|
On May 13 2011 06:37 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:24 Myles wrote:On May 13 2011 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war? Yes, but checks and balances makes it so that Congress has to approve since they are a more direct representation of the people. This bill shits all over that system. If this passes both houses and Obama signs it, I'll be dumbfounded. Who writes the legislation nowadays? They sure have their priorities completely ass-backwards. I also question the legitimacy of the Republicans caring about the constitution when they pass a bill like this. No checks and balances? Kind of ironic given that Congress seems to be handing over it's power to the President. This is something that could bite them in the ass if they disagree with the President. It's as if they're preparing for a Republican takeover in 2012 and want to give him a blank check the day he gets in office. The President should never have the power to declare war, I don't care about the excuse.
Jesus it's like you were born yesterday. The President's war making authority has expanded since the Civil War, for God's sake.
Anyway, if Congress doesn't want the President making war, they control the purse strings. And that's never something they'll give up.
|
On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music*
Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant?
I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie.
I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA!
|
The ACLU is a joke. A group of liberal extremists, the ACLU will only defend the constitution and scream for the rights of the people when the issue falls in line with their agenda, even blatantly stating that they disagree with the supreme court when the court upheld the right to actually own and bear arms. These fools claim to defend our rights? Disgusting. Check out their amusing view on the Second Amendment, taken from their own blog:
"Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."
Honest to god, I'm not sure how you could even make this argument in public with a straight face. It's completely at odds with the document they claim to defend and completely contradictory to their goal of preserving the rights of the people as outlined by the Constitution and it's Amendments.
In short the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering leftists; a domestic terrorist group promoting their delusional and aberrant agenda. Do I agree with the ability for the president to declare war by himself? Absolutely not. However citing the ACLU as a legitimate source is similar to using Wikipedia in a masters thesis. Might as well cite Ronald McDonald or Daffy Duck.
|
So where are the TL republicans to defend this?
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Euronyme wrote:
So where are the TL republicans to defend this?
Not a Republica, but I don't see the problem. Off the top of my head, Libya, Kosovo and Korea. None of them had Congressional approval.
How does it work in Sweden? Honestly curious.
|
Well, tried to find some detail of the clause. but it seems that it authorizes war (or armed conflict, etc.) against
Taliban
Al Queda
"associated" groups/nations/individuals
The last clause is the biggest problem, "associated" is Far too vague.
However, there is also the other problem that it is like the US declaring war on the Nazi Party or the Mafia instead of the Third Reich or Italy.
It allows the President to undertake military action in countries we are not at war with,... which includes the US itself.
Technically its authorization of war is Constitutional though. Congress can hand out its authority (it just always has the opportunity to take it back). I do think they should be FAR more circumspect than this though.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Rebel_lion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music* Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant? I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie. I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA!
War Powers Act.
Congress, if it wants, can completely stop any military efforts abroad, even with this bill passed as they would merely revoke the use of authorization.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
blah blah blah blah blah
maybe wanna get on topic there bro? lol
I never cited ACLU as a "source"(what does that even mean?). chill out
|
On May 13 2011 06:50 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:43 Rebel_lion wrote:On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music* Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant? I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie. I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA! War Powers Act. Congress, if it wants, can completely stop any military efforts abroad, even with this bill passed as they would merely revoke the use of authorization.
There's still 60 days or so the president can deploy troops in case of an "emergency." I think that's how Obama was able to order our participation in the beginning of the NATO involvement in Libya.
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 13 2011 06:50 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:43 Rebel_lion wrote:On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music* Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant? I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie. I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA! War Powers Act. Congress, if it wants, can completely stop any military efforts abroad, even with this bill passed as they would merely revoke the use of authorization.
Yea, Congress can just elect to defund anything they don't like. I'm sure a day will come where they try to change that, too.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
The ACLU is a joke. A group of liberal extremists, the ACLU will only defend the constitution and scream for the rights of the people when the issue falls in line with their agenda, even blatantly stating that they disagree with the supreme court when the court upheld the right to actually own and bear arms. These fools claim to defend our rights? Disgusting. Check out their amusing view on the Second Amendment, taken from their own blog:
"Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."
Honest to god, I'm not sure how you could even make this argument in public with a straight face. It's completely at odds with the document they claim to defend and completely contradictory to their goal of preserving the rights of the people as outlined by the Constitution and it's Amendments.
In short the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering leftists; a domestic terrorist group promoting their delusional and aberrant agenda. Do I agree with the ability for the president to declare war by himself? Absolutely not. However citing the ACLU as a legitimate source is similar to using Wikipedia in a masters thesis. Might as well cite Ronald McDonald or Daffy Duck.
What the fuck?
It's not at odds with the constitution. It's at odds with a Supreme Court case that is 3 years old.
Learn to read.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
The ACLU is a joke. A group of liberal extremists, the ACLU will only defend the constitution and scream for the rights of the people when the issue falls in line with their agenda, even blatantly stating that they disagree with the supreme court when the court upheld the right to actually own and bear arms. These fools claim to defend our rights? Disgusting. Check out their amusing view on the Second Amendment, taken from their own blog:
"Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."
