is dealt with at the state level in local laws because general laws were left to the states.

You need to use the search on this forum because there's been a lot of discussion on this for over 5 years here.
So it would just be a re-hash. I am familiar with all your arguments in advance of you continuing.




I think you can say the same for the "anything that goes crowd" too. Besides it's just you opinion that strict Constructionist pick and choose. BTW I am not merely a strict constructionist—I believe in original intent. I know some say that can't be found but I disagree.

And no, the 3/5ths compromise was real and existed. Otherwise, there would have never been a Constitution at all without it. So slavery remained. I mean don't forget the original Constitutional Convention WAS a runaway convention because they were only to amend the Articles which were written in perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously.

But the point about the 3/5ths compromise is that the 13th Amendment came along which outlawed involuntary servitude by Constitutional amendment. Like I was saying, that is the mechanism for change. Get it now?

OK back to case in point. The constitution makes the president the chief commander. The constitution gives the supreme court the power of judicial review. The supreme court ruled that the president being the commander in chief can use forces as he deems.

This was not a change in law. They reviewed the law and determined action was legal in the aforementioned case.

J Diddy
03-23-2011, 11:44 PM
I don't care what some black robed deities say sometimes. They don't all agree with each other anyway. Some of them are part of the problem too. Remember FDR packed the SC for a reason.

However, as far as I know, the specific argument and point I am making about "declaring war" has yet to be argued before the SC as I mentioned in the other thread. Carter prevented that, and I believe intentionally, when he granted draft dodgers on Vietnam amnesty. I believe there were plans to take that through the system on the basis that the war was illegal due to no declaration.

If you want a case though I would use Ex Parte Quirin where the SC states "a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government's use of the tools of war." -Judge Napolitano.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/1/case.html

See I think here's where your views and mine differ. " Not caring what "some" black robed deities say sometimes " is not consistent with the constitutional intent. The constitution gives them the right of judicial review.

orange
03-23-2011, 11:47 PM
Then the powers of the president are listed specifically as well. Where it does not list a power or is silent means it doesn't exist. Pretty clear and straightforward.

Not so clear and straightforward since you continue to make a point that is completely FALSE. The Constitution ABSOLUTELY and EXPLICITLY grants "implied powers" - even Jefferson admitted as much.

Hamilton's 15000 words - embraced by first President George Washington and EVERY succeeding President and Congress (and Supreme Court, for that matter):

Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp

Jefferson:

"It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers AND those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

-- Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on a National Bank, 15 February 1791)

Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I only need one article— Article 1 Section 8.

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2011, 11:48 PM
I don't care what some black robed deities say sometimes. They don't all agree with each other anyway. Some of them are part of the problem too. Remember FDR packed the SC for a reason.

Hey, dumb ****: Roosevelt had a plan to pack the court, but it didn't happen.

ClevelandBronco
03-24-2011, 12:05 AM
She will be incapable of admitting that she was flat out wrong about FDR.

orange
03-24-2011, 12:06 AM
I don't care what some black robed deities say sometimes.
Only the ones on FAUXNews.

orange
03-24-2011, 12:32 AM
If you want a case though I would use Ex Parte Quirin where the SC states "a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government's use of the tools of war." -Judge Napolitano.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/1/case.html

You posted the wrong link. This is the one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano15.1.html

That's the only place you'll find Judge Nappy's misreading of Ex Parte Quirin. You can search the actual opinion - the justia link - top to bottom and you won't "prerequisite." In fact, the Court explicitly avoids any consideration of the issue:

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who, in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort, have violated the law

Page 317 U. S. 29

of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here, Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions.

On topic: The authority you're relying on is a quack lawyer and his opinion of what is illegal is meaningless.

Jaric
03-24-2011, 06:46 AM
President Pelosi.:eek:

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 06:54 AM
Only the ones on FAUXNews.

I am not a big FAUX news supporter in general if you paid attention. I also used the words "some" and "sometimes."
You need to actually read what I post. Try it once in awhile. I saw Brit Hume in the wee hours of the morning making your arguments on this topic. So much for FAUX News right.
You'd fit right in there preaching falsehoods.

BTW He's not a SC justice—never was. In fact he doesn't practice anymore. There's more important things to do like spread the liberty message. He'd make a great SC justice though. A Paul presidency would appoint him.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 06:55 AM
OK back to case in point. The constitution makes the president the chief commander. The constitution gives the supreme court the power of judicial review. The supreme court ruled that the president being the commander in chief can use forces as he deems.

This was not a change in law. They reviewed the law and determined action was legal in the aforementioned case.

CIC means he commands the armed forces. It does not mean he gets to make the decision to go to war.
Now, did you read the part where I said I would post the other thread if this continued? I am not doing this all over again.
I don't have the time for one.

But here you go —http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885


You might want to look up what original intent means too. It will save you a lot of time trying to convince me. I go by the Constitution or writings by the Framers if need be.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 07:07 AM
You posted the wrong link. This is the one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano15.1.html

That's the only place you'll find Judge Nappy's misreading of Ex Parte Quirin. You can search the actual opinion - the justia link - top to bottom and you won't "prerequisite." In fact, the Court explicitly avoids any consideration of the issue:

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who, in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort, have violated the law

Page 317 U. S. 29

of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here, Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions.

Did you google that? That was posted at 1:23 AM being very tired here with me standing on my chair while some mice or baby possums were running around here in my garage. ( I think I've a possum hiding.) That's why I just put in the Judge's name because I had to get out of here fast. I knew it was about the military commissions though. That doesn't mean it doesn't touch upon my point though. ( I suspect you're deflecting by choosing some other part as you did in the other thread.) Nevertheless, I only quickly looked at the judgment due to the time and circumstance. I will read the whole thing though and get back to you on it though. But it may not be today. I've been up all night and have to go out.

Again, though, the words of the Constitution are unambiguous and clear. EDIT: And at a quick read just now, I do see words in that decision that touches on the point made by myself and Napolitano which I imagine is why he used it.

ClevelandBronco
03-24-2011, 08:14 AM
It's a "baby possum" thing, orange. It only seems to be a "she's incapable of stringing two ideas together to create a thought pattern" thing.

Fearsome creatures.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/May2000/img/f_baby_possum.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 09:32 AM
I see Cleveland Bronco can't contribute again but prefers to be a Flying Monkey again with a personal slam. Probably because CB has bought into the 20th century's Fabian and creeping expansion of Presidential powers like most NeoCons do just because it has been violated before. NeoCons are Progressives. I said I would read it later. Geesh!

It takes time to put everything into a post. I had to get out of here fast. Despite no sleep even now, I had changed my plans, and I came back and did have the time to read the case this morning and orange is wrong. Once again, Orange you omitted the relevant points and posted non-relevant points.

That case, I linked, the judge who writes the opinion cites directly from the US Constitution itself reiterating my exact points of reference as to who has the power "to declare war" while the executive "wages" war. There is a difference between the two.


The objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to "provide for the common defence." As a means to that end, the Constitution gives to Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence," Art. I, § 8, cl. 1; "To raise and support Armies," "To provide and maintain a Navy," Art. I, § 8, cl. 12, 13, and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," Art. I, § 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," Art. I, § 8, cl. 11, and "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations," Art. I, § 8, cl. 10. And finally, the Constitution authorizes Congress

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
"


The Constitution confers on the President the "executive Power," Art. II, § 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Art. II, § 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, § 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President, as Commander in Chief, with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offenses against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.


There's nothing wrong with my selection or ability to string a though. It clearly shows the difference in the two powers. One for congress and one for president. Not only that but Congress has even more powers regarding this area than the President who mainly just wages wars they authorize and who mainly commands a military that congress regulates, maintains and funds.
Swing and a miss orange and CB and I will add jaric. ( I think it's time you get back under your bridge jaric)

Jaric
03-24-2011, 09:39 AM
It's a "baby possum" thing, orange. It only seems to be a "she's incapable of stringing two ideas together to create a thought pattern" thing.

Fearsome creatures.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/May2000/img/f_baby_possum.jpg

Thats actually kinda cute considering how ugly it's going to be when it gets older.

EDIT: Also, I know this is off topic, but I have to be honest, the idea of being a flying monkey sounds fucking awesome.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 09:49 AM
Yes jaric, I know you like pile-ons.

Amnorix
03-24-2011, 09:52 AM
For good or for bad Congress has abdicated its role in this process, ceding to the President the ability to wage war, by course of conduct over the last 65 years. As most on here are probably aware, the United States has not formally declared war since World War II, which means that the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada and whatever other military actions we've taken since that time were done without any formal declaration of war by Congress.

Let's face it, the decision to impeach is ultimately a political one. For all the argument over what is a high crime and misdemeanor, there is no further review of Congress should they decide to, and succeed in, impeaching a sitting President. They only answer to their constitutents.

Given these facts, absent a gross misuse of power by the President, the concept of Congress having the right to impeach the President is fairly laughable. While I actually agree to a large extent with BEP regarding how the Constitution was designed to work in this sphere, the fact is that the relevant parties (Congress and the President, not D and R) have decided on an altogether different course of conduct. Course of conduct may actually become an enforceable variation/amendment to a contract under many circumstances. This is not an argument the SCOTUS or any other court has ever used, to my knowledge, but then again I don't see the federal courts becoming involved in any of these types of matters.

The real answer is that high crimes and misdemeanors is within the power of a sufficient majority of Congress to determine, and it is unlikely, given the history, that this is an impeachable offense under the current operation of the Constitution.

I for one find that very unfortunate. While I am in favor of broad federal power, I deplore the steady erosion of Congressional power vis-a-vis the executive branch, part of which is a result of the realities of the 21st century versus the 18th century, and part of which is because of a decided lack of testicular fortitude by the members of Congress.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 09:56 AM
For good or for bad Congress has abdicated its role in this process, ceding to the President the ability to wage war, by course of conduct over the last 65 years.
Congress as well as the people have become complacent about it.

As most on here are probably aware, the United States has not formally declared war since World War II, which means that the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada and whatever other military actions we've taken since that time were done without any formal declaration of war by Congress.

You might want to look at the other thread as to why we no longer declare war as well as other nations. Orange and I discussed it at length.

It's in the last part of this thread: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

chiefsnorth
03-24-2011, 10:06 AM
This would sound great except for the fact that Biden couldn't lead the parade at the end of the Bozo show

Jaric
03-24-2011, 10:23 AM
Yes jaric, I know you like pile-ons.

Get over yourself. That last post had nothing to do with you.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 10:24 AM
See I think here's where your views and mine differ. " Not caring what "some" black robed deities say sometimes " is not consistent with the constitutional intent. The constitution gives them the right of judicial review.

:spock:

Jaric
03-24-2011, 10:31 AM
:spock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

You have to jump through some mental hoops to get to "the constitution allows for judicial review" but you can actually get there. I wouldn't make that specific argument since it was actually the supreme court who (through intrepreting the constitution) determined they have the right of judicial review.

It's requires somewhat circular logic, but you can get there.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 10:37 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

You have to jump through some mental hoops to get to "the constitution allows for judicial review" but you can actually get there. I wouldn't make that specific argument since it was actually the supreme court who (through intrepreting the constitution) determined they have the right of judicial review.

It's requires somewhat circular logic, but you can get there.

Yeah, I know where it comes from and it's completely circular. It's worse than saying Separate But Equal came straight out of the constitution until they decided that it didn't.

Jaric
03-24-2011, 10:44 AM
Yeah, I know where it comes from and it's completely circular. It's worse than saying Separate But Equal came straight out of the constitution until they decided that it didn't.

