Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #61
    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
    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.
    So... you cannot specify to whom, under your argument, the Constition grants the position of CinC when there is no DoW from congress -- other than the President, of course.
    Right?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-05-09 at 02:49 PM.

  2. #62
    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
    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.
    I was responding to a different post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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?
    Do you not read anything I write? Just sorta restate the same thing. As I said, initially there wasn't a standing army. President was CinC when it was called up and when it was called up it was called up out of the State militia. When it wasn't called up, there wasn't an army to be CinC over. I've already acknowledged that things have changed and that we do now require a standing army. I also already acknowledged that the President is CinC of that standing army. You can still ask all you want, but the question has been answered multiple times.
    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."

  3. #63
    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 when has a President declared war without a congressional declaration?
    Any war we've been in past WW II, which was the last time we officially declared war through Congress. All others have had "authorization" by Congress, but no formal declaration. Which I think to be folly, first off there is no mechanism in the Constitution for "authorization". Only Congress is allowed to declare war. There's no mechanism in place in the Constitution to allow for war without a Congressional declaration.
    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. #64
    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
    Any war we've been in past WW II, which was the last time we officially declared war through Congress. All others have had "authorization" by Congress, but no formal declaration. Which I think to be folly, first off there is no mechanism in the Constitution for "authorization". Only Congress is allowed to declare war. There's no mechanism in place in the Constitution to allow for war without a Congressional declaration.
    So the Constitution empowers Congress to declare war.

    Does the Constitution specify what form that declaration must take?

    Of course not.

    Class dismissed.

  5. #65
    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
    So... you cannot specify to whom, under your argument, the Constition grants the position of CinC when there is no DoW from congress -- other than the President, of course.
    Right?
    I really wasn't disagreeing with you on this point. My point was that initially there wasn't a standing army. So Congress was needed to call it up. But Congress is still the only entity which can issue a declaration of war and if we are to go to war, we need that declaration. "Authorization" as we have now gives well too much leniency to the President to conduct opperations as he sees fit. There has to be more than that. While Congress controls the purse strings, that has been well politicized. Congress doesn't choose to exercise that control because it's tantamount to political suicide and politicians are unwilling to do that even if it's for a just cause. Thus they must be given a mechanism by which they have to obey.
    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. #66
    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
    IBut Congress is still the only entity which can issue a declaration of war and if we are to go to war, we need that declaration. "Authorization" as we have now gives well too much leniency to the President to conduct opperations as he sees fit.
    First, your argument then ain't with the constitutionality of Congress authorizing war because a) the Constitution doesn't specify what form sucha declaration should take; and b) the authorizations being granted by Congress serve as the check that you argue a formal declaration would serve as.

    Second, even formal declarations of war didn't limit the President's ability to wage war. Congress, I don't think, has ever interfered with how a war was waged by a President, i.e., substitute their strategery for the President's.

    While Congress controls the purse strings, that has been well politicized.
    Well, of course it has. Politics is making political decisions.

    Congress doesn't choose to exercise that control because it's tantamount to political suicide and politicians are unwilling to do that even if it's for a just cause. Thus they must be given a mechanism by which they have to obey.
    Exercise what control?

  7. #67
    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
    Do you not read anything I write?
    I dont read where you presented the article section and clause of the Constitution that specifies that:
    - that A declaration of war is necessary before the President becomes the CinC'
    - who, at the times when the President is not 'called into service' as CinC, the constititon then specifies as CinC.

    As I said, initially there wasn't a standing army. President was CinC when it was called up and when it was called up it was called up out of the State militia.
    Not so. The Continental Army, and the current standing army that grew from it, was created in place and in whole by Congress in June 1775 when ten companies of riflemen were authorized by a resolution of the Continental Congress. It was not comprised of state militia 'called up' to the task.

    When it wasn't called up, there wasn't an army to be CinC over.
    The standing army isnt 'called up' -- that term is reserved for federalizing the militia.
    The Constitution uses the term "raise and support" when referring to the Army, terms distinct from that when referring to the militia.

    I've already acknowledged that things have changed and that we do now require a standing army. I also already acknowledged that the President is CinC of that standing army.
    So, the President, today, absent a DoW from Congress, is indeed, currently and presently the CinC of the US military.
    Right?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-05-09 at 04:30 PM.

  8. #68
    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 Ikari View Post
    Any war we've been in past WW II, which was the last time we officially declared war through Congress. All others have had "authorization" by Congress, but no formal declaration. Which I think to be folly, first off there is no mechanism in the Constitution for "authorization". Only Congress is allowed to declare war. There's no mechanism in place in the Constitution to allow for war without a Congressional declaration.
    I am bemused by this false notion that an "authorization to use force" is somehow different from a formal declaration of war and one is less constitutional than the other.

  9. #69
    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
    So, the President, today, absent a DoW from Congress, is indeed, currently and presently the CinC of the army.
    Right?
    Yes, but there has to be checks on what the President can use the military for. The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign. Otherwise, the President can use the military as he deems fit which is rather dangerous since it could create perpetual war. Declarations of War are good because they define enemies, winning conditions, etc. With a declaration, you have to have a plan; there has to be an end game. You can't rightfully go to war without a declaration of war and the only body authorized to declare war is the Congress.
    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."

  10. #70
    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 Truth Detector View Post
    I am bemused by this false notion that an "authorization to use force" is somehow different from a formal declaration of war and one is less constitutional than the other.
    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.
    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 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •