News Good god, we are screwed out of our minds (maybe)

[Prometheus]

That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:

Excellent interpretation. You only had to put a couple of words into his mouth and change his meaning just a little bit to obtain such an interpreation. Nice work.

 

[kat]

Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power.

There's no need for an amendment to clarify the war powers of the President. Congress approves a war when it grants the money to pay for it. That is it's quite but powerful manner of enacting its' congressional right to commit to war...without taking the flack for declaring war. Once congress decided it no longer wanted to commit to the Vietnam war, it cut funding..the war ended. It was really just as simple as that.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.

 

[Artman]

Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.

This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.

 

[Adam]

USA Constitution:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

USA War Powers Act:

Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

United Nations Charter:

United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Wouldn't it be nice if they followed the law?

 

[kat]

This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.

Actually, I've posted the case in one of these threads so a search would find it for you..I'm not going to dig it up and I can't remember it off the top of my head (we'll blame it on being pre-menopausal :surprise: ) BUT..according to caselaw...when congress votes to pay for a war it has in effect approved that conflict...which allows it to be a legal conflict. If congress did not approve that conflict by paying for it..or by any other means..then it would in all probability be an illegal conflict (in regards to presidential powers) after the initial time limit had lapsed.

 

[username]

As far as I know USA and UK (and whoever else) have been bombing Iraq cities for about 10 year's now, maybe this has has relevnce on the current situation over htere I am not sure what though.

 

[GENIERE]

Username – Don’t be apologetic. Take a position. If your politics lean to the right you'll have a few supporters. If you lean to the left, you'll have hundreds.

 

[Adam]

As far as I know USA and UK (and whoever else) have been bombing Iraq cities for about 10 year's now, maybe this has has relevnce on the current situation over htere I am not sure what though.

Quite correct. http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html

 

[JohnDubYa]

As usual, the site that Adam posted has some rather curious logic. For example, here is a news article posted in the page titled "501 days (as of 7/31/04) of US Invasion/Occupation of Iraq":

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/072904_buried_mines_and_ordnance_contin.htm

The mines mentioned in the story were almost certainly buried during the Iran-Iraq War. The mine in the picture was made in Italy. But we'll blame the US anyway.

 

[Adam]

"Almost certainly"?

Once again, "Dubya" gives a poor introduction to the news article in question. The article does no "blame the US anyway". Just read that, and the many other articles from that site, for yourselves.

 

[username]

Username – Don’t be apologetic. Take a position. If your politics lean to the right you'll have a few supporters. If you lean to the left, you'll have hundreds.

Can I stay in the middle :)

 

[JohnDubYa]

The article does no "blame the US anyway". Just read that, and the many other articles from that site, for yourselves.

Look at the title of the page where the link was located: "501 days (as of 7/31/04) of US Invasion/Occupation of Iraq."

 

[Adam]

Your point?

 

[GENIERE]

Can I stay in the middle :)

If you sit on a fence, you may have barbed wire in your arse.

 

[Adam]

And unless you're German, that's a bad thing.

PS: To all Germans, I'm only JOKING!