Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 05/03/2011 3:33:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Outside the world of black helicopters and sinister plots involving fluoridation, the War Powers Act is a punch line, not the basis of a serious argument.
I thought a month or so ago Palin was advocating a no-fly zone in Libya. In fact I think it was the Washington Times or NY Post that called it the “Palin Doctrine”. How do these words square with that? Seems to me Palin is coming around to Michele Bachmann’s position.
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.
Even you can't be that dense, sport.
Yes some future Congress could, in theory, try to revive it. France could restore the Bourbon monarchy and Russia could bring back the Romanovs, but it isn't going to happen. Unless you want to be a laughingstock on a par with French and Russian monarchists, it's time to give up this weird obsession with the War Powers Act. To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You should have stopped right there. Everything that comes after, is wrong.
In this country, acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't have to validate any law the Legislature passes. Put another way, laws enacted by Congress are constitutional until the Supreme Court says that they aren't. But, you knew that already, right?
Whether or not the Court would hear a challenge to the War Power Resolution, or dismiss it as a nonjusticiable political question, until the Supreme Court says it's not constitutional, it is constitutional.
"It is a dead letter."
There you go again, using phrases you don't understand.
"To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about."
Whatever I do or do not know, it's pretty clear that we've established you don't have the frist clue about American jurisprudence.
Lastly, if the War Power Act didn't mean anything, as you suggest, why then did George HW Bush get an authorization for force in 1991, and why did his son get one 10-years later?
The question of the War Powers Act is not a legal one, it is a philosophical one. I do NOT want another White House occupant who believes the US Armed Forces is their own private diplomatic tool. Considering most founders didn't even want a standing army, it's unlikely to believe almost any of them would agree to the carte blanche presidents have exercised in their application of global military force.
If you two don’t like women in positions of power, be it for religious reasons or something else, why don’t you just come out and say it? I know I’d respect you more for it than this ankle-biting that you do on so many Palin threads.
If I don't like women in position of power? What?
If Michelle Bachmann is on the ballot by the time the primary gets to FL, there's a decent chance that's who I'm voting for since Barbour has decided not to run.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
She finally tossed the Soros-employed Washington lobbyist. Hurrah.
Since a House member has almost no chance of being nominated or elected, that’s a safe stance to take and shields you from what I just said. Funny, that’s what pissant used to say. Remind me what happened to him.
If you don't like my position on the painfully unqualified Sarah Palin, that's your problem, not mine.
After the Battle of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson was charged with violating the constitution. For he declared martial law, impressed every able body man in New Orleans, armed, and ordered them to get their butts down on the levee and fight. He was tried, convicted and had to pay a sizable fine. Later IIRC, he said he would do same again, for in time of war, the constitution was not a suicide pact.
City Council, Mayor, Energy Commission Chairwoman, Governor, NYT best-selling author, highly-paid speaker, News analyst, had her own TV show, listened to by hundreds of millions of people, almost killed ObamaCare single-handedly and changed the House of Represenatives from Democrat to Republican, as well as getting other candidates elected at all different levels. Yeah, I see your point... LOL
Uh, just saw Michele Bachmann on Fox say almost verbatim some of the things Palin espoused when she proffered her
foreign policy doctrine last night in CO.
The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.
The Constitution states the powers of the president and congress when it comes to commanding, declaring and funding wars.
The War Powers Resolution of course can't change powers as defined in the Constitution.
Ping!
This position is pretty close to Reagan’s.
Well said. And precisely the same point Palin made in her 5 point "Doctrinal" outlay. She has very recently replaced her foreign policy advisers. I am glad she did.
If this shift is responsible for her shift in policy constraint, I say "Well done." All presidents have advisers, as none can be stand-alone experts on every minutiae-strewn subject on the planet, nor is it either realistic or fair for us to expect them to be.
If her new advisor has affected her position, that, too is a good sign. A president who is incapable of changing their position is often a president who refuses to listen to sound advice, or who is more concerned with "Admitting they were wrong" than they are with "Getting it right."
Palin, in her choice of Schweizer (sp?), and in her 5 Point "Doctrine," certainly seems to be getting it right. And that's a very good thing, too, as she will be our next president. Anyone who disagrees with either of these two last statements is simply unaware of the breadth and depth of her brilliance, and her base.
;-\
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.