For somebody who spends so much time going on about this stuff, there is a conspicuous absense of mentions of the War Powers Resolution in your output.
(Insert Title Here) Why would they? Article IV deals with issues pertaining to and relations between the states, not within states. That is, how do you construct the legal argument? Is that marriage license, once fulfilled, valid in another state insofar as one is still married to their spouse? Why are you changing the subject? Oh, right, because you have to. In #134 above: "How marriage is defined 'federally' will have no affect on the states. Leaving it to the states, in essence he protected same-sex marriage from being out-lawed by the federal government, you should be happy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!" You might as well try to sell me a car by saying I will save a lot on my gasoline expenditures while the real reason for that is that the car doesn't run. In the end, sure, Ron Paul opposes a constitutional amendment; after all, he supports the states' right to ignore the Constitution. My father married his second wife a few years ago in a quiet ceremony down in Oregon. He and his wife now live in the state of Washington. They did not have to marry again in order for the state of Washington to recognize their union. Do you understand that? The state of Washington, according to Article IV, recognizes the legally sanctioned marriage in Oregon. It's not so complicated to figure out. Ron Paul, however, explained quite clearly that he would oppose that recognition of gay marriages. I think if you want your opinions about constitutional law to have any credibility, you're going to have to put some sort of affirmative effort into it. You are most certainly welcome.
Do you know what the War Powers Resolution says Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Excerpt from Wiki: 1. Congress never authorized him to go 2. No attack on the US 3. Has been more than 60-90 days and we're still not out ? Oh and later on Congress voted down authorization of the war. So in my point of view of course it is unconstitutional but it doesn't even pass the Wars Power Resolution Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh and this is the guy who said THIS:
Marriage licenses are given license by the State that IT recognizes them. It is a 'in state' issue. So you are right, Article IV says nothing about it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You didn't answer my question. Is a business license for Seattle valid to do business in New York? Not a change of subject, just an advice. In #134 above: "How marriage is defined 'federally' will have no affect on the states. Leaving it to the states, in essence he protected same-sex marriage from being out-lawed by the federal government, you should be happy" Makes no sense. Definition of marriage federally has no bearing on the definition within States- has nothing to do with dysfunctional. You misunderstanding as I showed. And what do you have to say of Obama's war Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Because WA State has laws that allow it. You see. Yes. It CHOOSES to recognize it. Yes indeed.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No. He said he refuses that any definition be forced onto the people. As Ron has said many times, if a State wants to recognize same-sex marriage they are more than welcome to do so. He wouldn't agree with that definition of marriage so he'd oppose it, but he would recognize the legitimacy of the definition within whichever State it exists. So you clearly don't know his position. You would need to first understand the Constitution because you clearly don't.
This is true. But US has to follow the US Constitution. Power to declare war is with the Congress... Nothing is superior than the Constitution, not even the UN Charter Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 2. Later on Congress VOTED AGAINST authorization. (so the implicit 'approval' argument from the other resolution clearly fails) 3. US has veto power in UN, thus any 'military' action would be by its own approval. That is the administration took the country to war without consulting the Congress, and 'voted' for war itself in the UN. Any way you cut it- The President thus has waged war despite avoiding the Constitution, against the Wars Power Act. He has broken US law to enforce UN Resolution. Which is he accountable for as the President of the United States of America?
Friedman only advised how to run a failed system with 'care'. He did not endorse the system itself. And what Friedman suggested is not close to pumping trillions at a time- thats not 'slow' and 'steady'. Oh keep this in mind: CONGRESS has power to declare war Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And you can support your argument? And I'm certain you can provide a statutory history for that. Depends on how one is doing business. In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. If I want to open a store in New York, I would need a local business license. If I wanted to fly out there to negotiate a supply contract with a New York vendor, no. There is a difference between being gay and being married. Just like there is a difference between being heterosexual and being married. I've been laid before. Heterosexually and homosexually. I've never been married. DoMA doesn't pertain to simply being gay; it pertains to being married. Ergo, yes, you changed the subject. You missed the point, which was that half-truths are also half-lies. You told me I should be happy. Why, because Ron Paul would trash Article IV of the U.S. Constitution in order to discriminate against homosexuals? RCW? Statutory citation to support that assertion? Um ... okay. Just because you say so is not sufficient to make it so. He would have voted for DoMA if he had the chance. He said it himself. Some sort of factual, reasonable argument would help your case much more than mere petulance.
Yes, as evidenced by this thread. Both "conservatives" and liberals hold Ron up to a standard none of their candidates could ever pass. Yet that's not the important thing. Finding every little last thing to tear him down, rather than focus on the big important issues that are tearing this country apart? Yeah, that's the focus.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One you have no clue as to what Friedman would or would not do if he were confronted with the crisis we faced in 2007-2009. I suspect he would have done exactly what Bernanke did. The fact is the economic issues that Friedman faced were far different in both the nature and severity than those we faced in 2008. Friedman was fighting stagflation, not depression. Ok, so. Keep in mind you have not answered my question. Where does it say in the Constitution that the president needs a declaration of war before using American troops? American history as previously pointed out to you is replete with examples of American presidents engaging in military action against others contries without a declaration of war. American troops fired back when attacked by Japan - with no declaration of war by Japan or the United States. Jefferson, a founding father, used troops in North Africa without a declaration of war from congress. As quad pointed out this is long settled law. The POTUS carries a device with him at all times that allows him to launch a nuclear war with out a declaration of war from congress. You don't seem to have the clarity of thought to understand the difference between a declaration and a military act. There is a difference, a big difference.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! By the way point 3 clearly says that if any of those prohibited marriages were legal and recognized in another state, they would NOT be recognized, proving tha the statutory acceptance is conditional on state law. As an example. Rhode Island allows uncle-niece marriages as an exception to Jewish communities. There is no exception under WA State law (as seen above). Those marriages will NOT be recognized in WA state. Happy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your understanding of the Constitution is clearly flawed.
Yet you quoted Jefferson who himself (being the founder) said it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to go beyond defense. You also ignore Obama's OWN understanding of the Constitution- which I quoted above. Also you do see that the Wars Power Resolution prohibits 'military action' without Congressional approval? So he indeed is in breach of US law. Give me a break. How long will this 'I just wanna win arguments' mentality going to last Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A bit of a circular argument, there, eh? A 1998 law? What about the people who were married in other states, and moved to Washington before 1998? I don't recall that they had to get married again.
You asked for a law you got it. It may be that 'marriage' was just accepted on general terms and the public didn't feel like making a law for it. Also it is RCW (Revised Code of Washington) the law could have been older but revised. Can't say that is the original date :shrug: And if I'm not mistaken : "1998 c 1 § 4; 1927 c 189 § 1; Code 1881 § 949; 1866 p 81 § 2; 1854 p 96 § 115; RRS § 8438" Maybe all of those years this law existed but revised :shrug: But more importantly I just provided you with an example of a marriage that would not count Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Which is more relevant than the date of the law or how they handled 'previous' marriage arrangements. Usually such laws are not forced onto 'previous' generations anyways, so your comment is a little disingenuous.
No I didn't quote Jefferson. I use Jefferson as an example of a president using military action with out a declaration of war from Congress. You had better go read the War Powers Resolution. It does not require the president to seek congresssional approval before taking military action. If you would do your homework you would not need a break.
Since you like to point out differences. Defensive Military action and Offensive Military action also have a big difference. It requires that they do later on- and if they don't have it then they have to quit within 60 days and 30 days for withdrawal- we're already past that point since it started. Now what? I didn't say he needed approval prior to, those were your words, I said he needed it. For he can't continue for this long without it. This of course was in 'emergency' situations that this power was to be used- which wasn't the case- so this clearly is a abuse of power to begin with. Secondly Congress VOTED DOWN authorization- and then he should've withdrawn immediately to be in line with the Constitution and the Wars Power Resolution. If you weren't so biased, I would really be enjoying my break Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh yes you did say prior approval. The facts are presidents are allowed to take military action with out a declaration of war. And that is not a violation of the Constitution as you claimed.
The fact is Jefferson himself said it is unconstitutional to use troops offensively (wasn't he the President, he could have if he understood it like you do?) The fact is Obama himself said it is unconstitutional. The fact is it is against the Wars Powers Resolution to engage for this long without authorization. The fact is you can't quote me saying that the War Powers Resolution required 'prior' approval. The fact is offensive military action IS a declaration of war- its kind of a 'writing on the wall', to put blinders on to this fact is ludicrous. And thus the Constitution does mean that Congress decides to enter into conflict or not- because that is, by action itself, declaration of war. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The passage of the War Powers Resolution itself shows how the Congress understands the Constitution: Wars Powers Resolution (for emergency use) 1. Allowed the President to take military action (since its emergency) 2. Asks that then Congress be notified and asked for authorization. 3. IF authorization is not granted, he then must PULL OUT within 60-90 days If the President had the 'power' to use troops wherever he wanted, as you suggest, then the War Powers Resolution could NOT dictate to the President to pull out. The fact that it does clearly states the Congress's understanding that indeed the power to initiate military offense lies with the Congress alone. It was for emergency reasons the President was given lee-way to respond 'quickly' to any 'emergency' attacks on US. Clearly showing that it has always been considered the Congress's power to declare war- which includes military attack (as the attack itself is a declaration of war). In fact the Wars Power Resolution was considered unconstitutional by many on the grounds that the Congress could not pass on their power to the President to declare war- but we know the War Powers Resolution actually gives President the authority to wage military offense (not declaration of war)- AGAIN clearly showing that declaration of war and military offense was understood to be one in the same. War Powers Resolution only asks the President to ask authorization to put a CHECK onto this power, so that they can not lead this country into any war they want, because CONGRESS still holds the authority over declaration of wars thus by denying him the authorization this 'emergency use' bill can not be misused for long periods. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID @lit(fr00286)) Start reading from page 318.. There was NEVER an intention at all the President to initiate war. Your understanding of what 'declaring war' means is frankly stupidity of the highest order. An action of bombing a country itself is a declaration of war for all the 'declaration of war' is important for. This 'Commander in Chief' is not a dictator or a King. You have no argument. All you want to do is save face and protect your 'Guy you can't diss'. Furthermore, can you deny that he is in violation of the War Powers Resolution as it has been more than 90-days and he does not have authorization from Congress? We may have disagreements on philosophical understanding and point of view, but this is plainly sad, unparalleled bias, a rejection of history itself and a rejection of the very belief that Candidate Obama held which he discarded after becoming President Obama. This is ridiculous, and quite honestly I'm disgusted by this argument.
You mean the same US Constitution that has this to say: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" keep that in mind, and remember, S.RES.85 passed unanimously. But hang on - the United Nations is founded on a Treaty, and as such, because the represent the ratification of a Treaty, UN police actions have, up until this one, at least, been accepted by Congress as legitimate through UN Resolutions. No it doesn't, because your 'counter argument' (and I use the term loosely) is bunkum. Congress voted against the continuation of the action in June (which in effect is voting against authorization, I suppose), and continuation of funding for it after the 60 day period was up, and after it had already dragged on for longer than Obama had told them it would (he initially reported that it would only be a matter of a few days, or a couple of weeks). So it does not logically follow that this is indicative of the intent of congress before March 19, the only events that can be used to infer that, are events that occured before that date, and these include S.RES.85, which passed unanimously, and appears to have had at least a plurality of support from the permanent select committee on intelligence. Especially in light of the fact that before the action began (the relevant time frame) the senators involved were being told it would only be a matter of days, but by March 31, Gates was saying that no-one could predict how long it would take. Arguably, what was voted against was a protracted action. This assertion is supported by the fact that if you read almost anything dated between March 19 and March 31, the objection is over the lack of clear consultation, with Boehner asking Obama to clarify what, precisely the goals in Libya are. After March 31, people start complaining about the cost of an ongoing war in a struggling economy. The US is not the only country with the power of Veto on the security council, and the US vote was inline with the will expressed by the senate - that a no fly zone should be enforced , and that the civilians of Libya should be protected, so this does not represent a valid counterpoint. The vote by the US rep on the security council was inline with S.RES.85, and the UN vote passed 10 for, none against, with 5 abstentions. Perhaps the most absurd thing about this 'objection' of yours is that prior to the passing of UN.1973, The United States was being criscized in the media for equivocating, hesitating, and showing no clear leadership or intentions, one way or the other. Any way you cut it, based on the, albeit modest, research that I have managed to do, your argument so far appears to hold about as much water as this does: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The more I look into it, the less your point seems founded in facts, and the more it seems like some attempt to re-write history. I mean: The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to act on treaties, and the power to make treaties provided two thirds od the senators concur. The Senate passed S.RES.85 Unanimously. The US signed a treaty when it joined the UN, and under that treaty there are certain obligations. Historicly, Congress has considered actions taken under UN resolutions to be legal and valid without explicit congressional approval The US voted in favour of UN1973 after weeks of apparent equivocation, which, it seems was inline with the will of the senate. The Action was taken, it seems, after consulting with the two relevant committees of the House of Representatives. The US took military action that was legalized under a UN resolution, seemingly in line with the will of congress after a unanimous vote, which on the basis of historical precedent seemed to be legal, and on the basis of the wording of article 2, clause 2, which appears to invest in the POTUS the ability to form and act under treaties, including chapter VII of the UN charter - a treaty which had been ratified by congress... And somehow that constitutes a breach of American law?? I'm sorry, but at this point, to me, based on the information I have been able to track down, doing my own research, your argument seems to be becoming increasingly absurd.
