or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief" - Page 2

post #41 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

I'm curious to see which piece of the constitution gives the president power to put troops in harm's way, and any laws that support that. From what I've read in the constitution, congress declares war, and the war powers act seems to restrict this president from currently engaging Iran [no active war against iran, no statutory authorization, and no nat'l emergency].

I'd already posted the sections of Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. It's very clear.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #42 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

But Shawn it is to "save lives"....

So I think you are "way off base".....

I think the weight of your arguments do not stand when compared to the lives which could be saved.

Governors from Texas should always get to "do what they want to do"

I mean think about it what would the BIG 3 do without nutjobs from texas.

Industrial military complex, Big Energy, and Big Pharma.

Again in closing Shawn you are way off base and your argument does not stand when the Dictator has spoken in order to "save lives"

BAHHHH Who needs Democracy, Laws and Individual Liberties anyway...

Fellows

I'm sorry to have to point out your growing nuttiness in medical-related threads.

But that's not the thread subject. Sadly, I don't know the answer to the good question SDW asks: the scope of the President's power under the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution. I only know that where ambiguity lies in interpretation of the law, this administration will proceed in the most extreme fashion. Where there are lines, this administration will cross them. These are the expectations the U.S. Congress must have in dealing with these people, so that they can't say they were "fooled" by how the administration proceeds on any matter.
post #43 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm sorry to have to point out your growing nuttiness in medical-related threads.

But that's not the thread subject. Sadly, I don't know the answer to the good question SDW asks: the scope of the President's power under the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution. I only know that where ambiguity lies in interpretation of the law, this administration will proceed in the most extreme fashion. Where there are lines, this administration will cross them. These are the expectations the U.S. Congress must have in dealing with these people, so that they can't say they were "fooled" by how the administration proceeds on any matter.

While I disagree with your portrayal of the administration as extreme in all matters of ambiguity, I do appreciate the viewpoint and the adherence to topic. Thanks Shawn.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You can believe whatever. That's not the way it is.

Again, I disagree here because he isn't launching a single attack. He is launching something larger than the scope he is allowed without Congressional approval. You can't proceed with a deployment that is scheduled to last more than 90 days and call it a single attack.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #45 of 125
Wow, a whole page of war-law talk without reference to international law.

Intersting.

I would like to see how the international criminal court in Hague would rule on such an attack.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #46 of 125
Anyone who thinks George is going to follow laws,rules,agreements or even our own Constitution hasnt paid attention the the past 6 years. This guy will do anything and everything for his.........Corporations.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #47 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Then you frankly don't know the law. If Bush chooses to attack Iran, he can do so legally, regardless of what Pelosi and Reid say. Now, as I've said, Congress can cut off all funding. Congress could even try to pass a binding resolution ordering the action to stop. That might be a different story.

exactly sdw...

limit by law...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #48 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm sorry to have to point out your growing nuttiness in medical-related threads.

But that's not the thread subject. Sadly, I don't know the answer to the good question SDW asks: the scope of the President's power under the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution. I only know that where ambiguity lies in interpretation of the law, this administration will proceed in the most extreme fashion. Where there are lines, this administration will cross them. These are the expectations the U.S. Congress must have in dealing with these people, so that they can't say they were "fooled" by how the administration proceeds on any matter.

Sorry, its pretty settled that AT LEAST within the limits of the War Powers Resolution the President has the right to commit US troops to combat for 60 days, and Congress may/may not approve it after that point (in which the President has 30 days to cease combat and run like hell).

The actual debate is whether the limits of the war powers resolution is constitutional. Leaving aside the fact that the Supreme gods are the political imperium that makes such lofty and god-like declarations for the rest of us mortals, a fair reading of the constitution and case history would suggest that much, perhaps most, of the war powers resolution is unconstitutional.

Congress has two powers of related interest: to declare war and cut the budget to war. The president is Commander and Chief, the treaty maker, and foriegn policy maker.

