Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 16, 2007, 07:41:03 AM
-
Separation of powers dispute. Seems pretty clear to me that Pelosi is wrong.
Pelosi to Bush: You're not the decider on Iran
February 16, 2007
BY DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran ''and I take him at his word.''
At the same time, she said, ''I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.''
. . .
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/260047,CST-NWS-iran16.article
-
Seems pretty clear to me that Pelosi is wrong.
United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power...
To declare war.
Which part of that seems vague to you? :)
Though I'm sure Alberto "Torture" Gonzales will be happy to point out that this doesn't specifically prohibit the President from doing the same. And besides, he won't be declaring war - he'll just be committing it! All perfectly legal.
No Constitutional crisis here, folks. Go back to seeing if Britney's divorce settlement has been reached yet.
-
Separation of powers dispute. Seems pretty clear to me that Pelosi is wrong.
God, you annoy the piss out of me.
Can you please pick up a middle school "social studies" book?
Shit man, every time I wipe my ass I look at the tissue and realize it contains more knowledge on these issues than you do.
-
United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power...
To declare war.
Which part of that seems vague to you? :)
Though I'm sure Alberto "Torture" Gonzales will be happy to point out that this doesn't specifically prohibit the President from doing the same. And besides, he won't be declaring war - he'll just be committing it! All perfectly legal.
No Constitutional crisis here, folks. Go back to seeing if Britney's divorce settlement has been reached yet.
I don't recall anyone actually declaring war!
-
United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power...
To declare war.
Which part of that seems vague to you? :)
Nothing at all. Now in which of the following conflicts did Congress declare war:
Iraq in 2003
Afghanistan in 2001
Kuwait/Iraq in 1990
There is that whole "Commander in Chief" thing in the Constitution in Article II, Section 2.
-
No Constitutional crisis here, folks. Go back to seeing if Britney's divorce settlement has been reached yet.
It's Anna Nicole coverage this week bro, if we decided to go at it with Iran, it would be back page news.
-
Obviously a grey area huh folks?
I think Commander and Chief is a war time thing.
Declaring war is a congressional thing.
BB, it's true we have gone to war 3 times in recent history without congress.
Maybe if we stuck to that we wouldn't get into stupid wars like this one in Iraq.
-
THe point is that Bush is very ready to declare war (and the Rus Parl member said it would be Mar 28th).
Did you guys hear the press conference? "I don't know if they are behind it, but I sitll intend to do something about it".
They fear the man will strike Iran before he leaves office, without congressional approval. SOme here will endorse it because they'd endorse anyting as long as it has the Bush seal of approval. Those people trust their daddy.
-
God, you annoy the piss out of me.
Can you please pick up a middle school "social studies" book?
Shit man, every time I wipe my ass I look at the tissue and realize it contains more knowledge on these issues than you do.
LOL. :-*
-
Obviously a grey area huh folks?
I think Commander and Chief is a war time thing.
Declaring war is a congressional thing.
BB, it's true we have gone to war 3 times in recent history without congress.
Maybe if we stuck to that we wouldn't get into stupid wars like this one in Iraq.
Not just three recent conflicts, but Haiti, Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and probably many others I cannot think of at the moment. Clearly, the Commander in Chief's powers are not limited to a post-declaration of war by Congress. That hasn't been our history at all.
-
Not just three recent conflicts, but Haiti, Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and probably many others I cannot think of at the moment. Clearly, the Commander in Chief's powers are not limited to a post-declaration of war by Congress. That hasn't been our history at all.
It's been our entire history under GWB.
He's still the President, ya know?
-
Obviously a grey area huh folks?
I think Commander and Chief is a war time thing.
Declaring war is a congressional thing.
BB, it's true we have gone to war 3 times in recent history without congress.
Maybe if we stuck to that we wouldn't get into stupid wars like this one in Iraq.
OK, so it's been established that Congress hasn't declared War for any of our recent Wars but doesn't the President still need approval of Congress in order to send troops and start a skirmish? Does he have carte blanche to start a "War" as long as it's not declared a "War" by Congress? Perhaps a little clarity will help.
Ah hell, I'll do some research.
-
It's been our entire history under GWB.
He's still the President, ya know?
Wrong again.
Iraq/Afghanistan = Dubya
Yugoslavia, Haiti = Clinton
Panama (Just Cause) and Desert Storm = Bush Sr.
Grenada = Reagan
In none of these military actions did Congress declare war.
-
That hasn't been our history at all.
Tragically so. And, IMHO, an impeachable offense each and every time.
-
THe point is that Bush is very ready to declare war (and the Rus Parl member said it would be Mar 28th).
Did you guys hear the press conference? "I don't know if they are behind it, but I sitll intend to do something about it".
They fear the man will strike Iran before he leaves office, without congressional approval. SOme here will endorse it because they'd endorse anyting as long as it has the Bush seal of approval. Those people trust their daddy.
I don't understand this. Mr fucking conspiracy theory with his thousands of pages of evidence regarding 9/11 and now you're taking the word of some noname Russian Parliament member on when we invade Iran? It's pretty embarrassing that you seem to think you know the goings on in this world from your trailer in nowheresville, Florida. ::)
-
I don't understand this. Mr fucking conspiracy theory with his thousands of pages of evidence regarding 9/11 and now you're taking the word of some noname Russian Parliament member on when we invade Iran? It's pretty embarrassing that you seem to think you know the goings on in this world from your trailer in nowheresville, Florida. ::)
>:( >:( >:( Also sprach BerzerkFury!! >:( >:( >:(
Sorry. I like both you guys. But that was really funny. :)
-
In this instance, Pelosi is 100% wrong.
GWB, and believe me, I can't stand the guy... But, Pelosi is wrong.
Here's why.
GWB does not need an "act of war" declaration by the US Congress to move troops and attack another Land.
Vietnam was not a "war"... Congress did not declare war and therefore it was a "Police Action". The same goes for other conflicts we've had (a list is earlier in the thread)
The President being Commander in Chief of the armed forces CAN order an attack on whomever he so chooses.
Should he do this and people feel it is an "illegal" act... he can then be impeached...
Pelosi while she may not like the fact, can not deny that GWB is the President of the United States (For better and in most instances "worst"), and by that power he can direct military action on anyone he so chooses.
If Pelosi doesn't like it, she should file impeachment proceedings if "W" decides to attack Iran.
That's how it works guys... You may not like him, but in this case... Pelosi is just wrong about what he can and can't do.
It makes me wonder... If she's Speaker of the House and she does not know this... what does this say about her qualifications?
-
Powers to declare war.
The decision to go to war is exclusively that of Congress
Sadly, it seems we've reached the point where the Constitution is no longer relevant on matters of a president's war-making powers. Presidents, the Congress and the courts have made going to war, once a serious constitutional issue, and a purely political question.
As a result, in the last half century, the war powers clause of the Constitution has become a nullity, if not a quaint relic. While conservatives often insist on following the letter of the Constitution on most issues, on matters of war they ignore it.
That's a disgrace, because the Framers of the Constitution carefully laid out the decision-making process for war. Pursuant to the document, war is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people -- the Congress. Only Congress is authorized to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear about the language in Article I, ¤ 8, clauses 11-16.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/)
It's a good read, very interesting. Obviously it's CNN so keep that in mind if you decide to check out the site.
-
In this instance, Pelosi is 100% wrong.
GWB, and believe me, I can't stand the guy... But, Pelosi is wrong.
Here's why.
GWB does not need an "act of war" declaration by the US Congress to move troops and attack another Land.
Vietnam was not a "war"... Congress did not declare war and therefore it was a "Police Action". The same goes for other conflicts we've had (a list is earlier in the thread)
The President being Commander in Chief of the armed forces CAN order an attack on whomever he so chooses.
Should he do this and people feel it is an "illegal" act... he can then be impeached...
Pelosi while she may not like the fact, can not deny that GWB is the President of the United States (For better and in most instances "worst), and by that power he can direct military action on anyone he so chooses.
If Pelosi doesn't like it, she should file impeachment proceedings if "W" decides to attack Iran.
That's how it works guys... You may not like him, but in this case... Pelosi is just wrong about what he can and can't do.
It makes me wonder... If she's Speaker of the House and she does not know this... what does this say about her qualifications?
Vietnam is another great example.
-
In this instance, Pelosi is 100% wrong.
