Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #131
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    No, we didn't. Parts of the bureaucracy remained, but the fighting force itself was sent home. The troops were dismissed, they were no longer paid for their service, they were no longer considered to be in the US army. They returned to the State militia. That's not a standing army, a standing army always has troops; always has a substantial fighting force. It doesn't depend on the calling up of militia into the ranks to fight; it's on standby with the personnel and infrastructure on hand. The Continental Army was disbanded. They maintained a skeletal frame of infrastructure but did not have the personnel. The personnel had to be called up from the militia. It wasn't until 1794 that the ability to keep a fighting force on hand was established, and even then it took time to build the standing army. Initially, even after been given the ability to keep a full time fighting force (which didn't exist before then), the army still relied heavily on calling up State militia. That's not a standing army, a standing army has everything, including personnel (i.e. full time career soldiers) on hand. If you had to wait to call up the State militia before you had the fighting force you did not have a standing army. You had an infrastructure in place to be able to react and accommodate the call up; but you did not have the fighting force. That's why you had to call up the militia, you didn't have the people on hand to go to war.
    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. #132
    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
    There is none.
    There is no constitutionally mandated form or pattern for a declaration of war.
    I know...I'm just trying to get Ikari to understand this...

  3. #133
    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 Ikari View Post
    As I stated before, it's too loose. It gives too much discretion over the use of the military to one branch.
    How so? Specifically.

    Have you even reviewed prior declarations of war and compared them to the congressional authorizations authorizing various Presidents to use military force?

    How are they different?

    A formal declaration of war is well more constrained.
    Please demonstrate this.

    You declare war against a State, there is a specific goal and an end game in mind.
    Oh? Care to explain the absence of such in the DoW I cited regarding Germany in WWII?

    Or do you want to fess up and just admit that you're making this up as you go along?

    The President isn't allowed to act indiscriminately with the military and go wherever it is that he sees fit.
    I know. And I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise. So why declare the self-evident?

    There is well more constraint in a formal declaration of war than there is in an authorization of force.
    How so? Specifically, please.

  4. #134
    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 Ikari View Post
    No, we didn't. Parts of the bureaucracy remained, but the fighting force itself was sent home. The troops were dismissed, they were no longer paid for their service, they were no longer considered to be in the US army. They returned to the State militia. That's not a standing army, a standing army always has troops; always has a substantial fighting force. It doesn't depend on the calling up of militia into the ranks to fight; it's on standby with the personnel and infrastructure on hand. The Continental Army was disbanded. They maintained a skeletal frame of infrastructure but did not have the personnel. The personnel had to be called up from the militia. It wasn't until 1794 that the ability to keep a fighting force on hand was established, and even then it took time to build the standing army. Initially, even after been given the ability to keep a full time fighting force (which didn't exist before then), the army still relied heavily on calling up State militia. That's not a standing army, a standing army has everything, including personnel (i.e. full time career soldiers) on hand. If you had to wait to call up the State militia before you had the fighting force you did not have a standing army. You had an infrastructure in place to be able to react and accommodate the call up; but you did not have the fighting force. That's why you had to call up the militia, you didn't have the people on hand to go to war.
    So what?

    None of this has any bearing on whether the President is CiC nor is it relevant to the question of whether a congressional resolution is an insufficient mechanism to declare war.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    How so? Specifically.

    Have you even reviewed prior declarations of war and compared them to the congressional authorizations authorizing various Presidents to use military force?

    How are they different?



    Please demonstrate this.



    Oh? Care to explain the absence of such in the DoW I cited regarding Germany in WWII?

    Or do you want to fess up and just admit that you're making this up as you go along?



    I know. And I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise. So why declare the self-evident?



    How so? Specifically, please.
    Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States.

    Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

    Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that AUMFs satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical precedent (see Quasi-War). Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

    The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

    GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
    Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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."

  6. #136
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    So what?

    None of this has any bearing on whether the President is CiC nor is it relevant to the question of whether a congressional resolution is an insufficient mechanism to declare war.
    You didn't read previous posts which led to this discussion. Before the contention was that we didn't have a standing army and thus the President couldn't go to war without Congress because he didn't have the forces to go to war. Congress had to call up the militia to give the President the personnel by which he could wage war. So without a standing army, the President is CinC, but in peace time there is only the executive framework to be CinC over; there were no troops. It wasn't until the establishment of a standing army in which the President always had at hand an adequate fighting force by which he could go to war without the necessity of calling up State militia. A standing army is necessary, but it must be constrained. The President is CinC of our standing army; but he's not the owner. Declarations of War put into place a slew of bureaucracy and ends in treaty being signed. Military action in and of itself doesn't necessarily enact the same restrictions. You can go into a place and blow it up and leave. But with declarations, there are enemies, actual States and governments, and it calls up treaty and foreign relations. Gonzales was right when he said there is a distinction between declaration of war and authorization to use military force. That's why we must carefully restrain how and for what and against whom we fight. Authorization to use military force doesn't have to call up all the red tape a declaration of war calls up; and thus can be used for more arbitrary "war".
    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."

  7. #137
    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
    No, we didn't. Parts of the bureaucracy remained, but the fighting force itself was sent home. The troops were dismissed, they were no longer paid for their service, they were no longer considered to be in the US army.
    Again, this has been proven to be incorrect.
    You can still contine to think otherwise, but the facts remain, and they show you to be wrong.

  8. #138
    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

    Ikari, citing Gonzo's distinction doesn't answer my question. Gonzo's comments don't address your assertion that a formal legal declaration offers more constraints on the President than a congressional authorization.

    For you to present such an assertion you'd have had to reviewed both DoW's and congressional authorizations and compared if and how each attempted to restrain executive authority.

    You have not done this. Obviously. Hence, as I noted this earlier, you are simply making this up as you go along.

    Additionally, you're completing ignoring the focal point of Gonzo's comments. In other words, declaring a state of war is much broader than the use of force as it affects diplomatic relations, treaties, etc.

    It now appears that you're arguing that military forces may not be deployed without a declaration of war. But the Framers were clear on this as they decided to substitute the word "make" war to "declare" war expliitly to leave the power to repel sudden attacks to the President. The power to initiate war was granted to Congress, with the reservation that the president need not await authorization from Congress to repel a sudden attack on the United States. Provided that constitutional lesson it should be clear that the Framer did not intend to leave the President without any warmaking capacity and to vest in the Congress the authority to declare war or commence war in the first instance. Congressional authorizations reflect the exercise of the war making/commencing power that the Framers intended the Congress to exercise.

    Aditionally, the understanding of "declare" war at that time was settled on announcing the intention of hostilities and the legal consequences of such a commencement and declaring intentions to allies and adversaries as well as neutral nations. Congressional authorization also satisfy this function of declarations as they announce the intent to initiate hostilities and announce our intentions to adversaries and neutrals.

    From your citation:
    Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.
    Uh, Bush spent the last half of 2002 and first two months of 2003 laying out his case for war to the American people. He spent the summer of 2002 laying out his case for war to Congress culminating in a joint congressional authorization to use force in late 2002.

    Hence, this argument against such authorizations is false.

  9. #139
    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 Ikari View Post
    You didn't read previous posts which led to this discussion.
    I had and have.

    Before the contention was that we didn't have a standing army and thus the President couldn't go to war without Congress because he didn't have the forces to go to war. Congress had to call up the militia to give the President the personnel by which he could wage war. So without a standing army, the President is CinC, but in peace time there is only the executive framework to be CinC over; there were no troops. It wasn't until the establishment of a standing army in which the President always had at hand an adequate fighting force by which he could go to war without the necessity of calling up State militia. A standing army is necessary, but it must be constrained. The President is CinC of our standing army; but he's not the owner.
    None of this has anything to do with the Framers intent to empower the Congress with the authority to declare war.

    Declarations of War put into place a slew of bureaucracy and ends in treaty being signed.
    No they don't.

    Examples, please.

    Military action in and of itself doesn't necessarily enact the same restrictions. You can go into a place and blow it up and leave. But with declarations, there are enemies, actual States and governments, and it calls up treaty and foreign relations.
    Examples?

    Declarations of war merely announce the intention to initiate/commence hostilities. Declarations don't "call up treaty and foreign relations" (whatever you mean by that.) It is simply an announcement that the nation is going from a state of peace with a foreign power to a state of war.

    Gonzales was right when he said there is a distinction between declaration of war and authorization to use military force.
    Sure there is and no one was arguing otherwise. What we, well, me, am arguing is that the President is CiC no matter whether a declaration has been passed by Congress and enacted by Presidential signature and that a authorization to use force is a proper form of declaration as it satisfies what the Framers intended the Congress to do in declaring war.

    That's why we must carefully restrain how and for what and against whom we fight.
    No, we consider these things as a matter of national interest, not in drafting an announcement to others our intent to wage war.

    Authorization to use military force doesn't have to call up all the red tape a declaration of war calls up; and thus can be used for more arbitrary "war".
    What "red tape" do you think is "called up" when a formal declaration is issued?

    If you look at the congressional actions taken to jointly meet and issue a DoW and when it jointly meets to issue an authorization, it's the same process and results in the same thing...the announcement that the US is going to initiate hostilities.

  10. #140
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Again, this has been proven to be incorrect.
    You can still contine to think otherwise, but the facts remain, and they show you to be wrong.
    No, it hasn't been proven false. You quoted something that said some core remained that possibly carried over; it wasn't even a definite. What is definite is that the troops were sent home, and that's by definition not a standing army.
    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."

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •