1. Congress does not have the power to pass on its duties to other branches of government. This certainly includes a 'foreign' entity such as the UN 2. You still CANNOT circumvent the Constitution. It says Congress shall declare war. Did it? No. 3. The passage of the 'unanimous' resolution was a switch and bait if you care to read. It was no 'will' of the Senate. Senate didn't read the bill that included those words. 4. If S.RES was an authorization, then the voting down later on was a de-authorization of war. Which is under the power of Congress. 5. Congress has All legislative power. If the UN Resolution was passed (becoming US law) then it was de-authorized (repealed) by voting down of the war. There is no bypassing the Congressional power to declare war and legislate, and if they did declare war through UN resolution, then they also de-authorized it, doesn't matter what the 'UN' says as those treaties and their resolutions are subject to Congressional review Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As all legislative authority belongs to Congress- not the UN. And even though President is given power to make Treaties. Those treaties cannot be unconstitutional. That is the power to declare war still remains with the Congress as it is understood that explicit powers stated in the Constitution supersede any 'implicit' powers stated. Does the President have the power to create treaties that relate to war declaration? We don't know, but we do know that Congress has the power to declare war. Thus no matter what the treaty may be the power to declare war still remains with the Congress.
His argument at least makes some sense. Yours was just desperate and you can't defend it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Strawman hypothesis. My argument is that Congress ratified the UN Charter - a Treaty, and in doing so handed off the obligations under that treaty to the POTUS, and that the action undertaken in Libya was such an obligation. The requirement here is not for the US to hand authority or duties to a foreign government, but rather that the POTUS be sufficiently convinced that their actions are in the best interest of the constitution, and in the best interest of ratifying the treaty in question (in this case the UN Charter). Strawman hypothesis. My argument was not an attempt to circumvent the constition, but rather an illustration of how the action in Libya - at least as it was intended, or originally presented, is consistent with the consitution, in that it represents the fullfillment of a treaty obligation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, fullfillments of which in the past, and of a similar nature, have not required a declaration of war. I quote from the link provided earlier, which is the official bill text, as it was passed on March 3rd, 2011. "Resolved, That the Senate... ...(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;" So unless you're asserting that the Library of Congress has taken to faking records..? Irrelevant to the point that I was making - they deauthorized the continuation of what was originally portrayed as a short term police action. Neither counters nor addresses anything I have actually said. Irrelevant to the point (and discussion) at hand. Except that historicly the Congress has accepted that actions taken under UN resolutions do not require a declaration of war, and do not require congressional approval, because they amount to the ratification of a treaty obligation, and Congress has the power to suspend them if it deems it neccessary under the war powers act (EG when what is ostensibly a short term action drags on for longer than it should).
Did they ratify that the UN is superior to the Constitution? If not, then they have to deal with the fact that TO THIS DAY it says: Congress has power to declare war. They would have to amend the Constitution to read 'and UN..etc' to make it Constitutional again. The past doesn't matter because the past was also unconstitutional. You are suggesting that the UN can circumvent a CONDITION specified by the Constitution itself. That is only Congress has the power to declare war. The appropriate action would be the UN resolution be brought into Congress and a vote to engage in war was taken. You can not under any resolution, under any law dismiss the simple fact CONGRESS DECLARES WAR. I said 'bait and switch' (happens before passage) I'm not questioning the wording of the document. So what about now? Now its clear that Congress does not approve and the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution- the President is required to bring the troops back. Am talking about NOW. Congress not taking action means nothing. It just means they don't give a rats ass about the Constitution themselves but it doesn't change the fact that the action is unconstitutional if it is regardless of how the Congress feels. There have been bills passed by Congress that later have been rejected to be unconstitutional- so their 'past' allowing wars under UN Resolutions doesn't do anything in terms of a clear and explicit statement of the Constitution that only the Legislative branch: Congress declares war. Congress can not create a Treaty in which Congress does not declare war. Because if Congress doesn't declare it then they are in conflict with the Constitution. They would need to amend the Constitution, much more important than the ratification of any treaty.
LOL, is that the best you can do? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You have done nothing but spew nonsense and not been able to back up anything. You have a bunch of strange notions. You have attacked empiricism and rational thought in favor of ill conceived half baked notions. You don't offer proofs because you don't believe in proofs. Why should you bother yourself with them when you have no use for them? And you don't seem to be able to understand English. As the Constitution you cite to back up some of your notions clearly does not say what you seem to think it says - nor does more than 200 years of American history. But hey, why should you be troubled with little things like facts, rational thought and evidence? After all you are a conservative. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I dare you to collect your posts and mine and put them in a single thread and ask people who present any logical argument backed by any evidence whatsoever. Or how about present them to a panel of University professor. If they agree with you I will pay you a $100. In fact I'd ask Trippy to judge between your argument about the power of the President as 'commander in chief' and mine, I think at least he is smart enough to tell you that you're full of shit when it comes to that argument. Anyways, I'm done talking to brainless idiots. Ban me mod, I'm done. How could anyone expect anything from people here than partisan political bashing methodology. Oh yeah I used to post this American political football match will destroy this country- keep it up. IMO, anyone who is willingly being this biased is a traitor. But its not like it matter. This country is going to hell soon because of people anyways. Hail Obama. :worship: I'm done here. Discussing anything here truly is a waste of time.
They don't have to, the constitution places the responsibility for fulfilling treaty requirements in the lap of the POTUS, not the Congress. More to the point, Congress has said - through the war powers resolution, that they don't need to provide authorization unless the action is expected to last more than 60 days. The past doesn't matter, you say. Things that have happened in the past - like signing documents are irrelevant, you say? Take a moment to think that one through. And then realize that it wasn't unconstituional because the police actions were taken under article 2, clause 2 of the constitution were considered to be the fulfillment of the obligations of a treaty that was ratified by the US congress - IE the UN Charter. No I'm not. I'm suggesting no such thing. You, on the other hand, are infering as much from my statements, and I am telling you, to your face, that your inference is wrong. They weren't engaging in a war, they were engaging in a police action, or a military action, not all military actions Yes, I understand the principle of a bait and switch. And I'm telling you that, to put it bluntly, I am skeptical of your claims, and you need to substantiate your claim, by illustrating the bait and switch either in the record in the library of congress, or in my post, or, you need to withdraw it. What is clear is that the congress does not feel it can reasonably commit to a third protracted war. Yes it does, it sets a legal precedent, that can be tested in the various courts of the land that amounts to "We're not interested in minor military actions or police actions enforcing un resolutions, don't bother us with anything you're expecting to be less than 60 days in length, and doesn't require a declaration of war, we'll consider anything meeting those criteria to simply be fullfillment of your duties under the Book of Constitution Chapter 2 Verse 2." Irrelevant to anything I have actually said.
Here's where that might become problematic... For a reasonable share of 100 USD, I might be willing to agree to almost anything including that Obama was really a clone of Nathan Bedford Forrest and his policies are designed to cause enough civil discord to bring about the rise of the South (again).
Lets cut the bullshit. Here is Ron Paul in depth, lets see why some are so scared about him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocG6qot3x94&feature=related
It wouldn't be a waste of time if you could back up your notions. But you cannot. And you are not willing to reassess your notions when confronted with reason and evidence. So you are right, this is a waste of your time. And just because some people disagree with you, it does not make then traitors. This is a popular American right wing notion that I find to be very disturbing as it threatens the very foundations of the nation - free speech.
@Trippy 'Police' action = bombing another country into regime change? Are we playing a semantics game? So you say Congress doesn't want to commit to another war. Given the timeline by War Powers Resolution, is the President in breach of it or not? Its a very simple question which you have side stepped at least twice. You are circumventing the constitution whether you want to admit it or not. The condition says only Congress declares war- an explicit stated power. By going to war under any other entity does not fulfill this condition. @joe You are not a traitor because you disagree, you are one because you are arguing just to 'win' even when your argument is completely full of shit. You care more about a football match than about America. And I don't know how many times you have called others 'racist' to even the playing field. And what evidence did you give except your own opinion of what the power of Commander and Chief is. I even gave you a link to the discussion the founders were having at the time of this writing. I even used the War Powers Resolution to show it backs up my point. You didn't respond to anything because you can't. You're just another liberal brainwashed hack who just knows how to bash the other side and protect his own ass regardless of the legitimacy of defense.
I gave you a case where a recognized marriage in Rhode Island would not be recognized in WA state. Why don't you sue Washington State for that unconstitutional law. In face 49 states would be sued for this. You just didn't think such a law existed, now you're in awe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! President Obama defended DOMA before. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html Ask your President why he is defending something so unconstitutional- in doing so- he is breaking the Constitution itself. So RP and Obama broke it together Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (even though they didn't but just for your sake). Now clearly you can't vote for Obama because Ron Paul went against the Constitution if you had any shred of honesty left you in, which actually you don't by the way this discussion has turned. You must vote third party Tiassa, thats your only choice. Now it is a test of your honest love of the Constitution. If you refuse to vote Ron Paul because of this gay rights 'constitutional issue' then you will love the Constitution just as much by not voting for Obama for the same reasons. I will support you to the end at this cause Tiassa, rock on! We will defend the Constitution. Yes We Can! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Keep wasting your time, then You offered a statute that is irrelevant to your argument, and likely reinforces mine. As I said early on: There are two primary problems with the proposition that Ron Paul will win enough support to be taken seriously as a candidate: • Ron Paul • Ron Paul's supporters And you're proving the second of those. And you're also demonstrating something else I noted earlier: Wasting time is exactly what seems to be going on. I'm starting to think these aren't really Paul supporters, but provocateurs whose chosen mission is to discredit the Congressman, his campaign, and his supporters. The problem is that your inability to form and maintain a coherent argument is one of the more common criticisms about Ron Paul's supporters, often encouraging the pejorative, "Paultards". When your argument falls through, you try to change the context of your argument. In this case, you've revised your argument to vapidity. No wonder you didn't want to credit your source; the quote is over two years old. And it's obsolete: The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department's course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman: In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard .... .... After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination. Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit .... .... Furthermore, pursuant to the President's instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3. The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a "reasonable" one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional. (Holder) I suppose, though, it might a bit harsh to say, "No wonder ...," suggests you actually tried to con me. It is, however, equally possible that you were simply ignorant of the facts. Given your recent attempt to deceive, though, one has reason to wonder. In the end, it probably doesn't matter except as an issue of degrees. That is, what is discouraging to a greater degree, the prospect of willful intellectual dishonesty, or the prospect of mere ignorance? Sure, the former annoys me more, but in either case, it isn't what we would call an encouraging representation of Rep. Paul or his supporters. I would probably be safe to do so. Obama likely won't lose Washington state. However, if it comes down to a choice between voting for a proper leftist on a third-party ticket and protecting the nation against a Republican presidency, Obama is still the best compromise I'm going to get in 2012. Meanwhile, let us simply state it clearly: This isn't really about libertarianism for you, is it? It's about stopping Obama, and your encouragement of racism. No, really. If you were sincerely arguing libertarianism, you would do so coherently, and without the ill-conceived sleights of fact and rhetoric. Keep wasting your time, then. ____________________ Notes: Ellerson, Lindsey. "Obama Justice Department Defends Defense Of Marriage Act – That Candidate Obama Opposed". Political Punch. June 12, 2009. ABCNews.Go.com. October 4, 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...of-marriage-act-that-candidate-obama-opposed/ Holder, Eric. "Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act". United States Department of Justice. February 23, 2011. Justice.gov. October 4, 2011. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html
Thanks for the link. (24 minutes well spent) As I stated in prior post I knew very little about RP. Now I know much more - the guy was not evasive as most politicians are and cannot only give clear straight answers (to "cold," not to canned, questions, AFAIK, but from a generally friendly audience, it appeared to me.) One thing is clear and badly needed he noted was to cut the funding of the military and its 900 foreign bases well before deeply trimming domestic "entitlements" - he said they too must be reduced "nibbled away" - not the drastic and rapid cuts he seems to want in the military. Interestingly he is the only candidate to have served in the military (5 years in the USAF as surgeon and in private practice as an MD delivered more than 4000 babies.) With DoD and medical costs with the baby boomers hitting the hospital beds it might be a good idea to have a POTUS who knew something first hand about where needless costs in these two big tax payer expenses are. He is not for any tax increases but I favor the Buffett tax and killing the tax breaks GWB gave the supper rich - their "trickle down" funds have made nearly a million jobs in China and killed about as many in the US via "outsourcing" to stay competitive or closed US factories. I also favor an "export on foreign investments" tax. I.e. if you want to build a new, more efficient factory in say Vietnam costing 40 million dollars, for lower labor cost, you must pay 40 million dollars to the IRS for the government to use re-training workers who lose their job in that industry in the US when their no longer competitive factory closes. I don't think RP would support that type of interference with the "right of the wealthy" to invest their money as they think will be most profitable for themselves. I don't plan to vote for RP (or any other basically nice and intelligent person) as I do not want to be part of having them held responsible for GWB's coming depression. If I vote at all, I'll probably write in GWB's name. He deserves the blame for the coming collapse of the US (as I have explained in many other posts).
Hey joe see that above... I'm being now for 'stopping Obama, and your encouragement of racism'... See hahahha (didn't take long for a reaffirmation of what I said) @Tiassa- your response to the law is just a bunch of statements. You asked for a statutory law, when given, you say 'so what'- why'd you ask for it in the first place then Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Secondly HOW is it irrelevant when the discussion has been about your use of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 which would force States to recognize marriage in one State in all States. The law I quoted would infact NOT recognize specific marriages performed in Rhode Island (uncle-niece) in State of Washington. If your understanding is correct then the law of 49 states, which would not recognize those marriages from Rhode Island, are unconstitutional. Why don't you do something about it? Now I already believe that your understanding of that clause is clearly messed up, I'll use Obama to defend my own understanding, and the understanding of those 49 states that would NOT recognize marriage from Rhode Island of uncle-niece: First point. Obama defended it then- then he WAS breaching Constitution. Now you can say it was his 'mistake'- but that mistake was unconstitutional. Now after 'reviewing' he says not to defend section 3. But he's still defending EVERYTHING ELSE. Section 3 simply would remove the Federal definition of marriage- which in fact is also what I said should happen, but to me it actually made no difference how they defined it. Because it would be definition of states that would matter. Obama is STILL defending THAT. State's individual right to define and recognize marriage as they want. You could say that he stopped supporting 1 unconstitutional section, but still defends others that are unconstitutional per your understanding of the following clause. So it really doesn't help your cause in clearing Obama of breaching the Constitution yet still. Now going back to your argument against Ron Paul on that matter. You used Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1: You told me that if States did not recognize a marriage from another state it would be unconstitutional by being in breach of the above clause. Obama is STILL defending the individual state right to define and recognize marriage, thus you have not resolved the issue. He only is not defending the federal definition (which I am personally against also). So you are left with the same problem Tiassa. Per your understanding of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1, giving States the right to define and recognize marriage would be in violation of the Constitution but is still being defended by the Obama Administration. Instead of throwing red-herrings if you spent any time formulating an argument that just tried to support your understanding of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1, the time would be well-spent, but clearly you can't support it. I've just shown how current statutory laws exist that differ from your understanding, AND the Obama Administration is STILL defending the individual States right to define and recognize marriage again in conflict of your understanding of that specific clause. You're still caught. According to your understanding Obama is still doing something unconstitutional by defending States to recognize marriages depending on their laws. And thanks for playing the racist card, but if you just read what I said I'm in agreement with Obama Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was simply suggesting that if you are telling people not to vote for Ron Paul because of the breach of Constitution (according to your understanding) you can't possibly be honest to yourself and vote or encourage others to vote for Obama. Compromising the Constitution? Sad Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
