• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

Ikari said:
There's a quote and a link in a previous post of mine. Other than that, read a book.
Click to expand...
Ah.
So, your statements are, in and of themseves, fact, and do not need any support.
Gotcha.
:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
Ah.
So, your statements are, in and of themseves, fact, and do not need any support.
Gotcha.
:roll:
Click to expand...

What part of "There's a quote and a link in a previous post of mine" did you not understand? There's plenty of information on the wiki page I linked with lots of references. If you want something more, you're free to do more; but I already provided documentation. I'm not going to teach you a 4 month class, I've provided what I needed; above and beyond that is your responsibility. You need to learn to read more carefully. Seriously, I'm not trying to insult you or anything; but you seem to somehow skip over plain text a lot. Just slow down and read more carefully. I put everything in there.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
What part of "There's a quote and a link in a previous post of mine" did you not understand? There's plenty of information on the wiki page I linked with lots of references. If you want something more, you're free to do more; but I already provided documentation. You need to learn to read more carefully.
Click to expand...
No, no, that's OK. I'll leave you to your delusions.
 
Goobieman said:
No, no, that's OK. I'll leave you to your delusions.
Click to expand...

So there's provided documentation and you still make up the lies that I have provided nothing. I'm starting to think that your intellectually dishonest dribble is only because you either A) have problems with reading comprehension or B) can't really fight my arguments so you derail and deflect without actual consideration. I've given you what you need, I've given you documentation, a link to a site with lots of information and documentation on the subject. I wasn't making blind argument, it's all there and already provided. You pick up on few words, take things out of context, don't respond to the crux of my arguments, etc. It's a very childish way to argue. If you want to debate, then debate. But don't sit there like a kid who isn't getting his way. I've provided adequate evidence and citation.
 
Ikari said:
So there's provided documentation...
Click to expand...
Yes. Thats what you said.
However, I haven't seen anything that supports your statements.
 
Ikari said:
How about instead of posting reactionary dribble, you actually read my posts?
Click to expand...

I have.

Take the time to read my posts and figure out what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I have and I am.

It was never a CinC question, it was an activation of the military question.
Click to expand...

I don't remember it that way. I'll have to check but I recall you arguing that the President ain't the CiC unless the Congress declares war. of course that begs several other questions, but that's what I recall.

So either read what I wrote
Click to expand...

I did.

and engage in an intellectually honest and mature manner,
Click to expand...

I have.

or just stop. You're not adding anything by this type of silly and childish insult.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're not adding anything at all beyond wild claims of executive and congressional authority and abusing the Constitution.
 
Ikari said:
It's quoted and cited.
Click to expand...
Because I am a hell of a guy, I'll provide you an opportunity:
Quote it and cite it again.
Or, if you prefer, provide a link to the post where you quoted and cited it.
 
Ikari said:
It's quoted and cited.
Click to expand...

No. You cited a reference page. You did not quote what you say supports your comments.

Why do you believe it is your opponent's responsibility to divine from an entire web page what specifically it is you're referring to?

You could use the quote tags and highlight specifically what you're citing.
 
JMak said:
No. You cited a reference page. You did not quote what you say supports your comments.

Why do you believe it is your opponent's responsibility to divine from an entire web page what specifically it is you're referring to?

You could use the quote tags and highlight specifically what you're citing.
Click to expand...

Hmm...maybe I did exactly that. So much for your claim that you actually read my post.
 
Original post (top of page 9):

Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
Click to expand...

Prior to and during the founding of the United States, military forces were supplied by untrained militia commanded by the states. When the Continental Congress first ordered a Continental Army to be formed, it was to be made up of militia from the states. That army, under the command of General George Washington, won the Revolutionary War, but afterwards was disbanded.

However, it soon became obvious that a standing army and navy were required. The United States Navy (and the Marine Corps) began when Congress ordered several frigates in 1794, and a standing army was created, however it was still only minimal and it relied mostly on contributions from state militia in times of war. The Coast Guard was created in 1790.
Click to expand...