How they "balance" determines what he can do. In the short run he can attack who he likes...thank goodness.
post #49 of 125
John Dean clears up some of the fog for some of us on this:
Quote:
Arguing About the Constitution's Division of Authority

In a recent symposium addressing legal responses to international terrorism, reported in the Fall 1999 Houston Journal of International Law, Robert F. Turner a former legal adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an experienced legal scholar and practitioner in the national security area addressed the President's constitutional powers to respond to terrorism. Professor Turner's analysis is particularly instructive given his five years as a national security adviser to the U.S. Senate.

Turner reminds those who question the President's powers to look at Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which vests "the executive Power in a President of the United States." He notes that since John Locke penned his treatises on government, foreign affairs have been considered an executive function.

Turner adds, as well, that this was the interpretation given to Article II by James Madison (speaking as not only a member of the Constitutional Convention but during the first session of the First Congress), George Washington (acting as the first President), and Thomas Jefferson (supporting this conclusion as the first Secretary of State).

Congress does, however, have the power of the purse. While Congress cannot put strings on the money it authorizes, its power to fund is a significant power nonetheless. This power, together with the nature of the undertaking and the need to project a unified front, dictate that "a wise President" will consult with Congress and seek a bipartisan approach.

While we don't know how President Bush will respond which is, after all, consistent with the need for secrecy in this situation it appears he is, indeed, consulting with Congress. Yet as all his predecessors realized, when it gets down to how, when and where to respond, the President can do whatever he feels necessary whether Congress agrees or disagrees. Article II, Section 1 has vested him with that power.

The entire article should be read.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20010914.html
From the U S Constitution: Article II, first paragraph:
Quote:
Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

etc, etc, etc.
post #50 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Sorry, its pretty settled that AT LEAST within the limits of the War Powers Resolution the President has the right to commit US troops to combat for 60 days, and Congress may/may not approve it after that point (in which the President has 30 days to cease combat and run like hell).

The actual debate is whether the limits of the war powers resolution is constitutional. Leaving aside the fact that the Supreme gods are the political imperium that makes such lofty and god-like declarations for the rest of us mortals, a fair reading of the constitution and case history would suggest that much, perhaps most, of the war powers resolution is unconstitutional.

Congress has two powers of related interest: to declare war and cut the budget to war. The president is Commander and Chief, the treaty maker, and foriegn policy maker.

How they "balance" determines what he can do. In the short run he can attack who he likes...thank goodness.

bullshit.

'Declaring war' isn't simply an official declaration, it is the act of approving combat in foreign countries... this power is counterpointed within congress by the ability to approve treaties (which end wars)... both of these powers fall to congress for one reason, because congress has the final word either way.

the president cannot attack a foreign power (an act of war) without approbation by congress.

what the war powers resolution does is give any sitting president the ability to act for short periods of time without congressional support. it actually gives the president MORE power than the constitution by itself outlines...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #51 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

bullshit.

'Declaring war' isn't simply an official declaration, it is the act of approving combat in foreign countries... this power is counterpointed within congress by the ability to approve treaties (which end wars)... both of these powers fall to congress for one reason, because congress has the final word either way.

the president cannot attack a foreign power (an act of war) without approbation by congress.

what the war powers resolution does is give any sitting president the ability to act for short periods of time without congressional support. it actually gives the president MORE power than the constitution by itself outlines...

Why must you spout uninformed nonsense? No sooner than I made the point (also made prior to mine) and Luna definitively settles it, from no less than John Dean (presumably the fellow Nixonite squealer that carps about pubs these days).

You best explain what makes Turner and Dean wrong than wave your hankie of objection - we see you but so far you remain amusing rather than informative.
post #52 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm sorry ....

Save it Shawn

I just wanted to toss for your consideration that arguments such as:

"You are way off base"

and

"It is to "save lives" so it is ok NO MATTER the other surrounding details.

are

WEAK arguments no matter the topic.

No disrespect to this thread.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #53 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Why must you spout uninformed nonsense? No sooner than I made the point (also made prior to mine) and Luna definitively settles it, from no less than John Dean (presumably the fellow Nixonite squealer that carps about pubs these days).