GWB, and believe me, I can't stand the guy... But, Pelosi is wrong.
Here's why.
GWB does not need an "act of war" declaration by the US Congress to move troops and attack another Land.
Vietnam was not a "war"... Congress did not declare war and therefore it was a "Police Action". The same goes for other conflicts we've had (a list is earlier in the thread)
The President being Commander in Chief of the armed forces CAN order an attack on whomever he so chooses.
Should he do this and people feel it is an "illegal" act... he can then be impeached...
Pelosi while she may not like the fact, can not deny that GWB is the President of the United States (For better and in most instances "worst), and by that power he can direct military action on anyone he so chooses.
If Pelosi doesn't like it, she should file impeachment proceedings if "W" decides to attack Iran.
That's how it works guys... You may not like him, but in this case... Pelosi is just wrong about what he can and can't do.
It makes me wonder... If she's Speaker of the House and she does not know this... what does this say about her qualifications?
This sounds like it's a matter of semantics. The President has the power to go to War without the approval of Congress because it's called a Police Action? What constitutes a war then? Common sense would tell you that Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraq were/are Wars.
-
prez can attack on a very short term emergency basis.
in those small skirmishes, the US has been able to achieve goals in the past. prez cannot declare a 5 year war without congress, as bush had for afghan and iraq.
no one is buying his iran plan.
-
prez can attack on a very short term emergency basis.
in those small skirmishes, the US has been able to achieve goals in the past. prez cannot declare a 5 year war without congress, as bush had for afghan and iraq.
no one is buying his iran plan.
We were in Vietnam for 7 years... How is that short term?
-
What constitutes "very short term emergency basis"? How is that defined?
If that's in fact true how can we be in a "Police Action" for nearly half a decade and not have it declared a War? If it's the job of Congress to demand Bush ask for a Declaration of War then why haven't they? I know they were Republican controlled until recently but that's not really an excuse now is it?
-
congress let them take the funds. nam only ended when congress cut funding. congress could have done that minute one by disallowing any money, so white house would have been crippled after 90 days but didn't.
-
What constitutes "very short term emergency basis"? What is that defined?
If that's in fact true how can we be in a "Police Action" for nearly half a decade and not have it declared a War? If it's the job of Congress to demand Bush ask for a Declaration of War then why haven't they? I know they were Republican controlled until recently but that's not really an excuse now is it?
i believe the prez has emergency powers for 90 days. anyone verify/correct?
-
What constitutes "very short term emergency basis"? What is that defined?
When the commander-in-chief claims authority to send in the armed forces when he deems necessary.
Congressional control is then asserted, in terms of funding appropriations.
If that's in fact true how can we be in a "Police Action" for nearly half a decade and not have it declared a War? If it's the job of Congress to demand Bush ask for a Declaration of War then why haven't they? I know they were Republican controlled until recently but that's not really an excuse now is it?
Remember the term "Declaration of War" is not even mentioned in the US Constitution, the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Bush has some smart people behind him, they now the laws, and they re-write them
-
congress let them take the funds. nam only ended when congress cut funding. congress could have done that minute one by disallowing any money, so white house would have been crippled after 90 days but didn't.
I always thought it ended because the North Vietnamese finally captured Hanoi.
Oh wait... maybe it was that HUGE anti-war stance people were having...
I have never seen where Congress cut funding for the Military during that time.
-
no one is buying his iran plan.
Therein lies what small hope we have...
What finally dug Tick Nixon out of the White House was enough of the elite, realizing that their rackets would actually get fu#ked with if this shit went on much longer, starting the wave of pressure that eventually led to the needed number of senators for an impeachment vote against him.
The various mega-industries that pay protection money to Presidential candidates aren't stupid - despite how much we may laugh at the transparency of their greediness. They know that $6.00 a gallon gas and international pariah status is going to be, you know, bad for business. So as they started to realize with terror the full implications of their having picked a Christianist ventriloquist's dummy to wear The Suit - i.e. "Oh my God. This fraternity retard with his finger on the Big Red Button actually believes that shit." - I suspect that there were some real-power-lunch conversation along the lines of "Who do we know on the Hill who's willing to listen to sit down and have a serious conversation about stabilizing the situation?"
The only question now is if there will be enough of them.
Sad to say, that's just how the power goes. While that plays out, I'm going to get some milk and donuts.
-
I always thought it ended because the North Vietnamese finally captured Hanoi.
Oh wait... maybe it was that HUGE anti-war stance people were having...
I have never seen where Congress cut funding for the Military during that time.
\
Total U.S. withdrawal
Further information: Watergate scandal
In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon's vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress.
-
I always thought it ended because the North Vietnamese finally captured Hanoi.
Oh wait... maybe it was that HUGE anti-war stance people were having...
I have never seen where Congress cut funding for the Military during that time.
Funding was cut in 73 after the massive crazy bombings in Cambodia. After that congress put together the War Power Act, that says it requires the president to seek congressional approval for war within 90 days of deploying troops.
-
ahhh good deal.
i'm all for presidents being able to quickly bomb a threat before the congressional glue slows down the process.
It sounds like Bush "intends to do something about" Iran.
-
Funding was cut in 73 after the massive crazy bombings in Cambodia. After that congress put together the War Power Act, that says it requires the president to seek congressional approval for war within 90 days of deploying troops.
We must be coming up on the 90 day mark any day now in Iraq.
-
We must be coming up on the 90 day mark any day now in Iraq.
\
they gave dubya a blank check thanks to the intel from the CIA which was fudged by Doug Feith in the pentagon, then sold to america by cheney/rice on meet the press.
-
We must be coming up on the 90 day mark any day now in Iraq.
Haha few more days and counting.
-
So basically the liberal mindset is that no country should have to face any consequences for breaking international rules? So when kim jong kicked out UN weapons inspectors, said fuck you we are going to build nukes and do with them as we please, nobody should do anything? So you vote for a global free for all? Iran has been told not to make nukes, they are a dangerous country, you libs are basically saying it's ok to let them build nukes and possibly use them on our troops and israel? When exactly should we act then? After being attacked?
-
So basically the liberal mindset is that no country should have to face any consequences for breaking international rules? So when kim jong kicked out UN weapons inspectors, said f**k you we are going to build nukes and do with them as we please, nobody should do anything? So you vote for a global free for all? Iran has been told not to make nukes, they are a dangerous country, you libs are basically saying it's ok to let them build nukes and possibly use them on our troops and israel? When exactly should we act then? After being attacked?
If you fight them after they attack, you are defending yourself... If you attack first, you are an aggressor...
Isn't this thread about whether bush is in his right to engage military action? You're mixing talking points.
-
If you fight them after they attack, you are defending yourself... If you attack first, you are an aggressor...
What about preemptive strikes?
-
What about preemptive strikes?
If you have definitive proof, I guess that's ok, but I don't think we're there at this point...
Still not the point about whether Bush is in his rights as Commander in Chief... which I think he is.
-
What about preemptive strikes?
can be abused when presidents target oil rich nations. See: Iraq.
-
If you have definitive proof, I guess that's ok, but I don't think we're there at this point...
Still not the point about whether Bush is in his rights as Commander in Chief... which I think he is.
I agree. Pelosi is wrong.
-
If you have definitive proof, I guess that's ok, but I don't think we're there at this point...
And I assume in your morning briefings you have obtained enough information from your generals to come to this conclusion correct?
-
If you fight them after they attack, you are defending yourself... If you attack first, you are an aggressor...
Isn't this thread about whether bush is in his right to engage military action? You're mixing talking points.
The prez is the commander in chief, he can initiate military action however congress controls the flow of money...
-
And I assume in your morning briefings you have obtained enough information from your generals to come to this conclusion correct?
How is this about me or what information I have?
It's about whether "W" can command military personnel to attack a group of people without congressional OK.
The simple answer is... He can.
-
How is this about me or what information I have?
It's about whether "W" can command military personnel to attack a group of people without congressional OK.
The simple answer is... He can.
Of course, who disuputes this?
-
Of course, who disuputes this?
Read through the thread... that's what it's about... apparently some people are disputing this.
I'm not sure why.
-
Read through the thread... that's what it's about... apparently some people are disputing this.
I'm not sure why.
short term, he is the decider thru immediate action unilaterally as he chooses.
long term, congress decides thru funding approvals.