I assumed you did, was just linking that since it is the relevent decision in case anyone wanted to review it.

I wouldn't call it dishonest exactly, but IMO a more honest statement would be "we've determined this was the intent of the constitution." I think that is far more accurate.

Really though, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what anyone of us thinks about Judicial Review, it's been how things have been done the past 200+ years and I don't see that going away anytime soon.

ClevelandBronco
03-24-2011, 11:17 AM
Remember FDR packed the SC for a reason.

Hey, dumb fuck, have you had the chance yet to discover that FDR didn't get to pack the court? Care to admit your ignorance?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 11:21 AM
Get over yourself. That last post had nothing to do with you.
You only quoted myuse of terms silly-bot.

Jaric
03-24-2011, 11:27 AM
You only quoted me use of terms silly-bot.

Which was posted by someone else in response to you. And my post had nothing to do with you. It was about my short attention span (remember, I'm just stupid and uneducated) thinking about how much more fun it would be to be a flying monkey.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 11:32 AM
Get over yourself, honey. That last post had nothing to do with you.

FYP

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 11:32 AM
Get back under your bridge. CB will keep you company there since you like his post that much.LMAO

Jaric
03-24-2011, 11:34 AM
FYP

Easy now.


Stooges

orange
03-24-2011, 11:49 AM
I came back and did have the time to read the case this morning and orange is wrong. Once again, Orange you omitted the relevant points and posted non-relevant points.


No, I'm right and you're wrong. What you've posted is simply a summary of the relevant points in the Constitution - relevant BECAUSE they apply to the case at hand. Simple fact (1) - Congress HAD declared war. Simple fact (2) - that's all the Court considered. They SPECIFICALLY set aside any consideration of whether a declaration was necessary. In THEIR OWN WORDS.

Please show me - IN THEIR OWN WORDS - ANYTHING that says Congress must make a "formal declaration of war" for a state of war to exist or for the the laws of war to apply.

"It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation."

I didn't conjure them up, the Court actually wrote them. Show me the part where they say, "you know when we said we weren't considering what war powers the President has - we lied! Here's what we think about that."

chiefsnorth
03-24-2011, 11:58 AM
Hey, dumb ****, have you had the chance yet to discover that FDR didn't get to pack the court? Care to admit your ignorance?

The next time honey admits she was wrong in any way, shape, form or degree... That will be the first.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:08 PM
No, I'm right and you're wrong. What you've posted is simply a summary of the relevant points in the Constitution - relevant BECAUSE they apply to the case at hand. Simple fact (1) - Congress HAD declared war. Simple fact (2) - that's all the Court considered. They SPECIFICALLY set aside any consideration of whether a declaration was necessary. In THEIR OWN WORDS.
Sorry but your reasoning is specious here. I posted it because they are relevant period. To the case at hand and to my argument as what branch has what powers.

Please show me - IN THEIR OWN WORDS - ANYTHING that says Congress must make a "formal declaration of war" for a state of war to exist or for the the laws of war to apply.
You added the words "formal" to my argument. I said what a "declare" meant in the other thread.

Anyway, you and I are never going to agree orange and I am not going to go through this all day again. Congress gets to decide not the president except for limited circumstances. That what the Framers argued for and it's how the document is written and it's what this judge cites in this case.

I see that my feeding one troll has fed the rest of them, so I am done here. ( usually the main NeoCons) Let the Flying Monkeys have their feeding frenzy again to show their own characters.

orange
03-24-2011, 12:08 PM
For good or for bad Congress has abdicated its role in this process, ceding to the President the ability to wage war, by course of conduct over the last 65 years. As most on here are probably aware, the United States has not formally declared war since World War II, which means that the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada and whatever other military actions we've taken since that time were done without any formal declaration of war by Congress.

You're leaving a few things out.

Other undeclared wars
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[12] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

The United States' longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of peace.[citation needed]

The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These began with Europeans immigration to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and had concluded by 1918. The US Army still maintains a campaign streamer for Pine Ridge 1890-1891 despite opposition from certain Native American groups.[13]

That's 125 times IN ADDITION to the 8 UN Security Council authorized engagements, the 12 engagements authorized by Congress with no "Declaration of War," and of course:

The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation. The CSA was recognized as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA's status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so.


By my count, that makes at least 146 UNDECLARED WARS by the U.S.
.vs.
5 DECLARED WARS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

And it's not just the last 65 years. It goes back at least to Washington's administration (GOOGLE "Fallen Timbers" - undeclared war; not to mention "Whiskey Rebellion")

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:11 PM
The next time honey admits she was wrong in any way, shape, form or degree... That will be the first.

Have you read all my posts here? You've been here since April 2010 and you know my whole history here.
I think you'll find that this is inaccurate. I think you'll find that most in here debating do think their position is right, and often don't change it no matter what.
May I ask where you have admitted to being wrong on something in any of your arguments in this forum?

BTW what do you think about this issue regarding what branch decides to use the tools of war? Any thoughts of your own?

I'll await your contribution.

orange
03-24-2011, 12:11 PM
Wars Undeclared - 146
Wars Unauthorized by Congress - 133
Wars Declared - 5
Impeachments - 0


By my calculus, it seems the United States has firmly established that you don't need a Declaration of War.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:14 PM
Have you read all my posts here? You've been here since April 2010 and you know my whole history here.
I think you'll find that this is inaccurate. I think you'll find that most in here debating do think their position is right, and often don't change it no matter what.
May I ask where you have admitted to being wrong on something in any of your arguments in this forum?

BTW what do you think about this issue regarding what branch decides to use the tools of war? Any thoughts of your own?

I'll await your contribution.

My guess is that chiefsnorth has been here longer than his join date suggests.

orange
03-24-2011, 12:20 PM
You added the words "formal" to my argument. I said what a "declare" meant in the other thread.

No, no I didn't.


If you want a case though I would use Ex Parte Quirin where the SC states "a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government's use of the tools of war." -Judge Napolitano.

When you figure out what your argument is, get back to me.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:20 PM
You're leaving a few things out.

Other undeclared wars
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[12] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

The United States' longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of peace.[citation needed]

The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These began with Europeans immigration to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and had concluded by 1918. The US Army still maintains a campaign streamer for Pine Ridge 1890-1891 despite opposition from certain Native American groups.[13]

That's 125 times IN ADDITION to the 8 UN Security Council authorized engagements, the 12 engagements authorized by Congress with no "Declaration of War," and of course:

The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation. The CSA was recognized as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA's status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so.


By my count, that makes at least 146 UNDECLARED WARS by the U.S.
.vs.
5 DECLARED WARS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

And it's not just the last 65 years. It goes back at least to Washington's administration (GOOGLE "Fallen Timbers" - undeclared war; not to mention "Whiskey Rebellion")

Oh no, the 19th century was not a century of undeclared wars—that is another myth. For one thing you are including rebellions one of which Lincoln inaccurately labeled the south's withdrawal from the Union. Lincoln waged that as a war though, and illegally I might— not the South. The South who left peacefully despite his provocation of them at Sumter in their territorial waters where NO ONE was killed.


We have stopped declaring war altogether post WWII due to the formation of the UN. It is date coincident.

chiefsnorth
03-24-2011, 12:24 PM
My guess is that chiefsnorth has been here longer than his join date suggests.

No... Just read the posts. I've recently placed her on ignore but virtually all her posts are in regard to someone contradicting her... or vice versa... She is always typing either "youre wrong", or rebutting somone who replied to a previous "youre wrong" post. But there is never any indication that she believes she could be mistaken about anything. She is a know-it-all. That is all I suggest.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:30 PM
No... Just read the posts. I've recently placed her on ignore but virtually all her posts are in regard to someone contradicting her... or vice versa... She is always typing either "youre wrong", or rebutting somone who replied to a previous "youre wrong" post. But there is never any indication that she believes she could be mistaken about anything. She is a know-it-all. That is all I suggest.

OK. You remind me of someone who used to post here and I thought you might have been him.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:33 PM
No, no I didn't.



When you figure out what your argument is, get back to me.

I said "my" argument which is that congress "declares" war and what it means is in the other thread where we discussed it, that they decide the matter—not Napolitano's argument. I used the Judge's quote true because that's what he said in regard to the case I linked.

What does the word "formal" mean to you then? A ceremony with strict or meticulous adherence to form? Or that a state of war exist alone? Or something written from congress. I guess the latter could be considered formal.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:38 PM
orange did you get that list of wars from wiki in your response to Amn?

If so, even per that source, the Indian Wars are called conflicts that preceded the formation of the Nation."They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775."
As I recall they were often parts of other wars.

orange
03-24-2011, 01:08 PM
orange did you get that list of wars from wiki in your response to Amn?

If so, even per that source, the Indian Wars are called conflicts that preceded the formation of the Nation."They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775."
As I recall they were often parts of other wars.

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress."
That would be after the Revolution, of course. And Wikipedia is quoting from the Justice Department.

The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994) ("oth Secretary [of War] Knox and [President] [B]Washington himself seemed to think that this [Commander in Chief] authority extended to offensive operations taken in retaliation for Indian atrocities.") (quoted in Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331 n.4. Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331-32 n.5.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Check out the bolded part - the DOJ agrees with ME. I missed my calling.

And it's not just the last 65 years. It goes back at least to Washington's administration (GOOGLE "Fallen Timbers" - undeclared war; not to mention "Whiskey Rebellion")

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 01:20 PM
I don't agree with the DOJ - this one and the last one. You ought to know that by now. I argued it since 2002. Again, it relies on redefining war as your quote says "military hostilities" earlier you even use rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion. What a contradiction to the words of the Constitution but I know you're a progressive and not a strict constructionist or originalist.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 01:22 PM
Wars Undeclared - 146
Wars Unauthorized by Congress - 133
Wars Declared - 5
Impeachments - 0

By my calculus, it seems the United States has firmly established that you don't need a Declaration of War.

That's called not following the Constitution. Your calculus counts things that are not in the same category of thing.

Let's see how the claim that the president has sent troops into battle hundreds of times without congressional authorization stands up in the 18th and 19th Century:

BTW ( I am having to redo this whole thing which was an edit) So I am going to post the links by historian Tom Woods on the 19th century including that Washington "knew his operations on his own authority against Indians were confined to defensive measures." He knew he needed a declaration of war by Congress for more.

George Washington:
"The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress," he said, "therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

Quasi War with France:
Francis Wormuth, an authority on war powers and the Constitution, describes that contention as "altogether false." John Adams "took absolutely no independent action. Congress passed a series of acts that amounted, so the Supreme Court said, to a declaration of imperfect war; and Adams complied with these statutes." (Wormuth's reference to the Supreme Court recalls a decision rendered in the wake of the Quasi War, in which the Court ruled that Congress could either declare war or approve hostilities by means of statutes that authorized an undeclared war. The Quasi War was an example of the latter case.) More detail in link. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

Jefferson and The Barbary states:
"Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate," Fisher writes, "imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.'"
More detail in link. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on us and Jefferson "consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates."

Boundary dispute with Spain over Louisiana and Florida:
According to Jefferson, Spain appeared to have an "intention to advance on our possessions until they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force…. But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal that which they shall approve." Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

The True History of the 18th and 19th Century:
The nineteenth century, on closer inspection, turns out not to provide the precedents for presidential warmaking that its proponents would prefer to see. We don't see anything approaching the open-ended and truly staggering authority that neoconservatives would grant the president until the closing years of that century, and even then only in miniature. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

According to Wood's article creating this new power was first done by McKinley*

"Cornell University's Walter LaFeber pinpoints the origins of modern presidential war powers in an obscure incident from 1900 in the Boxer Rebellion.

