Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #71
    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
    Yes, but...
    So, you then agree that your statement...
    [It is] Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress. President is commander in chief when forces are called up. The only mechanism in the Constitution to call up is a declaration of war by Congress.
    ...is incorrect.
    Right?


    The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign.
    Not at all so.
    If you were correct, then, should the Russians nuke Congress, the President could not order a counter-strike.

  2. #72
    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
    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.
    So, an authorization is not a sufficient check because...??

  3. #73
    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 then agree that your statement...

    ...is incorrect.
    Right?
    Not quite. As I stated, at the time it was written, there was no standing army. It did take Congress to call them up. That's the rhetoric of law. We have standing army now, which is more of a reason to constrain the ability of the government to use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Not at all so.
    If you were correct, then, should the Russians nuke Congress, the President could not order a counter-strike.
    Not sure you could nuke Congress. I mean, you could nuke the building itself; but you're not going to take out the politicians. Those guys are well protected and we would know of a strike against us with enough time to get them into the prepared bunkers and such. Still, the analogy is not without merit. What should be the given response to retaliation? Should it be unlimited? In that, say Congress is nuked. Does the President then authorized to take over Europe? Or should the response be kept to aggressor states till Congress can issue a declaration (if somehow all the people were destroyed, who takes over?)? A standing army makes things a bit more complicated, and definitely we shouldn't be on offensive wars and we shouldn't be occupying lands. I fear that just the "President is CinC" mantra gives well too much leeway to the President and how he can use the military. Declarations of war take thought, they're hard to pass, and they put into place constraints to specific conflict so that you can't use an "authorization" to march into whatever country you like. It must be constrained, if you want to go to war you must get said declaration from 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."

  4. #74
    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
    Not quite. As I stated, at the time it was written, there was no standing army.
    The standing army has been in place since June 1775, 16 years before the Constitution was ratified -- thus, any argument you base on 'there was no standing army at the time' necessarily fails.

    It did take Congress to call them up. That's the rhetoric of law.
    Congress does not 'call up' the standing army.

    We have standing army now...
    Which, you agree, currently has the President as the CinC.

    So, since there has been no DoW, you must then agree that there needs not be a DoW for the President to be the CinC.

    Not sure you could nuke Congress. I mean, you could nuke the building itself; but you're not going to take out the politicians.
    Bad form for arguing the given. In any case....
    A SLBM fired off the coast takes 5 minutes to arrive in DC - far less time than necessary to secure Congress.
    Thus, you can indeed take out Congress.

    Still, the analogy is not without merit. What should be the given response to retaliation? Should it be unlimited? In that, say Congress is nuked. Does the President then authorized to take over Europe?
    You're moving the goalposts.
    You said that:
    The Congress has to give a declaration in order to use the military against another sovereign.
    A retallitory missile strike agiant the Russians is, without question, a use of the military against another sovereign. Under your agrument, such a retaliatory strike is impossible until such a time that Congress can be re-constituted and a DoW issued. In that time, the US can be obliterated -- and done so withouth fear of response.

    So, do you or do you not still argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-05-09 at 05:22 PM.

  5. #75
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,538

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The standing army has been in place since June 1775 -- thus, any argument you base on 'there was no standing army at the time' necessarily fails.
    Not true. Then President John Adams disbanded the Continental Army in 1783-84. Shortly after the US Army was then formed.

    So no, short periods in the beginning we had nothing but militia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Congress does not 'call up' the standing army.
    Very true. They do however fund the Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So, since there has been no DoW, you must then agree that there needs not be a DoW for the President to be the CinC.
    Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    bad form for arguing the given. In any case....
    A SLBM fired off the coast takes 5 minutes to arrive in DC - far less time than necessary to secure Congress.
    Thus, you can indeed take out Congress.
    Not really. In the last two hundred plus years, I don't think one day has passed where the whole congress was present at one time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You're moving the goalposts.
    Yuu said that:

    "A retallitory missile strike agiant the Russians is, without question, a use of the military against another sovereign. Under your agrument, such a retaliatory strike is impossible until such a time that Congress can be re-constituted and a DoW issued. In that time, the US can be obliterated -- and done so withouth fear of response."

    So, do you or do you not still argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?
    People have been arguing that for a long time. In every war we had a DOW we officially won. If you look at our record vs UN mandates etc our win record is dismal. If I remember correctly Desert Storm was the only clear victory.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 01-05-09 at 05:31 PM.

  6. #76
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,761

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Ahem...I don't recall the Democrats running on Bush's low approval ratings. The presidential campaign was premised explicitly on hope and change. That campaign had long coattails and was ridden far and wide by Democrats. Congressional Democrats were not running on a theme about how unpopular Bush was.

    Puhlease, Obama and the Democrats made hope and change the centerpiece of their 08 campaigns. Now that the Democrats cannot deliver on that promise you guys are engaged in a little historical revisionism to white-out that hope and change promise??

    Look, we ain't that dumb.
    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?
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #77
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    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?




    d00d will you shut up already about Bush! if I keep hearing you talk bush, I am gonna ask you to start ponying up singles......
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #78
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    05-13-11 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,075
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Reverend HellhOund wrote.
    Quote
    (I had hoped for the change that was promised.)

    You are getting the change that was promised.
    The change meaning that it is now Democrats that are providing these stories.

  9. #79
    Educator azura28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    landlocked U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    11-29-11 @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    729

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I had hoped for the change that was promised.
    Oh well, you have to give him a chance, after he takes office.

    Regarding the Richardson pay for play scheme and his withdrawal- I saw this on the news last night - and the MSM is not even carrying the story today- you have to search it out.

    |Finally found on Politico, an interesting article that porky Bill was not giving the obama team all the info on this grand jury investigation they requested - so they advised him to get off.

  10. #80
    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 Blackdog View Post
    Not true. Then President John Adams disbanded the Continental Army in 1783-84. Shortly after the US Army was then formed.
    This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
    And to John Adams, who was Preisdent 1797-1801.

    Absolutely.
    Good. We agree then that there does NOT need to be a declaration of war for the President do be CinC.
    Glad to see you can change your mind

    Not really. In the last two hundred plus years, I don't think one day has passed where the whole congress was present at one time.
    In order to pass anything in Congress, you need a quorum. A handful of surviving members isn't sufficient.

    People have been arguing that for a long time.
    You didnt address the question.
    Do you STILL argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?

    In every war we had a DOW we officially won. If you look at our record vs UN mandates etc our win record is dismal. If I remember correctly Desert Storm was the only clear victory.
    Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •