Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #51
    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
    However right or wrong this may be, none of this changes anything I said.

    I am baffled as to where the 'The President isn't CinC unless called into service by a DoW from Congress' idea comes from.

    Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?
    Exactly. The rule wasn't written with a standing army in mind. When the President was not CinC, there was no military.

    Now I understand that it can't work that way now, we really do need a standing army and I'm ok with the President being in charge of it. But he can not have a free hand, formal declaration of war needs to be required before he can use the military. The Iraq war shows just why. There has to be checks on power, there has to be red tape. Rightful war comes with a DoW; rightful war is not occupational. We weren't meant to be an empire, we weren't meant to be ruled by a king. We have to have checks and balances, the government must be kept under thumb.
    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. #52
    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
    Exactly. The rule wasn't written with a standing army in mind. When the President was not CinC, there was no military.
    Congress was given the power to create a standing army.
    So, I'm not sure what light your statement, above, is supposed to cast.

    Now I understand that it can't work that way now, we really do need a standing army and I'm ok with the President being in charge of it. But he can not have a free hand, formal declaration of war needs to be required before he can use the military.
    Even if this is true, it doesnt create a constitutional requirement limiting his position as CinC only to times where war is declared by Congress.

    I ask again:
    Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

    The Iraq war shows just why. There has to be checks on power
    There is. Congress creates and funds the military.

  3. #53
    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, the make up for the army was not necessarily standing. At least in the wording. The Navy was meant to be standing.

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    That's why Congress has to appropriate every 2 years for an army. While this can be done and maintain a standing army through omnibus legislation; the wording clearly indicates that it wasn't necessarily thinking of a standing army. Rather one that was used sporadically, called up when needed and dismissed when the job was done. When initially conceived, there was no standing army. It was called up out of the militia. The wording fits very well with that dynamic.
    Last edited by Ikari; 01-05-09 at 02:34 PM.
    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."

  4. #54
    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
    Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID Act, No Fly list, wiretaps, etc.
    These are the result of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wrong! Try again.

    But even so, you still fail. Because you failed to specify what about each constitutes expansion of government power. But you couldn't anyways because yuo deal in cliches rather than logical arguments.

    Homeland security simply consolidated government agenices, there was n expansion of power resulting from it. The Patriot Act was merely a consolidation of existing authority. Military Commissions long preceded these two wars. "King george" by the way, and acting very monarchial, allowed his executive authority to administer these to be swallowed up by Congress resulting in new legislation. REAL ID, too, preceded both wars and, besides, represents no new power. No-fly lists were maintained before even 9/11. Wiretaps, too.

    You have nothing but tired partisan rhetoric.

    Plus spending what is it, a trillion or so on a war, setting up a puppet governmnet, occupying sovereign land, going to war without formal declaration, etc. How did the government not increase in size? More laws, more control, more surveillance. We need less of all these things, not more.
    I wasn't responding to an argument about govt expanding in size, but to one about govt waging war to expand its power and military. Have you abandoned that now?

    Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress.


    And congressional resolutions don't...?

    The President for all intensive purposes fully and always controls the military. He can use it as he sees fit, that sounds like the power of a King; not that of a public servant.
    You meant, "intents and purposes." But you're still wrong. The War Powers Act is what you're referring to, not the Constitution. The phrase declaration of war does not even appear in the Constitution.

    Yes, Congress and the SCOTUS have some say in this. The President isn't to be king. In fact, I would say the President wasn't meant to be the most powerful political position in the US. The President is merely the Executive, the most powerful branch was to be Congress.
    Hmmm, so the founders when contemplating the separation of powers didn't really desire co-equal branches, but a supreme legislative branch? LOL!!!

    There must be friction between the 3 branches, there must be checks and balances.
    So who/what checks the supreme legislative branch?

    As it stands now, the President has well too much power; we weren't meant to be ruled by a king.
    Were not you ignorant clown. If we were the President would not have sought congressional approval for war post-9/11 nor would he have acquiesced to judicial direction to pursue a legislative remedy to the military commissions issue nor would he have permitted elections to take place in 04 or 08.

    Maybe the younger generation is just getting sick of bowing their heads to government.
    Now this is funny considering that the younger voters overwhelmingly support Democrats.

    Distrust the government, watch it and constrain it.
    My sentiments exactly. But they don't lead me to the absurd conclusions you're posting about King George, a supreme legislature, etc.

  5. #55
    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, the make up for the army was not necessarily standing. At least in the wording. The Navy was meant to be standing.
    Nothing in the wording of the relevant clauses indicates any difference in the intended 'permanence' of the two forces. That the funding for the army must be revisited every two years was intended to, and in fact does, provide a check on the power of the CinC of that army.

    "Standing army", BTW, describes a military force composed of full-time, career servicemen who do not disband during peacetime. This is the force that Congress was given the power to raise and maintain in the Constitution.

    That's why Congress has to appropriate every 2 years for an army.
    Yes. That wou;d be the "check" you're looking for.

    And so, again, nothing here creates a constitutional requirement limiting his position as CinC only to times where war is declared by Congress.

    I still ask:
    Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-05-09 at 02:42 PM.

  6. #56
    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

    From the Constitution

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    Power of Congress, Congress was given the power to declare war. The President can not make that declaration, only Congress can.
    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. #57
    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
    I still ask:
    Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?
    As I have said, everything was written in a time of no standing army. The rhetoric of the Constitution does not suggest a standing army, but rather one that is called up. Thus in the time that the rules were written; when the army wasn't called up there wasn't an army thus no CinC. No one was CinC if the President wasn't for there was nothing to be CinC over.
    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."

  8. #58
    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
    But he can not have a free hand, formal declaration of war needs to be required before he can use the military.
    Lets get to the bottom of this.

    Please cite the specific constitutional provision that requires this?

    Are you arguing that the President cannot exercise any authority to repel sudden attacks? The framers would explicitly disagree with you.

    The Iraq war shows just why.
    Huh?

    You're arguing for a formal declaration in order to limit a President's authority. How the hell does an authorization to use military force not satisfy that check? Your argument is incoherent.

    There has to be checks on power, there has to be red tape. Rightful war comes with a DoW; rightful war is not occupational. We weren't meant to be an empire, we weren't meant to be ruled by a king. We have to have checks and balances, the government must be kept under thumb.
    Oh boy, here we go. Now we know that you have no argument, just some nonsensical rant against the war.

    Case closed.

  9. #59
    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
    From the Constitution
    Power of Congress, Congress was given the power to declare war. The President can not make that declaration, only Congress can.
    Yes, we all know that.

    What we are discussing here, however, is your assertion that the President is CinC only when called into service as such by a declaration of war by Congress.

    Thus far, you've provided nothing that creates a constitutional limitation on The President's position as CinC to only times where war is declared by Congress.

    Note that I still ask:
    Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

  10. #60
    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
    From the Constitution

    Power of Congress, Congress was given the power to declare war. The President can not make that declaration, only Congress can.
    So when has a President declared war without a congressional declaration?

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •