Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #111
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,137

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Original post (top of page 9):

    Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
    Prior to and during the founding of the United States, military forces were supplied by untrained militia commanded by the states. When the Continental Congress first ordered a Continental Army to be formed, it was to be made up of militia from the states. That army, under the command of General George Washington, won the Revolutionary War, but afterwards was disbanded.

    However, it soon became obvious that a standing army and navy were required. The United States Navy (and the Marine Corps) began when Congress ordered several frigates in 1794, and a standing army was created, however it was still only minimal and it relied mostly on contributions from state militia in times of war. The Coast Guard was created in 1790.
    United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As I've said, it didn't start with a standing army. The Continental Army used by Washington wasn't a standing army. Congress established the Navy (as is their power) in 1794, and that's the beginning of our standing army. While the President may now be in CinC of the standing army, it's not his to do with as he pleases. Only Congress can declare war, if we're not under declaration of war the President can't just take the troops any ol' place he wants and start overthrowing governments. He can oversee the executive duties of the military during peace times, but he can't commit acts of war (rightfully) without declaration from Congress.
    I bolded and underlined some of the important things. As stated above, original post is top of page 9
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #112
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Original post (top of page 9):
    When the Continental Congress first ordered a Continental Army to be formed, it was to be made up of militia from the states. That army, under the command of General George Washington, won the Revolutionary War, but afterwards was disbanded.
    This is where your use of Wiki will get you in trouble.
    First...
    When the Continental Army was formed, it raised 10 companies from scratch; when creating these conmpanies, it did not 'federalize' militia units.

    The "expert riflemen" authorized on 14 June were the first units raised directly as Continentals. Congress intended to have the ten companies serve as a light infantry force for the Boston siege. At the same time it symbolically extended military participation beyond New England by allocating 6 of the companies to Pennsylvania, 2 to Maryland, and 2 to Virginia. Each company would have a captain, 3 lieutenants, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, a drummer (or horn player), and 68 privates. The enlistment period was set at one year, the norm for the earlier Provincials, a period that would expire on 1 July 1776.
    June 14th: The Birthday of the U.S. Army

    Second...
    Not the entire Continental/US army was disbanded.

    1st Bn, 5th Field Artillery, which entered into the Continental Army in 1777, was never disbanded and never left the service of the US government. For a time, it remained the sole unit of the regular amy, and still exists today.
    Fort Riley
    (see in particular the unit history PDF)

    But, if you want to use Wiki...
    Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The remaining units possibly formed the nucleus of what was to become the United States Army.
    Continental Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So... the army has stood (that is, there has been a standing army) since 1775.

  3. #113
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Authorization to use force does not carry the same constraints as a declaration of war. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can "authorize use of force", it says that Congress can declare war.
    Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force, the executive branch may send forces for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war, so what is a "congressional authorization to use force" if not a semi-formal way of saying "war were declared"
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #114
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Democrats did not have to run on Bush's approval ratings. They didn't have to. 2008 was the perfect storm for them. And what does Obama do after he is elected? Keeps more than 150 Bush appointees. Some change, huh?
    D, that doesn't make sense at all, since the president still had a better approval rating than congress, I mean geez dude, they found a way to have single digit approval ratings, which is what shocked me about the Democrat clean sweep.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #115
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force, the executive branch may send forces for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war, so what is a "congressional authorization to use force" if not a semi-formal way of saying "war were declared"
    It seems that Ikari, if he was honest, would argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because congressional statue cannot trump constitutionally enumerated powers.

    But he can't because he's dug himself a hole wherein he argues that the declaration of war is a check on executive power, hence, by permitting via statute authority not granted by the Constitution, the Congress has rendered this check insufficient.

  6. #116
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force...
    You are, of course correct -- because, quite often, and especially now, the need for the use of force is so immediate that it cannot wait for congress, and/or is often so slight that an outright declaration of war is far more than necessary.

    Nver mind that the Constitution specifies no limit on the powers of the CinC in terms of his ability to operationally command the military.

    And, of course, actions by other states s can create a state of war independent of Congress declararing as much.

    So, the entire idea that the Presdient isn't -always- the CinC, and that he can -never- take military action against a sovereign state is simply unsupportable (and just plain silly).

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    D, that doesn't make sense at all, since the president still had a better approval rating than congress, I mean geez dude, they found a way to have single digit approval ratings, which is what shocked me about the Democrat clean sweep.
    What Democrat clean sweep are you referring to? I didn't see any "clean" sweep in 2008 or 2006.

  8. #118
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    It seems that Ikari, if he was honest, would argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because congressional statue cannot trump constitutionally enumerated powers.
    He will... and I will agree.

    But, to remain consistient, he also needs to argue that the President has no Constitutional authority to command, nor does the Congress have any Constitutional authority to create, the Air Force.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-06-09 at 04:32 PM.

  9. #119
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You are, of course correct -- because, quite often, and especially now, the need for the use of force is so immediate that it cannot wait for congress, and/or is often so slight that an outright declaration of war is far more than necessary.

    Nver mind that the Constitution specifies no limit on the powers of the CinC in terms of his ability to operationally command the military.

    And, of course, actions by other states s can create a state of war independent of Congress declararing as much.

    So, the entire idea that the Presdient isn't -always- the CinC, and that he can -never- take military action against a sovereign state is simply unsupportable (and just plain silly).
    Was the declaration intended by the Framers to constitute merely a formal declaration that the US was in a state of war vis-a-vis another foreign power or was it intended to act as an authorizing mechanism for the US to make war, both, or what?

  10. #120
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Was the declaration intended by the Framers to constitute merely a formal declaration that the US was in a state of war vis-a-vis another foreign power or was it intended to act as an authorizing mechanism for the US to make war, both, or what?
    The declaration of war is a deliberate act, intended to initiate a state of war by the United States with another state.

    "Congress shall have the power to declare war" means that Congress has the power. It does not mean that the ONLY way the Unites States can find itself in a state of war is through such a declaration, and it certainly does not mean that the only crcumstance under which the CinC may use military force is pursuant to said declaration.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •