Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 162 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #161
    Tavern Bartender
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 PM

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    I wouldnt call Blago's scandal dull, especially if you listen to some of the tapes of him and his wife.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  2. #162

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 04:15 PM

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The initial point before all this deflection took place was that originally we didn't have a standing army. Therefore, the President is CinC of the military, but without a standing army in peace time there isn't much to CinC over.
    But, so what? I mean, what's the point of such an argument?

    Thus, in order to go to war you required the Congress because they called up the troops.
    No, you need the Congress because the Constitution grants the power to declare war and to raise an army.

    There was a natural check and balance, and a huge on at that, when it came to our military.
    Not a natural anything. The Framers were intent on denying the Executive to ability to declare a state of war and granted that power to the Congress. It's a deliberate constitutional check on executive authority.

    The President was CinC when the Congress called up the military since there was no standing army at the time, the rhetoric agrees well with that of a non-standing army.
    What "rhetoric" are you talking about?

    In fact, nothing about that statement makes any sense at all.

    I don't argue against a standing army nor do I argue that the President isn't CinC of that standing army. It was just that initially there was more of a check and we need to follow the Constitution now to enforce this check. Congress isn't given the power to "authorize military force", it has the power to declare war.
    There was "more of a check?" How so?

    There is no difference in process or form between a congressional declaration of war and a congressional authorization to use military force to make war. In other words, as such, both work to announce the intent to initiate hostilities and to commence war wherein the President, as CiC will wage war. The check still exists.

    Declarations of war call up a lot of bureaucracy and treaty and foreign relations.
    "Call up?" "A lot of bureaucracy?"

    I already asked you what this meant and you didn't respond. So I am asking you, again. What bureaucracy are you talking about?

    The affect on treaties and other foreign relations is something totally different from a check on Executive power which has been what you've been discussing. You're harping on this despite it's irrelevance to the discussion about checks and balances because Al Gonzales said something about it. That you continue citing reveals your deep misunderstanding and general ignorance about the concept of checks and balances and the Framer's intent in granting Congress the power to declare war.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617

Posting Permissions

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