Page 17 of 51 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 503

Thread: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

  1. #161
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    Ah. Then your premise is unsound.
    You won't mind if I completely disagree.

    Yes, yes it can. Nothing dictates the content of a declaration of war.
    Only if you creatively redefine words like some do with socialism. A declaration of war is much more specific, mythical could bes aside.


    In what terms? What necessitates this?
    DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
    2. This power is vested in congress by the constitution, art. 1, s. 8. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act. A manifesto, stating the causes of the war, is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes effect. It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction. Potter, Antiquities of Greece, b. 3, c. 7; Dig. 49, 15, 24. But that is not the practice of modern times. In some countries, as England, the, power of declaring war is vested in the king, but he has no power to raise men or money to carry it on, which renders the right almost nugatory.
    4. The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, which is named, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy, is also called a declaration of war.

    declaration of war legal definition of declaration of war. declaration of war synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    This is legal, binding, and states congress' position. Saying you do what you want is not specific, is not laid out by the Constitution.




    As does any declaration of war, however worded.
    Ummm, do whatever you want isn't a declaration of much of anything.

    Incorrect, as has been shown.
    You are much easier on youself and praise you own abilites far more than I would be.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You won't mind if I completely disagree
    This just means you've chosen to be wrong.

    Only if you creatively redefine words like some do with socialism.
    There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constituttes a declaration of war.
    This is absolute fact - as your sorce says: "There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act"
    Anything pased to that effect is a declaration of war; the intention, not the words, are what matters.
    Thus, the de facto declaration of war in the "Resolutions of Force", in that they declare Congress's approval of making war on, say, Iraq.

    DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
    This is legal, binding, and states congress' position.
    Your defintion isn't binding on anyone. Its a "legal" defintion, but not one derived from the Constitution, or any laws passed under its auspices.

    Ummm, do whatever you want isn't a declaration of much of anything.
    Except a declaration of war.

    You are much easier on youself and praise you own abilites far more than I would be.
    That's because you came up with a conclusion and then tried to fit facts (or something similar) around it.

  3. #163
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    This just means you've chosen to be wrong.
    I might say the same to you.

    There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constituttes a declaration of war.
    This is absolute fact - as your sorce says: "There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act"
    Anything pased to that effect is a declaration of war; the intention, not the words, are what matters.
    Thus, the de facto declaration of war in the "Resolutions of Force", in that they declare Congress's approval of making war on, say, Iraq.
    Your defintion isn't binding on anyone. Its a "legal" defintion, but not one derived from the Constitution, or any laws passed under its auspices.
    Really. Like I said, if you treat language as meaning what you want it to mean, regardless of actual definitions, you can reach the conclusions you do. But if you think words have meanings, then not so much.


    Except a declaration of war.
    It's not that.

    That's because you came up with a conclusion and then tried to fit facts (or something similar) around it.
    I actually believe that is what you're doing. You're ingorning what those words actually mean, and starting with belief that anything you want to be equal is. Such really isn't the case.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I might say the same to you.
    And you'd again be wrong.

    Really.
    Yes, really.
    There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constitutes a declaration of war, or one pursuant to laws passed under its auspices.
    Disagree? Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    And you'd again be wrong.


    Yes, really.
    There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constitutes a declaration of war, or one pursuant to laws passed under its auspices.
    Disagree? Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.
    I'm sorry, but your it means whatever we want it to mean simply doesn't fly.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm sorry, but your it means whatever we want it to mean simply doesn't fly.
    Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.

  7. #167
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.
    The text is in declaring war. Declaring war has a definition and isn't subject to whatever you want it to mean. Believe it or not, there is an assumption that you look up what words mean. They rarely stop and define words for you for every sentence. The text says congress is charged with declaring war and not that it can pass the buck to the president and let him declare. But hell, he didn't do that either. He just invaded.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The text is in declaring war.
    I accept your admission that you cannot cite any constitutional or legsilative text that specifies the content of a declaration of war.

    Given that:
    How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?

    Declaring war has a definition...
    You have already admitted that you cannot cite said defintion; your statement here is amusingly ironic.

  9. #169
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    I accept your admission that you cannot cite any constitutional or legsilative text that specifies the content of a declaration of war.

    Given that:
    How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?


    You have already admitted that you cannot cite said defintion; your statement here is amusingly ironic.
    That's a bit dishonest. I said, you're expected to look up what the words mean. Few documents stop to define all their words for the reader.

    And no, saying you can do what you want is not a declaration of war. A declaration of war states that we are at a state of war, not might be at some point if the president decides to do so.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #170
    Advisor shades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-16 @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    322

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    simply put, this is not a story because the main stream media doesnt want it to be.

    We have become a country that lets the media tell us what is important and what isnt.
    What matters and what doesnt.

    And liberals think its ok, at every turn for Obama to act like the biggest hypocrite that ever held office.

    I opine that breaking the law however, has crossed the line of control.
    and I also opine that he will be dealt with in 2012..

    until then its just embarrasing to watch.

    but...patience my fellow Americans

Page 17 of 51 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •