• 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!

Should we scale back the executive branch's AUMF?

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
15,254
Reaction score
3,208
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding apresidential veto.


just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions. Is it time to repeal this resolution, and make congress the only and final authority to declare war or ANY SORT of combat action against another country?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution



just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions. Is it time to repeal this resolution, and make congress the only and final authority to declare war or ANY SORT of combat action against another country?[/FONT][/COLOR]

You certainly didn’t convince me with that plea. We can do that, when there is a robust supranational system guaranteeing international security. Before that, it would be crazy naiveté.
 
Yes, the sophistry called AUMF should be repealed.

Alternatively, it should actually be complied with completely, as should the War Powers Act from the 70's.

A big indicator of the corruptness of this government is that it does not obey the laws it passes.
 
Should we scale back the executive branch's AUMF?
No. We need to continue the war until we have eradicated the people who attacked us.


just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions.
I do not believe there are any constitutional ramifications. The AUMF is a declaration of war against the organizations who attacked us.

If anyone out there in the world has a problem with our right to exercise lawful self defense, add those people to the target list and then dronestrike them.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution



just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions. Is it time to repeal this resolution, and make congress the only and final authority to declare war or ANY SORT of combat action against another country?[/FONT][/COLOR]

No. the last thing we need is to have to defend ourselves by committee.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution



just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions. Is it time to repeal this resolution, and make congress the only and final authority to declare war or ANY SORT of combat action against another country?[/FONT][/COLOR]

No. The President has the power to act in an emergency situation. But he must justify his position to Congress within a reasonable time frame. What's wrong with that?

Sorry, but I'm not going to just ignore the Constitution.
 
No. We need to continue the war until we have eradicated the people who attacked us.



I do not believe there are any constitutional ramifications. The AUMF is a declaration of war against the organizations who attacked us.

If anyone out there in the world has a problem with our right to exercise lawful self defense, add those people to the target list and then dronestrike them.

Your post suggests you have never read the US Constitution. Maybe you actually read it once, but did not understand it?

I suspect you have not read the War Powers Act either. No matter, congress doesn't obey its own laws, why should you know about the law?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/War-Powers-Act
 
Last edited:
Your post suggests you have never read the US Constitution. Maybe you actually read it once, but did not understand it?
My understanding of it is more than adequate for the purposes of this thread. It clearly allows the US to declare war when an enemy comes to US soil and massacres thousands of American citizens.


I suspect you have not read the War Powers Act either.
That I haven't read. But I do know the gist of it. I'm pretty sure that it allows the US to declare war when an enemy comes to US soil and massacres thousands of American citizens.
 
in original constitutional law, congress was given the power to call out militias, and then military, but that power was given the president by federal law because until the modern age the congress could be out of secession during an attack, and it would take weeks to assemble congress in order to respond
 
My understanding of it is more than adequate for the purposes of this thread. It clearly allows the US to declare war when an enemy comes to US soil and massacres thousands of American citizens.



That I haven't read. But I do know the gist of it. I'm pretty sure that it allows the US to declare war when an enemy comes to US soil and massacres thousands of American citizens.

If your last sentence is your understanding of the "gist" of WPA, and I suspect it is, your arrogance and ignorance are typical. Yes, we have the government we deserve.
 
If your last sentence is your understanding of the "gist" of WPA, and I suspect it is, your arrogance and ignorance are typical. Yes, we have the government we deserve.
My last sentence there isn't my understanding of the gist of the WPA.

It IS something that I understand to be true.

We do have the power to declare war against groups who come to our country and slaughter thousands of our civilians, don't we?
 
My last sentence there isn't my understanding of the gist of the WPA.

It IS something that I understand to be true.

We do have the power to declare war against groups who come to our country and slaughter thousands of our civilians, don't we?

I don't know Toggle, do we? Feel free to expand on your idea.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution



just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions. Is it time to repeal this resolution, and make congress the only and final authority to declare war or ANY SORT of combat action against another country?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Most all of these "combat actions" concern money in one form or another: (national security). So the idea of getting our government to back off of that practice has zero chance. "War" on any scale is always about money and territorial control. As long as those two forces are a priority we're stuck with it.
 
I don't know Toggle, do we? Feel free to expand on your idea.
Yes. America does have the right to declare war against groups that come to our country and slaughter thousands of Americans.
 
Yes. America does have the right to declare war against groups that come to our country and slaughter thousands of Americans.

You admit to having not read the WPA, and you demonstrate considerable ignorance about the USC. So tell me TA, why should I believe what you say?

I assume you refer to 911 with your talk of "slaughtering thousands of Americans", and not to go OT, but if that's the case, you really don't know what happened that day, and you cannot handle the truth.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution



just ignoring the constitutional ramifications; we live in a world that is highly reactionary to combat actions. Is it time to repeal this resolution, and make congress the only and final authority to declare war or ANY SORT of combat action against another country?[/FONT][/COLOR]

No way. If we find a suspected terrorist and they are hiding out somewhere that took us years to find, we're not going to wait for our Do Nothing congress to sit around for a year and let them slip away.

One of the dumbest threads ive ever seen
 
in original constitutional law, congress was given the power to call out militias, and then military, but that power was given the president by federal law because until the modern age the congress could be out of secession during an attack, and it would take weeks to assemble congress in order to respond

That is a reasonably accurate assessment of what was and what is and why.

My issue with it is that even the war powers act has been violated several times. The key items in it is the president can deploy troops without declaring war for 60 days or less and must inform congress first and then file regular reports to congress.
Actions beyond 60 days require congressional approval.
Reagan did a minor violation in 1981 with Troops in El Salvador. He did have the notification and it didn't go over 60 days but he didn't comply with filing a report to congress.
Clinton had troops in Kosovo beyond the 60 day provision without congressional approval. Clinton said the war powers resolution was defective. That may be true but its still a law. I guess he just ignored that part of it.
Obama had troops in Libya beyond the 60 day limit without congressional approval and claimed that since NATO was taking over he didn't need to ask for congressional approval. This is not how the resolution works though and they were just trying to step around the law. He has also tried to tie the authorized use of force for Iraq to Syria saying he can commit troops for 25 years if he wanted to.

So while I think there is a purpose for the resolution it , like many other parts of us law, needs to be more clearly defined and worded to prevent abuse. And lastly we need to remove the people from office who don't have the balls do enforce them.
 
You admit to having not read the WPA,
Correct.


and you demonstrate considerable ignorance about the USC.
On the contrary. There is a reason why you cannot point out a single fact that I am wrong about.

(It's because I know quite a bit about the Constitution.)


So tell me TA, why should I believe what you say?
Because I'm telling the truth.


I assume you refer to 911 with your talk of "slaughtering thousands of Americans",
Correct.


and not to go OT, but
The 9/11 attacks are pretty closely related to the AUMF.


if that's the case, you really don't know what happened that day, and you cannot handle the truth.
Let me guess, JFK and Elvis orchestrated 9/11 from inside an invisible UFO?

You know, I bet I could make some money writing books full of pseudo-scientific gibberish about the 9/11 attacks and selling them to conspiracy theorists.

Now I have that cartoon devil and angel on my shoulders. The angel is saying that I really shouldn't contribute to the downfall of civilization. The devil is saying "Do it, do it, do it!"
 
Back
Top Bottom