Per LaFeber: McKinley took a historic step in creating a new, twentieth-century presidential power. He dispatched the five thousand troops without consulting Congress, let alone obtaining a declaration of war, to fight the Boxers who were supported by the Chinese government…. Presidents had previously used such force against non-governmental groups that threatened U.S. interests and citizens. It was now used, however, against recognized governments, and without obeying the Constitution's provisions about who was to declare war. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)


The argument that — the United States has firmly established that you don't need a Declaration of War
... is based on ignorance or dishonesty. There is no third possibility. To support their position — although for obvious reasons they don't put it quite this way — they are counting chases of cattle rustlers as examples of presidential warmaking, and as precedents for sending millions of Americans into war with foreign governments on the other side of the globe. No comment really seems necessary. Presidential Powers- Tom Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

* There are Lincoln quotes showing he was against such presidential powers. He viewed the south's secession as an internal insurrection.

Orange I haven't left things out which you're probably going to claim. It's too long an article with many details but you have the link. The post is already long enough.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 01:24 PM
No... Just read the posts. I've recently placed her on ignore but virtually all her posts are in regard to someone contradicting her... or vice versa... She is always typing either "youre wrong", or rebutting somone who replied to a previous "youre wrong" post. But there is never any indication that she believes she could be mistaken about anything. She is a know-it-all. That is all I suggest.

OMG.....something I've seen patteeu do over and over but you agree with him. This is forum where we argue our stands so of course there's contradiction. It's politics. That's what most are doing here, except you. You prefer to talk about people who debate. People must agree with you too. LMAO

ClevelandBronco
03-24-2011, 01:32 PM
OMG.....something I've seen patteeu do over and over but you agree with him. This is forum where we argue our stands so of course there's contradiction. It's politics. That's what most are doing here, except you. You prefer to talk about people who debate. People must agree with you too. LMAO

Honey, you don't limit your errors to your opinions. You're entitled to your own set of opinions. However, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

For instance, Roosevelt DID NOT — IN FACT — pack the Supreme Court.

I assume you are ready to admit your error.

orange
03-24-2011, 03:11 PM
Orange I haven't left things out which you're probably going to claim. It's too long an article with many details but you have the link. The post is already long enough.

No, I won't blame you for Tom Woods' lies, omissions, and distortions. I'll only blame you for believing him over every other source because it fits your pre-conceived view. Can you find anything NOT on lewrockwell/mises to back you up?

p.s. Impeachments - 0 The law and history are what they are. They're not what you want them to be.

Clicking your heels won't make it so.

http://naturallyalise.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ruby-red-slippers.jpg

oblique flying monkey reference

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 03:20 PM
No, I won't blame you for Tom Woods' lies, omissions, and distortions. I'll only blame you for believing him over every other source because it fits your pre-conceived view. Can you find anything NOT on lewrockwell/mises to back you up?

p.s. Impeachments - 0

What lies, omissions and distortions are you referring to?
The link had more extensive details. Did you see them?
I'd like to know what's untrue.

I've seen your argument before by a big NC over at PP using those Indian wars etc. But they just do not count and more than a few were part of another war with a nation-state.
Your calling-out the source isn't enough evidence.

As far as impeachments goes everyone knows those are extremely rare....but I could name a number of presidents that should have been impeached besides Johnson and Clinton. ( Nixon was on his way)
Our bad boy presidents have been lucky. So that means little.

BTW Mises doesn't do politics. They do economics. I understand you have a problem with limited govt and freedom sources though. So I understand your disdain.

orange
03-24-2011, 03:40 PM
What lies, omissions and distortions are you referring to?
The link had more extensive details. Did you see them?
I'd like to know what's untrue.



George Washington - omission. Woods' quote may have been actually said, but it doesn't negate what Washington actually did. The Northwest Indian War (undeclared) crushed a federation of Indians (The Western Confederacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Confederacy) which formed to stop American expansion into their lands.

Quasi War with France, Jefferson and The Barbary states, & Boundary dispute with Spain over Louisiana and Florida - distortions. No "Declaration Of War." Is an "authorization" a "Declaration?" YES when it involves France, the Barbary States, or Spain; NO when it involves Afghanistan or Iraq, according to Woods, I guess. (Note on the Wikipedia link, the first two are listed among the Authorized By Congress engagements. They're not in the DOJ's 125)

"To support their position — although for obvious reasons they don't put it quite this way — they are counting chases of cattle rustlers as examples of presidential warmaking, and as precedents for sending millions of Americans into war with foreign governments on the other side of the globe. No comment really seems necessary."

That's a lie. He makes no comment because to do so, he'd have to get specific.




BTW Mises doesn't do politics. They do economics. I understand you have a problem with limited govt and freedom sources though. So I understand your disdain.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., senior fellow in history at the Mises Institute

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 04:15 PM
George Washington - omission. Woods' quote may have been actually said, but it doesn't negate what Washington actually did. The Northwest Indian War (undeclared) crushed a federation of Indians (The Western Confederacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Confederacy) which formed to stop American expansion into their lands.
Like I said, that was an extension of American Revolution as those hostile Indians were British allies. Britain who was an instigator and even supplied provisions to them from a post.

I think you’re the one omitting things:

http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/treaty_greenville/pages/fallen_timbers.html

Now, ten years after peace had been declared, the British had failed to relinquish key frontier posts (within the boundaries of the new nation) that they felt were essential to British fur trade: Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, and Michilimackinac Island. British officials in London had devised a scheme to force Americans to give up these posts by accepting the establishment of an "independent" Indian state.

I remember reading about citizens being attacked by Indians when I read his bio that he set out to handle. I just can’t remember the specifics and I’d have to look it up.

Quasi War with France & Jefferson and The Barbary states - distortions. No "Declaration Of War." Is an "authorization" a "Declaration?" YES when it involves France or the Barbary States, NO when it involves Afghanistan or Iraq, according to Woods, I guess.


Well the claim by Woods, who you call a liar, is that the president has not sent troops into “battle” hundreds of times without congressional authorization in the 18th and 19th centuries. He does get specific and talks about what made this a “quasi-war” or “imperfect war” which was dealt with imperfectly. There was no independent action by Adams which is Wood's claim. So he is not a liar.

It's similar to Paul's signing that resolution on Afghanistan where he saw that as a temporary military action and not a full war on Afghanistan. Now that it has become a war Paul opposes it. I would have preferred to see a declare for the War on Terror overall defining AQ as the enemy, as I have posted before back in the past. A declare compels congress to define the enemy more clearly instead of vague generality of terrorists which has opened the door to mission creep for any terrorists that don't do their dirty work over here. I don't see that the Constitution limits a declare to a nation-state although that's been the pattern. It's not an unreasonable point but that could be worked out by Congress.

I thought your argument was that Obama didn't need to seek approval from Congress on Libya. At the time you made it, you hadn't had the points about the UN Treaty or UN Participation Act.


Thomas E. Woods, Jr., senior fellow in history at the Mises Institute

You post that like there's something wrong with his affliliation at the Mises Institute. You have omitted his full background though. I will fill it in for you:

Bachelor's Degree in History from Harvard University
Ph.D. in history from Columbia University
New York Times-bestselling author for his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown

The Mad Crapper
03-25-2011, 01:08 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/kinetic-military-action.jpg

Huffmeister
03-25-2011, 01:22 PM
OK. You remind me of someone who used to post here and I thought you might have been him.

Cochise?

Taco John
03-25-2011, 10:54 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r_RWHiC7K3k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
03-26-2011, 07:45 AM
Cochise?

That's who I was thinking.