Honest to god, I'm not sure how you could even make this argument in public with a straight face. It's completely at odds with the document they claim to defend and completely contradictory to their goal of preserving the rights of the people as outlined by the Constitution and it's Amendments.
In short the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering leftists; a domestic terrorist group promoting their delusional and aberrant agenda. Do I agree with the ability for the president to declare war by himself? Absolutely not. However citing the ACLU as a legitimate source is similar to using Wikipedia in a masters thesis. Might as well cite Ronald McDonald or Daffy Duck.
ACLU a group of liberal extremists? Lol, you cite one court case of theirs and make a conclusion. They have supported UNPOPULAR POSITIONS because they believe them to be what is constitutional and what the intent behind the constitution most likely was when it was crafted. To call them liberal extremists is a delusional opinion and you're wrong for doing so. They don't always share the opinion of whatever they may be defending, but they do so because it is their mission to protect constitutional rights.
Our modern view of the second amendment allows us to own firearms, but it is not necessarily so that it was intended for this purpose in the way we think of today. To say that it was necessarily intended for the second amendment to let us personally own firearms is to not appreciate the opinions of what firearm ownership meant for the safety of the people from their own government when the Constitution was drafted. You must also appreciate that 4/9 of the justices dissented with Heller on his point.
I, myself, love owning firearms and am a firearm enthusiast, but you can't come on TL and spout an idiotic viewpoint that the ACLU is a domestic terrorist group trying to push their agenda on anyone when they have supported viewpoints in the past that they DISAGREED with, but did so because of their core beliefs.
I'd like to see you take that position. Also, quit watching Fox News.
Let me also cite: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now move on to something that doesn't derail the thread because of your radical beliefs.
|
On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people."
Oh look, it's THIS thread again...
EDIT: Just a question mods, since I am getting lost on the standards here... Am I allowed to call the German people stupid? How about the Swedish people? Or is it only ok if I am quoting someone else, because I am sure I can dig up some famous bigots if need be.
|
I don't get why you would oppose this? I mean really? If congress wants to stop whatever is launched, they'll still be able to - this will just legalize what is already common practice.
Also, the presidency is subject to public scrutiny and ultimately the consequences of (re)election. Not like wars will be started at random because of this... Just the ACLU doing its thing - selling fear, just like Fox, only a different scare.
|
This is much ado about nothing from the ACLU. The president, as commander in chief, has ALWAYS had war powers without authorization from congress. The first instance of this was when Thomas Jefferson authorized military action against pirates off the coast of Libya.
This isn't a constitutional issue. The constitution only constrains the ability to declare war (and creating any treaty for that matter) to congress, and that clause has NEVER been interpreted to limit the president's power to use military force in foreign nations.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this bill is though since presidential war powers are so broad anyways. It's probably just to modify the old War Powers Resolution so that the president doesn’t have to keep getting 30 day renewal periods from congress. This is good because the War Powers Resolution is not an effective law.
|
On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people." Oh look, it's THIS thread again... EDIT: Just a question mods, since I am getting lost on the standards here... Am I allowed to call the German people stupid? How about the Swedish people? Or is it only ok if I am quoting someone else, because I am sure I can dig up some famous bigots if need be.
Why start insulting?
Are you not able to disscus something properly or do you just not have some real arguments?
or maybe i just dont get what you are trying to say
|
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally.
|
On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people." Oh look, it's THIS thread again... EDIT: Just a question mods, since I am getting lost on the standards here... Am I allowed to call the German people stupid? How about the Swedish people? Or is it only ok if I am quoting someone else, because I am sure I can dig up some famous bigots if need be.
Bush, Berlusconi, Sarkozy... All complete retards who've been reelected. We all have our skeletons, U.S. ones just have a more visible impact on the world.
|
On May 13 2011 07:08 Nero. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people." Oh look, it's THIS thread again... EDIT: Just a question mods, since I am getting lost on the standards here... Am I allowed to call the German people stupid? How about the Swedish people? Or is it only ok if I am quoting someone else, because I am sure I can dig up some famous bigots if need be. Why start insulting? Are you not able to disscus something properly or do you just not have some real arguments? or maybe i just dont get what you are trying to say
I'm just trying to make a point that we shouldn't allow double standards here. People get away with saying some very offensive things towards Americans on TL, but if I were to call the German people stupid in a post, for example, I would be banned in seconds.
|
On May 13 2011 06:46 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:43 Euronyme wrote:
So where are the TL republicans to defend this? Not a Republica, but I don't see the problem. Off the top of my head, Libya, Kosovo and Korea. None of them had Congressional approval. How does it work in Sweden? Honestly curious.
Only the parliament can declare war and authorize military actions outside Swedish borders however the goverment and the leader of the state can authorize the military to take action within Swedish borders and authorize military actions outside of the border if there is an immediate threat and no time to assemble the parliament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
