Lelouch24 Posts
constitution wrote...
Spoiler:
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.It is a power. It's the power to to tell the President "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop".
If you're looking for an answer to that question, then I'm shocked. I mean, Congress also has the power to raise the said armed forces and how money is appropriated to them, right? Unlike you and I, they can decide whether or not they want to fund these things, right? But of course you know that. After all, you brought that up before.
[color=#2e1a6b]What do you mean "I'm shocked"? I asked you to explain how "declaring war" is a power, and you replied by saying that congress can basically encourage ("your doing the right thing") his actions, or discourage ("you should stop") his actions. Anyone can do that, that's not a power.
You then said how congress has the power to fund and maintain an army. While this is true, this power is not given to congress by the "declaring war" clause. If you look at the 18 clauses (posted above), you'll see that the power to maintain the military has its own clause. The power to fund the military is also its own clause. So, you still haven't explained how "declaring war" is a power. You admitted it was a power in your first reply.
[b]And it's not like Congress has ever been the one that got up and decided "hey, maybe we should declare war". Every single time in the nation's history that we've officially declared war, it was always the President who brought the matter up to Congress.
[color=#2e1a6b]There's nothing wrong with the president going to congress to ask for permission to start a war.
[color=#2e1a6b]The NDAA violates the constitution (bill of rights), so it is unconstitutional. The war powers act doesn't violate the constitution
[b]You're saying that if something doesn't violate the Constitution, then it's constitutional. That's wrong. Especially when talking about Acts. Acts are pieces of legislation written and passed by Congress; they are not a part of the Constitution, therefore they are technically neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
Does that mean Congress doesn't have to worry about the question of whether or not it's actually constitutional? No. But the only time the question matters is when one of two parties, either the men who wrote the act or the subjects of the act, brings a case against the other party to court. The courts then decide whether or not any of this, either the act itself or any possible violations of the act, actually violate the constitution.
So yea, again. The War Powers Act doesn't violate the constitution (or, at the very least, a court has never said so). But don't mistakenly assume that saying that means it's supported by it.
[color=#2e1a6b]Doesn't the 18th (final) clause support the war powers act?
[color=#2e1a6b]The option to preemptively strike before they attack is still available. But Congress has to declare war first.
[b]I hope you realize how illogical what you're saying is. Congress will never declare war unless it can be proven that the opposing nation has been an aggressor in armed conflict. They cannot declare war on a nation that technically hasn't attacked us yet.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I'm pretty sure that all they need is proof that they're a threat to our national security.
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.It is a power. It's the power to to tell the President "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop".
[color=#2e1a6b]That doesn't explain how it's a power. I mean, [b]I have the power to tell president "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop". What can the Congress do that I can't?
That's what a declaration of war means. Or do you think that the writers of the Constitution honestly believed that Congress, with its infamously tedious and drawn out sessions and it's penchant for divisiveness, should always be the one to decide when to attack and when not to?
[color=#2e1a6b]yeah, that's exactly what I think. We should be tedious and careful when declaring war. The early colonists hated how the England's king would constantly start wars which skyrocketed the taxes. They wanted to avoid this, so they didn't allow the president to start wars whenever he wanted.
...So yea. Just because Congress passed it as an Act doesn't make it constitutional. Or are you saying you believe the National Defense Authorization Act is completely constitutional?
[color=#2e1a6b]The NDAA violates the constitution (bill of rights), so it is unconstitutional. The war powers act doesn't violate the constitution
[color=#2e1a6b]The word "attack" is not used in past tense. The president can defend or intercept an attack without congress' approval. What he can't do is make an "emergency" offensive siege on someone who isn't attacking us.
That's rich. You're saying it's alright to attack once we "see" the first punch being thrown, but not if we have reason to suspect that it's going to be thrown beforehand. The problem with that is that you can't guarantee that first punch isn't going to hit. Sure, you'll be making a move before it lands, but the fact that it's going to land remains.
I'm not saying we should always preemptively strike, but I don't think it would be wise to completely take the option off the table either. Not like it matters, though. If such a situation were to arise, I doubt anyone outside of Congress would give a rat's ass about congressional approval. They may bitch about it now when it's little things the President does, but if it were something much more threatening, much more powerful, then yea. They probably wouldn't care either.
[color=#2e1a6b]The option to preemptively strike before they attack is still available. But Congress has to declare war first.
EZ-2789 wrote...
[b]I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the OP.ok, I couldn't really tell since you didn't quote anyone
[b]The constitution doesn't give Congress the power to start wars either (declare =/= start). A declaration of war is merely an acknowledgement/recognition that the US government and the entire nation is in a state of war. That means Congress can only declare war once the US is already involved in armed conflict. Armed conflict without a declaration of war is simply armed conflict.
[color=#2e1a6b]The constitution doesn't use the word "start" because the president is the commander of the army, and he's the one who literally starts the war. It wouldn't make any sense to say that Congress "starts" the war. The Congress' Declaration of war is what gives the president the right to start the war.
This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.
[b]The President didn't need Congress authorization in order to do that until the War Powers Act
[color=#2e1a6b]He was supposed to have congress' authorization all along, but he disregarded it. The war powers act just forced him to comply
[b]which limited the use of armed forces to when one of three conditions are met: 1) declaration of war, 2) specific statutory authorization and 3) in national emergencies created by attacks on the US and its territories/assets.
[color=#2e1a6b]in a way, it gives him more power, since it gives him the right to attack in emergencies.
[b]With that, I bring up the Fourth: The reason Leon Panetta said what he said was because of the fact that all the Presidents and the majority of the members of the Executive Department and armed forces have denounced the War Powers Act as unconstitutional since it was brought into effect in 1973.
[color=#2e1a6b]They have no right to decide whether something is constitutional or not, that's what the judges are for (not that they do their job). Until the act is overturned by the judges, it is law, and it is treason for them to defy it.[b]Mainly because of the fact that the only time the President is allowed to exercise immediate action without Congressional approval is when the US has already been attacked (obvious negative for the people charged with ensuring our safety).
[color=#2e1a6b]The word "attack" is not used in past tense. The president can defend or intercept an attack without congress' approval. What he can't do is make an "emergency" offensive siege on someone who isn't attacking us.
[b]So, before the War Powers Act, the right to [color=red]use armed forces was constitutionally held by the President and the Executive Branch. Then Congress stripped them of it. Yea, I can see why the Secretary of Defense would answer the way he did.
[color=#2e1a6b]Congress stripped the president the right to use armed forces? you must be referring to the right to invade other countries without congress' declaration of war. I already explained that he didn't have that power.
[color=#2e1a6b]um... I hiked 81 miles in 7 days, I wrote a 25 page paper in one night, and I've made 4 half-court basketball shots in a row.
hopefully I'll have something better in a few years
hopefully I'll have something better in a few years
EZ-2789 wrote...
I think only two of the sources you gave may have been providing somewhat objective information. The rest of them had very clear biases.[color=#2e1a6b]which post are you referring to? the "eat the rich" video has a biased tone, but I posted it because of its statistics about the rich. The biased tone alone doesn't discredit the information
I don't consider the alex jones video a source, since I linked to the actual bill.
[b]As for whether or not Obama should be impeached, no. Whether his actions were right or not is a completely different discussion. But he hasn't done anything outside the realm of his powers
[color=#2e1a6b]The constitution does not give him the power to start wars, only the congress can declare war. The defense secretary basically said that they don't need congress to use offensive military force
[b]or outside of the Legislative/Judicial Branch's abilities to check them.
[color=#2e1a6b]that's what impeachment is for
EDIT: Ron paul just posted in his weekly update that the congress has the power to withhold funding to the wars. I'd be surprised if they did that, but that is a possible response
[b]So that shouldn't even be a question.
sounds familiar
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.+Con.+Res.+107:
[color=#2e1a6b]depending on how congress votes on this bill, he could really get impeached
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
I just realized the true reason behind this impeachment BS; the republican candidates are such a pack of lunitics, there is no way obama won't get re elected. it's a hail mary play.
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't really care if Obama gets impeached, it's too late for that. I just hope that Obama 2.0 Romney doesn't become the republican Nominee
meltme wrote...
Anyone else seen the Magic Johnson documentary on ESPN? That was an eye opener. I was too young at the time to remember it clearly (was like 4). Seeing the documentary and everything Magic went through was enlightening. At the end of the documentary, they show a little girl with AIDS crying and being consoled by Magic. The next moment they showed her twenty years later healthy, smiling, and an AIDS activist. That was really touching.Magic Johnson is one of the greatest NBA players of all time, but never forget his contributions off the court.
[color=#2e1a6b]I saw a different documentary in which Magic and Larry bird were both commentating on their careers. I'm young, so I never got to see him play, but I respect him as a legend.
[color=#2e1a6b]worst dub I've ever seen was Pia Carrot (hentai series), it was horrible, had terrible quality vocals, and the loli girl sounded like a 50 year old lady.
There was also the 4kids version of One Piece, but that dub just had horrible censorship
There was also the 4kids version of One Piece, but that dub just had horrible censorship
[color=#2e1a6b]I use this site to educate myself about weight lifting.
I have a nice weight station at my house, so it's a little easier to do each exercise. I only use dumbbells when I'm doing shoulder exercises, but I still hate them. You might want to buy some better equipment, or get a membership somewhere.
I have a nice weight station at my house, so it's a little easier to do each exercise. I only use dumbbells when I'm doing shoulder exercises, but I still hate them. You might want to buy some better equipment, or get a membership somewhere.
BloodyGears wrote...
From what i read, i don think he should be impeached. While he should be going through congress to wage war, nothing he has done has constituted treason or impeachment.[color=#2e1a6b]That depends on how you define treason. But in a sense you're right. illegal wars haven't impeached any other presidents, so it wouldn't make sense to only impeach Obama.
War it seems is a necessary evil for America. Each World War has brought us out of economic depressions.
[color=#2e1a6b]To be more precise, spending is the necessary evil for America. But I disagree with Keynesian economics
U know how easily our debt could be wiped out if our richest citizens donated some of their idle millions to the cause? But our country is full of greed and self interest.
[color=#2e1a6b]The rich people can't wipe out the debt. Our troops were mentioned a few times. Them just getting back from Iraq, etc. They signed up to be a soldier of the United States. It would be one thing if thet were drafted, but that isnt the case. They get paid for their service, so ill use a metaphore. When ur at your job, do you get paid, and your boss not care if u stand around and so nothing? No, they get mad and make u work. So, why should we pay our soldiers to be safely at home? If stationed on a base or something, its understandable, but if they are living as a normal civi, why pay them?
[color=#2e1a6b]Are you serious? People enlist in the army as an act of service, not to make money. You seem to think that inactive soldiers are payed. There are some benefits given to soldiers (both active duty and inactive), but it's nothing like welfare. They can't survive on those benefits; They have to work.
please drop this argument, it's very disrespectful
My last topic is news and knowledge. We Americans are ignorant of much of the world news unless we look online and such for it. Our news networks dont cover much of the important stuff that goes in on the world. Many of my friends from different countries tell me their news is more informative about the rest of the world. Without knowing how the rest of the world is fairing, is it any wonder why we are opposed to interfering with the rest of the world?
[color=#2e1a6b]I agree with you on this, I hate our news stations.
Randumb wrote...
Obama does have the power to declare war without Congress. They can veto his decision after 90 days.[color=#2e1a6b]@Darkhilt, Non-interventionism is different from Isolationism. I hate how anyone who dislikes war is labeled an Isolationist
[color=#2e1a6b]If there was enough evidence to go to war with Iran, then congress would declare the war. The only reason we would need this "executive order" is because there isn't enough evidence.
didn't we just go through all this with Iraq?
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't disagree with you, but your statement reminded me of this:
didn't we just go through all this with Iraq?
Isn't no one tired of these wars... Seriously all it results to is people dying
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't disagree with you, but your statement reminded me of this:
say what! wrote...
pspkiller626 wrote...
From the view of our boys' families, I would give Obama a big FUCK YOU in the face. Them soldiers were barely pulled out of Iraq and now it's coming to this? If this happens for real, Obama might as well be kicked out of office immediately.From the taxpayer's view, this will only mean heavier taxes than ever. This will cause an endless chain of economic trouble; higher taxes and higher living costs, further inflation and so on.
The irony of it all is that Obama was awarded a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE only 3 years ago, and now he's on the verge of moving against Iran who hasn't done anything to trigger a violent reaction against it.
IMO, effective diplomacy should be deployed. There are some foes that will simply not listen, but it does not seem like the Iranians are in such a state. Hatred and more suffering are the only things born of war, which is why I believe that peaceful methods should be deployed.
Iran is a threat(nuclear program) to Isreal which is one of America's greatest allies in the Middle East
George Washington gave us some warnings about alliances in his Farewell Address of 1796. Here are some quotes from his letter:
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world"
"Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
to be fair, he did say that we could use alliances, but only in an emergency, which clearly isn't the case with israel
"we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies"
which means they are also a threat to the US.
[color=#2e1a6b]No they aren't.
this is why George Washington was against alliances, because then we would get in an unnecessary wars that we shouldn't be involved in, and we would use the alliance as an excuse to say that our national security is endangered, even though it's not.
[color=#2e1a6b]The problem is that the constitution is very vague when describing the grounds for impeachment
[color=#2e1a6b]The president is breaking the supreme law of that land, but apparently that's not enough for the congress to impeach him.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
[color=#2e1a6b]The president is breaking the supreme law of that land, but apparently that's not enough for the congress to impeach him.
You're causing a lot of ambiguity using the word "tired".
Sometimes my hand gets physically tired and I just read without fapping, which is annoying. I never get uninterested or bored; I wouldn't have started fapping in the first place
Sometimes my hand gets physically tired and I just read without fapping, which is annoying. I never get uninterested or bored; I wouldn't have started fapping in the first place
[color=#2e1a6b]I liked that verse from Numbers 5:11-29, it's incredibly useful when someone tries argue against pro-choice with the bible.
My main problem with pro-choice is that they contradict themselves for their own convenience:
In our legal system, "It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered, thereby killing her unborn fetus" (source)
Pro choice supporters say that this is a good law, because it protects the woman's right to choose.
So basically, When one wants to have an abortion, she can have one, and claim that it was not murder. But if that same fetus was murdered along with the pregnant girl, they claim that the fetus was murdered. Pro choice has an inconsistent definition of a fetus, which conveniently changes to fit what we want.
My main problem with pro-choice is that they contradict themselves for their own convenience:
In our legal system, "It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered, thereby killing her unborn fetus" (source)
Pro choice supporters say that this is a good law, because it protects the woman's right to choose.
So basically, When one wants to have an abortion, she can have one, and claim that it was not murder. But if that same fetus was murdered along with the pregnant girl, they claim that the fetus was murdered. Pro choice has an inconsistent definition of a fetus, which conveniently changes to fit what we want.
[color=#2e1a6b]I didn't post in SD because I wasn't sure if y'all would think this is intelligent enough for SD. Anyways...
I was watching one of Ron Paul's speeches, and I heard him say something along the lines of "America thinks we're helping others with war and nation-building. We think we're somehow sharing our goodness with these wars. They don't think we're sharing our goodness, they want us out of their business"
When he said that we're "sharing our goodness", it sounded VERY familiar, and it took a while for me to remember, but it suddenly came to me... this idea is nearly identical to a quote from Avatar: the Last Airbender.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGFolLLV0MA&t=1m37s
(this was when Zuko confronted Firelord Ozai during the eclipse)
Do you think that there is a chance that the creators intended to make an allegory in which the fire nation represents the United States?
or maybe I'm just overthinking a children's cartoon
I was watching one of Ron Paul's speeches, and I heard him say something along the lines of "America thinks we're helping others with war and nation-building. We think we're somehow sharing our goodness with these wars. They don't think we're sharing our goodness, they want us out of their business"
When he said that we're "sharing our goodness", it sounded VERY familiar, and it took a while for me to remember, but it suddenly came to me... this idea is nearly identical to a quote from Avatar: the Last Airbender.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGFolLLV0MA&t=1m37s
(this was when Zuko confronted Firelord Ozai during the eclipse)
Do you think that there is a chance that the creators intended to make an allegory in which the fire nation represents the United States?
or maybe I'm just overthinking a children's cartoon
SamRavster wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
Capital punishment is better, assuming we have plenty of proof that the suspect is guilty. Even if it doesn't reduce crime rates, it still reduces jail costs.
...
[font=verdana][color=green]When you find someone guilty of murder, you are saying that, beyond reasonable doubt, this person is guilty of murder. That means being 100% certain that they are guilty of murder. However, many times in the case law, decisions have been overturned due to new evidence coming to light that wasn't available at the time of the trial. So, they are let free and pardoned - as well as compensated I'm sure. With Capital Punishment, that isn't possible. That person would be dead and there would be nothing that the courts could do about it - they would have died an innocent person. That is simply too big a risk to take.
[color=#2e1a6b]If I'm understanding you right, your saying that it's impossible to be certain that someone is guilty (due to new evidence arising), so we shouldn't use capital punishment.
Biglundi already posted the statistics about this, so no need to repeat them
SamRavster wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
SamRavster wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
Capital punishment is better, assuming we have plenty of proof that the suspect is guilty. Even if it doesn't reduce crime rates, it still reduces jail costs.
[font=verdana][color=green]So, are you saying that without capital punishment, the level of proof required to find the defendant guilty is lower? That's a highly sketchy and rather idealistic approach there.
[color=#2e1a6b]You could phrase it that way if you want. I think I higher punishment deserves a higher certainty of guilt.
[font=verdana][color=green]You misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, is that your approach insinuates that normal murder cases don't have a high level of evidence and certainty requirement, where in fact they do. Many people have said that argument in the past "Oh, if we are 100% sure that they are guilty, we should use Capital Punishment", but... all that says is is that you believe that current murder cases don't have 100% certainty, which is not the case.
Many people have been incarcerated with the belief that they were guilty, but many cases have had new evidence bought to light and they were found to be innocent people. With capital punishment, that possibility could never exist.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm confused, it looks like you're saying that current murder cases have 100% certainty. Maybe you meant that the cases claim to have 100% proof when they really don't?