Posted on 03/19/2011 4:02:39 PM PDT by Leaning Right
More people are dying daily in Chicago due to gunshot wounds.
You are correct.
LOL!
;)
You’ll scare the whole of Mexico here. Then what we gonna do? /s
More people are dying on the Mexican/Texas border, not to mention Mexicans are causing great harm to our economy, choked off our medical system and have, killed, raped, robbed shot, stabbed, and ran over tens of thousands of Americans ...Shouldn't be be bombing Mexico?
Well?
Where'd ya go??
Gosh when Bush went to war in Iraq on a UN mandate, Congress had vote and if I recall Obama voted no.
NO BLOOD FOR OIL! (and make no mistake about it, this is what it is about)
“Well i´m not shure that you need a declaration of War to enforce a UN resolution.”
I hope the uncapitalized “i” and the “shure” misspelling are your way of indicating that the sentiment you express is appropriate for only the illiterate.
Just in case my hope is misplaced, do you really think the Constitution might say, “The Congress shall have the power to declare war; except that when the U.N. says the war is okay, the President shall have the power to declare war”?
The proof is in the pudding, this same crew idly stood by while one million Rwandans got slaughtered. No oil in Rwanda.
I see your point. But the War Powers Act was meant to give the President some flexibility when the US was under attack or under immediate threat of attack.
Neither is the case with Libya. This is just another example of the elites casually ignoring the Constitution.
Or the hundreds of thousands in Sudan.
The enemy is holding two branches of government, pissing away our treasure and our childrens future.
This is an example of that New World Order thing to which we are now expected to show our allegiance.
Screw Lybia and politics, did you catch any fish?
That would actually make more sense.
The last time I checked, there were no reports of a Libyan invasion of a NATO country.
Serbia didn't invade a NATO country either, still it was "Bombs Away!"
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.From Ed Driscoll quoting the Boston Globe.As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Why not, don’t you know we got a comunist government down across that border? Where you been? Why you think all those Mexicans come here for? Might makes right no matter what. God answers me in prayer all the time and he says might makes right, so your suggestion is a good one.
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.