United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I've said, it didn't start with a standing army. The Continental Army used by Washington wasn't a standing army. Congress established the Navy (as is their power) in 1794, and that's the beginning of our standing army. While the President may now be in CinC of the standing army, it's not his to do with as he pleases. Only Congress can declare war, if we're not under declaration of war the President can't just take the troops any ol' place he wants and start overthrowing governments. He can oversee the executive duties of the military during peace times, but he can't commit acts of war (rightfully) without declaration from Congress.
Click to expand...

I bolded and underlined some of the important things. As stated above, original post is top of page 9
 
Ikari said:
Original post (top of page 9):
When the Continental Congress first ordered a Continental Army to be formed, it was to be made up of militia from the states. That army, under the command of General George Washington, won the Revolutionary War, but afterwards was disbanded.
Click to expand...
This is where your use of Wiki will get you in trouble.
First...
When the Continental Army was formed, it raised 10 companies from scratch; when creating these conmpanies, it did not 'federalize' militia units.

The "expert riflemen" authorized on 14 June were the first units raised directly as Continentals. Congress intended to have the ten companies serve as a light infantry force for the Boston siege. At the same time it symbolically extended military participation beyond New England by allocating 6 of the companies to Pennsylvania, 2 to Maryland, and 2 to Virginia. Each company would have a captain, 3 lieutenants, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, a drummer (or horn player), and 68 privates. The enlistment period was set at one year, the norm for the earlier Provincials, a period that would expire on 1 July 1776.
Click to expand...

June 14th: The Birthday of the U.S. Army

Second...
Not the entire Continental/US army was disbanded.

1st Bn, 5th Field Artillery, which entered into the Continental Army in 1777, was never disbanded and never left the service of the US government. For a time, it remained the sole unit of the regular amy, and still exists today.
Fort Riley
(see in particular the unit history PDF)

But, if you want to use Wiki...
Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The remaining units possibly formed the nucleus of what was to become the United States Army.
Click to expand...
Continental Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So... the army has stood (that is, there has been a standing army) since 1775.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force, the executive branch may send forces for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war, so what is a "congressional authorization to use force" if not a semi-formal way of saying "war were declared"
 
danarhea said:
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?
Click to expand...
D, that doesn't make sense at all, since the president still had a better approval rating than congress, I mean geez dude, they found a way to have single digit approval ratings, which is what shocked me about the Democrat clean sweep.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force, the executive branch may send forces for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war, so what is a "congressional authorization to use force" if not a semi-formal way of saying "war were declared"
Click to expand...

It seems that Ikari, if he was honest, would argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because congressional statue cannot trump constitutionally enumerated powers.

But he can't because he's dug himself a hole wherein he argues that the declaration of war is a check on executive power, hence, by permitting via statute authority not granted by the Constitution, the Congress has rendered this check insufficient.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force...
Click to expand...
You are, of course correct -- because, quite often, and especially now, the need for the use of force is so immediate that it cannot wait for congress, and/or is often so slight that an outright declaration of war is far more than necessary.

Nver mind that the Constitution specifies no limit on the powers of the CinC in terms of his ability to operationally command the military.

And, of course, actions by other states s can create a state of war independent of Congress declararing as much.

So, the entire idea that the Presdient isn't -always- the CinC, and that he can -never- take military action against a sovereign state is simply unsupportable (and just plain silly).
 
LaMidRighter said:
D, that doesn't make sense at all, since the president still had a better approval rating than congress, I mean geez dude, they found a way to have single digit approval ratings, which is what shocked me about the Democrat clean sweep.
Click to expand...

What Democrat clean sweep are you referring to? I didn't see any "clean" sweep in 2008 or 2006.
 
JMak said:
It seems that Ikari, if he was honest, would argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because congressional statue cannot trump constitutionally enumerated powers.
Click to expand...
He will... and I will agree.

But, to remain consistient, he also needs to argue that the President has no Constitutional authority to command, nor does the Congress have any Constitutional authority to create, the Air Force.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You are, of course correct -- because, quite often, and especially now, the need for the use of force is so immediate that it cannot wait for congress, and/or is often so slight that an outright declaration of war is far more than necessary.

Nver mind that the Constitution specifies no limit on the powers of the CinC in terms of his ability to operationally command the military.

And, of course, actions by other states s can create a state of war independent of Congress declararing as much.

So, the entire idea that the Presdient isn't -always- the CinC, and that he can -never- take military action against a sovereign state is simply unsupportable (and just plain silly).
Click to expand...

Was the declaration intended by the Framers to constitute merely a formal declaration that the US was in a state of war vis-a-vis another foreign power or was it intended to act as an authorizing mechanism for the US to make war, both, or what?
 
JMak said:
Was the declaration intended by the Framers to constitute merely a formal declaration that the US was in a state of war vis-a-vis another foreign power or was it intended to act as an authorizing mechanism for the US to make war, both, or what?
Click to expand...
The declaration of war is a deliberate act, intended to initiate a state of war by the United States with another state.

"Congress shall have the power to declare war" means that Congress has the power. It does not mean that the ONLY way the Unites States can find itself in a state of war is through such a declaration, and it certainly does not mean that the only crcumstance under which the CinC may use military force is pursuant to said declaration.
 
Goobieman said:
The declaration of war is a deliberate act, intended to initiate a state of war by the United States with another state.
Click to expand...

Okay.

"Congress shall have the power to declare war" means that Congress has the power.
Click to expand...

Reading the Constitution, though...Congress's power to declare war appears in the midst of the main list of its other legislative powers, in the eleventh of eighteen clauses in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It is not distinguished by any mark that would set it apart from the other powers in the list, each of which calls for the same legislative process described in Article I, section 7: "Every Bill . . . shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States" for his signature or veto; and "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and the House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President" likewise.

So...Are declarations of war "laws passed by Congress? Inasmuch as they activate an authority on the President"s part that will in many instances be dormant otherwise, how could they not be?

As evidence pointing in this direction at least, what about the December 11, 1941 declaration of war against Germany. It is "Public Law 77-331." Nothing in our national legislative process becomes a "Public Law" without the signature of the president, his inaction during the period assigned for his decision to sign or veto, or an overriding of his veto-all under the terms of Article I, section 7.

h/t to Matthew Frank at NRO.

So what's this mean? Is the power to declare war a plenary authority belonging to Congress or is it a shared authority? It appears to be a shared authority wherein Congress is simply declaring that a state of war exists between the US and another nation and means nothing more than committing the nation to such a state of war. In other words, the power to declare war constitutes only a formal documentation of executive war-making decisions.

It does not mean that the ONLY way the Unites States can find itself in a state of war is through such a declaration, and it certainly does not mean that the only crcumstance under which the CinC may use military force is pursuant to said declaration.
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
Last edited:
JMak said:
So...Are declarations of war "laws passed by Congress? Inasmuch as they activate an authority on the President"s part that will in many instances be dormant otherwise, how could they not be?
Click to expand...
The declaration of war is a bill to be passed by both houses like any other. It must be signed by the President, like any other bill, to have any effect. So, to that end, it is a 'shared power' as much as any power to legislate is shared.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Ah, but the president doesn't need congressional authorization to use force, the executive branch may send forces for up to 90 days without a formal declaration of war, so what is a "congressional authorization to use force" if not a semi-formal way of saying "war were declared"
Click to expand...

That's with the Wars Power Act which is unconstitutional. The Congress can't grant away pieces of power or duty that the People told it to do. Only the Congress can declare war and they can't pass that buck to anyone else. It's their duty and they need to uphold it.
 
Ikari said:
That's with the Wars Power Act which is unconstitutional. The Congress can't grant away pieces of power or duty that the People told it to do. Only the Congress can declare war and they can't pass that buck to anyone else. It's their duty and they need to uphold it.
Click to expand...

So what you're really saying is that unless Congress formally declares war then the US military cannot be deployed? Okay.

Again, for like the tenth time, why is a congressional resolution declaring its intent to authorize the President to use military force not a sufficient declaration? Like a formal declaration it must be passed by both chambers and must be presented to the President for his approval.
 
JMak said:
Again, for like the tenth time, why is a congressional resolution declaring its intent to authorize the President to use military force not a sufficient declaration? Like a formal declaration it must be passed by both chambers and must be presented to the President for his approval.
Click to expand...
There is none.
There is no constitutionally mandated form or pattern for a declaration of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom