Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
To: exodus; MHGinTN*************************
"...That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..."
# 234 by Luis Gonzalez
That is not a Declaration of War, Luis.
Also, it wasn't renewed at the end of eight months, as required by the War Powers Act.
You are a disgrace to the Corp (if you ever belonged in the first place.) Take you're Hanoi Jane Ass Kissing self somewhere else with your asinine rhetoric. Since when has our military NOT been under civilian control?
BTW, Shead I did serve. I did put myself 'on the line' . This doesn't entitle you to belittle those who haven't.
Semper Fi
To: Luis Gonzalez*************************
Thank you, Luis.
[I didn't know exodus was a Libertarian; is that true?]
# 235 by MHGinTN
Yes, MHGinTN.
I am a REAL conservative, not a socialist who uses the title to gain power.
I support freedom, as our Founding Fathers did before me.
They were libertarians, and Constitutionalists, just as I am.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.*************************
# 233 by Luis Gonzalez
You keep pasting long articles that prove MY points, Luis.
"...Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
"...Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Tell me, Luis, where is the Congressional approval to CONTINUE military operations?
That approval is required after 8 months of Presidential action, after which,
"...the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces..."
(SEC. 5. (b) of the War Powers Act)
Yes. It was passed by the congress (our legislative branch), signed by the President (our exectutive branch), and has not been struck down by the courts (the judicial branch). If you are correct, then it would be simple to challenge it and have it overturned. Or if the people don't agree, then congress can overturn it.
Let me sum up:
the legislative branch thinks it's constitutional
the executive branch thinks it's constitutional
the judicial branch thinks it's constitutional
the people of the united states think it's constitutional
It's constitutional...
I am a REAL conservative, not a socialist who uses the title to gain power.*************************
I support freedom, as our Founding Fathers did before me.
They were libertarians, and Constitutionalists, just as I am.
To: exodus
No you are just a run of the mill flake. You think incoherent brain farts are a basis for debate. One minute you demand "The Rule of Law" and the next you defend those that kill cops. You are a case study in contradictions. You really need to make some passing acquaintance with reality.
# 245 by Texasforever
What happened, little man? Did someone eat your toast?
That is the stoopidest post I have ever seen.
To: exodus*************************
"...Congress approved the use of the military in Afghanistan. They have yet to withdraw that approval, so your question is irrelevant.
# 231 by Luis Gonzalez
By that kind of reasoning, our government can take any power not specifically denied to it in the Constitution. That's not true, Luis.
The President is REQUIRED by the un-Constitutional War Powers Act to withdraw all military forces at the end of 8 months.
We've been bombing Iraq almost daily since the end if the Gulf War, in violation of the War Powers Act .
What happened, little man? Did someone eat your toast?*************************
To: exodus
That is the stoopidest post I have ever seen.
# 250 by Texasforever
If it's such a "stoopid" post, refute it.
You called his bluff.
No. I have no desire to enter that bedlam you call a mind today. There is no way to "refute" a snakepit.
To: exodus*************************
I'll not debate your political posture here, but I apologize for getting something distastful started with my query regarding you as a Libertarian.
# 252 by MHGinTN
No harm done.
Did you see Luis' duck? I thought it was funny.
Don't worry, MHGinTN.
Luis Gonzalez, Texasforever and I agree on most things.
We're friends, we just happen to have VERY passionate beliefs, and we love to argue.
"...can you prove the WPA passes the review of The Constitution of The United States?..."*************************
To: Ragin1; Roscoe
Yes. It was passed by the congress (our legislative branch), signed by the President (our exectutive branch), and has not been struck down by the courts (the judicial branch). If you are correct, then it would be simple to challenge it and have it overturned. Or if the people don't agree, then congress can overturn it.
Let me sum up: the legislative branch thinks it's constitutional the executive branch thinks it's constitutional the judicial branch thinks it's constitutional the people of the united states think it's constitutional It's constitutional...
# 248 by Isle of sanity in CA
An honest reading of the Constitution shows that the War Powers Resolution is illegal.
Congress is charged with deciding if our nation should go to war. There is no provision for delegating the power to make that decision to the Executive.
War is a legislative decision.
Our elected representatives decide if we, as a people, should go to war. It isn't a subject for ONE MAN to decide.
If Congress passed the Exodus War Powers Act, conferring the power to decide whether to go to war to citizen exodus, you would agree that they don't have the Constitutional authority to delegate that power to me.
It is illegal for Congress to GIVE that decision-making power to any man, not even if that man is the President.
If it's such a "stoopid" post, refute it.*************************
To: exodus
No. I have no desire to enter that bedlam you call a mind today. There is no way to "refute" a snakepit.
# 256 by Texasforever
I see you remember what happened to Cleopatra.
Wise decision, Texasforever.
To: exodus*************************
I'll not debate your political posture here, but I apologize for getting something distastful started with my query regarding you as a Libertarian.
# 252 by MHGinTN
I thought I'd give you an accounting of my political beliefs, anyway. I love philosoply.
A libertarian is nothing less than a someone who believes that man has rights, and that government must not infringe those rights.
The Founding Fathers believed in rights.
A Constitutionalist believes that laws must be based upon a written document, and that any law not based upon that root document was void, and without force.
The Founding Fathers actually wrote our Constitution. They believed in, and created, a system of law based upon a written Constitution.
The Founding Fathers were both libertarians AND Constitutionalists, just as I am.
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.