You best explain what makes Turner and Dean wrong than wave your hankie of objection - we see you but so far you remain amusing rather than informative.

context is everything, Max...

You will note that John Dean's discussion was with regard to responding to terrorism. It was written three days after september 11 when the invasion of afghanistan wasn't on the map, as it were...

Actions like Clinton's in Sudan and Afghanistan against terrorist targets DON'T require congressional approval. You have to realize that lobbing a few missiles is different than sending in forces for an extended period of time... One is explicitly allowed by the Presidential War Powers act, the other ISN'T.

So, are you the bitch? Yes, you are the bitch.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #54 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

...

See the other thread.
post #55 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by New View Post

Wow, a whole page of war-law talk without reference to international law.

Intersting.

I would like to see how the international criminal court in Hague would rule on such an attack.

Since the US isn't involved in it in terms of sanction, it wouldn't seem to matter.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #56 of 125
And why would the US choose that?


Hmmm...


 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #57 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

bullshit.

'Declaring war' isn't simply an official declaration, it is the act of approving combat in foreign countries... this power is counterpointed within congress by the ability to approve treaties (which end wars)... both of these powers fall to congress for one reason, because congress has the final word either way.

the president cannot attack a foreign power (an act of war) without approbation by congress.

what the war powers resolution does is give any sitting president the ability to act for short periods of time without congressional support. it actually gives the president MORE power than the constitution by itself outlines...

Your interpretation is bizarre. The President can order the US military to attack. Period. Congress can limit the action or stop it through appropriations. The President must also abide by the terms of War Powers Resolution, which was passed not expand, but to LIMIT War Powers. You're the only person I've ever encountered that actually believes that resolution was inteneded to expand war powers.

Wiki:

Quote:
The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148 ) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. The War Powers Act of 1973 is also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1).

Quote:
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8 ), while the president is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the president power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war.

They passed it over Nixon's veto in 1973. So don't tell me it was to expand anything.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #58 of 125
The thing about sending in troops is...

patriotism, and its misuse.

If Prez A sends in troops, anyone who is against it is unpatriotic, so everyone has to get on the bandwagon, at least for a while.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #59 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The thing about sending in troops is...

patriotism, and its misuse.

If Prez A sends in troops, anyone who is against it is unpatriotic, so everyone has to get on the bandwagon, at least for a while.

I don't agree and I think you, like many of those on the left, have invented this charge. I would still take issue with Congress stopping the troop surge (for example) by refusing to fund it, or making it a binding resolution, or what not. However, that doesn't mean I would think it's unpatriotic. I would think it's not the right thing, I would disagree, I would think it's undermining the President....but those are different things. What I do think is unpatriotic, as I've said, is passing a resolution that allows the troops to be deployed, yet condemns their presence.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Your interpretation is bizarre. The President can order the US military to attack. Period. Congress can limit the action or stop it through appropriations. The President must also abide by the terms of War Powers Resolution, which was passed not expand, but to LIMIT War Powers. You're the only person I've ever encountered that actually believes that resolution was inteneded to expand war powers.

Wiki:





They passed it over Nixon's veto in 1973. So don't tell me it was to expand anything.

When the War Powers Act was passed over Nixon's veto, it was designed to change the de facto power the president had as your second quoted paragraphs shows... The powers used by the executive in the Korean and Vietnam war were far beyond the constitutional powers allocated to it... The war powers act rectified this blunder, and yes, resulted in a relative diminishment of power, but ultimately given the content of our constitution established as law more power to the president than would otherwise be true.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #61 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

When the War Powers Act was passed over Nixon's veto, it was designed to change the de facto power the president had as your second quoted paragraphs shows... The powers used by the executive in the Korean and Vietnam war were far beyond the constitutional powers allocated to it... The war powers act rectified this blunder, and yes, resulted in a relative diminishment of power, but ultimately given the content of our constitution established as law more power to the president than would otherwise be true.

So wait, it diminished his power, but it expanded it?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 125
He's making an argument about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

Specifically, he's saying the powers granted by the statute exceed the Constitutional limits. So while the statute diminished the power that Presidents had historically exercised (Korea, Vietnam), it still constitutes an expansion of power because it goes beyond what's allowed in the Constitution. That's the argument.
post #63 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But he's not ordering a single attack. He's ordering a sustained invasion beyond the scope of 90 days. If the objectives cannot be achieved in 90 days I don't believe that he should have the power to start it.

Haven't read through this entire thread yet, but my understanding is that Congress essentially ceded its oversight duties in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Sept 18, 2001. The language is incredibly vague:

Quote:
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

IIRC, Bush initially tried to go into Iraq on this alone but then had to backtrack and get the force authorization. So all he needs to do is link Iran to AQ and he's good to go.

Invade all you want. We'll make more.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #64 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

IIRC, Bush initially tried to go into Iraq on this alone but then had to backtrack and get the force authorization. So all he needs to do is link Iran to AQ and he's good to go.

If that is the case - and I don't know enough to be able to comment - then is there any legal redress if after the fact it turns out that there was no link?

Surely if a link is required and one that is later found not to be correct somehow manifests there should be some enquiry when that link turns out to be erroneous?

What exactly is the legal position there?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #65 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

If that is the case - and I don't know enough to be able to comment - then is there any legal redress if after the fact it turns out that there was no link?

Surely if a link is required and one that is later found not to be correct somehow manifests there should be some enquiry when that link turns out to be erroneous?

What exactly is the legal position there?

If you're talking Iraq, it's irrelevant because the Congress did authorize again specifically for Iraq, with all (or almost all?) Republicans and many Democrats voting in favor. If you're talking about some possible future invasion (i.e., Iran), yes he should have to get congressional approval first. But here's the thing: What if he didn't get approval? The only legal remedy is impeachment, which is a purely political process based on how many votes you can get. It's quite amazing how much our system relies simply on good faith.
post #66 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's quite amazing how much our system relies simply on good faith.

And it's quite amazing that there's a possibility that a president with a 30% approval rating might violate it in such an extreme way.
post #67 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

He's making an argument about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

Specifically, he's saying the powers granted by the statute exceed the Constitutional limits. So while the statute diminished the power that Presidents had historically exercised (Korea, Vietnam), it still constitutes an expansion of power because it goes beyond what's allowed in the Constitution. That's the argument.

But that ignores the spririt of the law entirely. It's also a highly subjective interpretation of what the effect of the resolution actually is.
The obvious intent was to limit the President's power to wage war.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If you're talking Iraq, it's irrelevant because the Congress did authorize again specifically for Iraq, with all (or almost all?) Republicans and many Democrats voting in favor. If you're talking about some possible future invasion (i.e., Iran), yes he should have to get congressional approval first. But here's the thing: What if he didn't get approval? The only legal remedy is impeachment, which is a purely political process based on how many votes you can get. It's quite amazing how much our system relies simply on good faith.

I don't know that I agree he should get approval, depending. Let's say that a year goes by and Iran continues to get more aggressive. For the sake of argument, let's say that Bush determines that an aerial assault on Iran's nuke facilities and retaliatory capabilities is needed and the only way to stop their program.

Given such a situation, don't you think the element of surprise is better, tactically speaking?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

And it's quite amazing that there's a possibility that a president with a 30% approval rating might violate it in such an extreme way.

Why does his approval rating have anything to do with it?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #70 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

context is everything, Max...

You will note that John Dean's discussion was with regard to responding to terrorism. It was written three days after september 11 when the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't on the map, as it were...

Actions like Clinton's in Sudan and Afghanistan against terrorist targets DON'T require congressional approval. You have to realize that lobbing a few missiles is different than sending in forces for an extended period of time... One is explicitly allowed by the Presidential War Powers act, the other ISN'T.

So, are you the bitch? Yes, you are the bitch.

The date of John Dean's discussion is irrelevant to the points made in an article written in 1999, and also made the same author in 2002. Congress has the power to declare war, and to fund it. The President, the executive, has the power to make war, to author treaties, and to manage and direct foreign policy.

In other words, "Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power "to declare War." As Hamilton noted in 1793, this was an "exception" to the general grant of "executive power" to the President, and thus was intended to be narrowly construed" (Turner).

The meaning of a declaration of war, in the context of the 19th century, was set by international customary rules that required formal declarations of war by a state when it is go to an actual "war". As such, Congress has but this "narrowly construed" exception to the general power of the executive as war maker (e.g. the War of 1812 against Britan).

Short of that, the President has the power to conduct military operations in response to attack, to protect American property and people overseas, to strike against brigands and terrorists, to respond to treaty obligations, to deter another nations declared intent of attack or war, or to pre-empet clear and present danger. Starting with the Barbary coast pirates the U.S. has participated in armed conflicts without such declarations, including interventions throughout Latin America. Most recently armed conflicts have included: the Dominican Republic, Haiti (twice), Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, the late 80's Iran/Iraq navel war against Gulf shipping, Grenada, & Panama.

The War Powers Act attempts to limit the executive authority to introduce US combat troops ONLY when there is a declaration of warm OR a statutory authorization OR in response to an attack on the United States or its armed forces. As Presidential executive authority is far broader than that, this act is clearly unconstitutional.

Moreover, as the War Powers act also gives Congress the power, by joint resolution, to order the President from making war regardless of Presidential veto, per Court cases, that clause is also unconstitutional.

The President could have invaded Afghanistan, and arguably Iraq, without a declaration (or the equivalent). The President can attack Iran's nuke facilities, and arguably, invade Iran if his reasons are for any of the reasons I gave previously.

So yes, the current debate is between broad Executive Authority and the restrictive and unconstitutional war powers act.
post #71 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Given such a situation, don't you think the element of surprise is better, tactically speaking?

i would prefer that we have an obvious and imminent threat, or a response to an attack, if we're not going to get authorization from congress.
post #72 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If you're talking Iraq, it's irrelevant because the Congress did authorize again specifically for Iraq, with all (or almost all?) Republicans and many Democrats voting in favor. If you're talking about some possible future invasion (i.e., Iran), yes he should have to get congressional approval first. But here's the thing: What if he didn't get approval? The only legal remedy is impeachment, which is a purely political process based on how many votes you can get. It's quite amazing how much our system relies simply on good faith.

He does not need approval. The war powers act conflicts with his constiutional authority. Beside, Congress is full of cowards, they have no desire to leave fingerprints on any decision...
post #73 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But that ignores the spririt of the law entirely. It's also a highly subjective interpretation of what the effect of the resolution actually is.
The obvious intent was to limit the President's power to wage war.

Shawn's right.

Let move this to another hypothetical universe for a sec because I think certain people are miss understanding the nature of a commander in chief...

Wiki

Commander-in-chief in all cases obtain their command or call to action by another party unless they are an unbound sovereign...

more wiki discussion of power

Quote:
The Federalist Papers #69 states:
In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Also, here

There is far too much emphasis on the idea of Commander-in-chief as Sun-King... he isn't...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #74 of 125
Quote:
So while the statute diminished the power that Presidents had historically exercised (Korea, Vietnam), it still constitutes an expansion of power because it goes beyond what's allowed in the Constitution. That's the argument.

Shawn's wrong. The legislature cannot "go beyond" the Constitution, it can only act within it's proscribed powers. For those kind of armed conflict that occur in pursuit of executive authority Congress has no right to limit the executive, except within the power of the purse. It cannot make war (manage it), nor remove from the broad executive power his/her rights EXCEPT for the narrowist of reasons.

Accordingly, those instances and situations I described, and many others we cannot imagine, are wthin the excutive scope. Vietnam was legal vis the requirements of the SEATO treaty, while Korea can be debated (a war under a Charter obligation).
post #75 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Shawn's wrong. The legislature cannot "go beyond" the Constitution, it can only act within it's proscribed powers.

I don't want to be pedantic here, but I have to disagree. The Congress can most certainly act beyond its proscribed powers, and the President can too. The Congress can also abdicate its responsibilities—

so long as no one calls these actions into question in a formal (or legal) way.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #76 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Shawn's wrong. The legislature cannot "go beyond" the Constitution, it can only act within it's proscribed powers.

I guess i failed to make it clear that going beyond the limits of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

As midwinter points out and as you probably know, Congress can certainly do that at risk of invalidation upon judicial review.
post #77 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Shawn's right.

Let move this to another hypothetical universe for a sec because I think certain people are miss understanding the nature of a commander in chief...

Wiki

Commander-in-chief in all cases obtain their command or call to action by another party unless they are an unbound sovereign...

more wiki discussion of power



Also, here

There is far too much emphasis on the idea of Commander-in-chief as Sun-King... he isn't...

Good points, but in reality I think he still has the authority to order and attack.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #78 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


Commander-in-chief in all cases obtain their command or call to action by another party unless they are an unbound sovereign...

more wiki discussion of power

The Federalist Papers #69 states:
In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. ...

Also, here

There is far too much emphasis on the idea of Commander-in-chief as Sun-King... he isn't...

There is nothing in Federalist 69's support of the then pending constitutional provisions that are contrary to my view of the President's constitutional powers. Of course his powers are inferior to that of a monarch who has the power to DECLARE war as well as to RAISE and REGULATE military forces. The Constitution specifically referes to these Congressional powers, in particular to the regulation through uniform rules and procedures.

However, like any legislation, the rules constructed cannot violate the Constitutional powers granted to each of the branches - and the war powers act is such a violation.

Quote:
Throughout most of our history, both Congress and the President understood that decisions regarding foreign affairs were different from domestic issues and were the province of the executive except in areas where the Constitution had made a clear exception...

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution granted the new nation's "executive Power" to the President. (12) To the Framers, this was the primary grant of authority over the management of America's relations with the external world. As Professor Quincy Wright observed in his classic 1922 treatise, The Control of American Foreign Relations, "when the constitutional convention gave `executive power' to the President, the foreign relations power was the essential element in the grant, but they carefully protected this power from abuse by provisions for senatorial or congressional veto." (13)...

In part from their study of theory, but also from their direct experience under the Articles of Confederation, (16) the Framers understood that Congress was institutionally incapable of effectively managing what Locke termed the business of "war, peace, leagues and alliances." Thus, these authorities were vested in the President, subject to several specific checks. Thomas Jefferson explained in April 1790:


The Constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches,
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct
magistracy.... [I]t has declared that the Executive powers shall be vested
in the President, submitting special articles of it to a negative by the
Senate.... The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive
altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to
such portions of it as are specially submitted to the senate. Exceptions
are to be construed strictly. (17)

Turner, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Spring , 2002 (pay site: Goliath).


In other words, in situations short of an actual need to declare war (to go from a normal peaceful state to actually start a war against another state requires Congressional 'declaration'.) This is a narrow exception to the executives broader powers in foreign policy and international relations.

Constitutionally, can the President launch a military strike against nuclear facilities without obtaining Congressional permission? Yes. Can he lauch an invasion of Iraq without Congressional approval, if it is going to result in war then NO, he cannot.
post #79 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Constitutionally, can the President launch a military strike against nuclear facilities without obtaining Congressional permission? Yes. Can he lauch an invasion of Iraq without Congressional approval, if it is going to result in war then NO, he cannot.

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone disagrees with that. A short-term use of the military doesn't require a congressional war declaration (though most presidents would inform congressional leadership). What I and I think others disagree with is the view that the president can do anything with the military he wants, without any congressional approval, because he's commander-in-chief.
post #80 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone disagrees with that. A short-term use of the military doesn't require a congressional war declaration (though most presidents would inform congressional leadership). What I and I think others disagree with is the view that the president can do anything with the military he wants, without any congressional approval, because he's commander-in-chief.

Has someone advocated that last position? If that's the perception of my position, it's an inaccurate one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"