Seems I spoke to soon.
Have a nice day
On Mar 24, 11:08 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> This is the ROUTE a bill takes to become Law and NOT any Power To make such.
> It is rather obvious that you are unable to provide that which does not exist.
> Regard$,
> --MJI consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1791.Easy peasy.
> Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
> the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the
> President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if
> not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it
> shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on
> their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
> Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill,
> it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by
> which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds
> of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes
> of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of
> the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the
> Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned
> by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall
> have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as
> if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent
> its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Article I, Section
> 7.
> War Powers was passed by congress and signed by the President. It is
> LAW. And it is constitutional until the judicial branch says
> otherwise. Thats how it works!
> On Mar 24, 10:00 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > What is and is not constitutional has NOTHING to do with whether Congress passed it or the President signed it OR the Court decreed it.
> > By such silliness, the Constitution is meaningless. This would suggest Congress can do as it pleases until and unless the Court tells it otherwise -- and even THEN it would not matter.
> > HERE is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txtDoprovide the Article, Section and Clause or Amendment you imagine provides the basis for the 'War Powers Act' legislation. Good Luck.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ"[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)At 08:43 AM 3/24/2011, you wrote:The War Powers Act was enacted by congress and POTUS, and until ruled
> > unconstitutional by SCOTUS, it isn't
> > On Mar 23, 12:19 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > And AGAIN, Here is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txtPOINTto where you imagine such is endorsed. (both the unconstitutional War Powers Act AND this current escapade).
> > > And YES all those Presidents (and more) violated the Constitution.
> > > You will find no Power within the Constitution for EITHER the unconstitutional War Powers Act NOR this current escapade. As such, they are both unconstitutional.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ"Usurpation, the exercise of power not granted, is not legitimized by repetition" -- Raoul Berger.At 11:56 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:See War Powers Act, and that was after more than one of the below.
> > > Are you actually saying that Truman, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, both Bush's and
> > > Clinton violated the constitution?
> > > Really?
> > > I mean, you do know that war hasn't been declared by congress since
> > > 1941, and we've been blowing shit up ever since then, right?
> > > Even if you are just a staunch republican hater (which is fine), Jesus
> > > H., the "undeclared" wars in Korea and Vietnam make anything any
> > > republican has done look like a Girl Scout fight in a school yard.
> > > On Mar 23, 11:41 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > Here is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt
> > > >
> > > > POINT to where you imagine such is endorsed.
> > > >
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> > > >
> > > > I am for relying, for internal defense, on our
> > > > militia solely, till actual invasion, and for
> > > > such naval force only as may protect our coasts
> > > > and harbors from such depredations as we have
> > > > experienced; and not for a standing army in time
> > > > of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment;
> > > > not for a navy, which, by its own expenses and
> > > > the eternal wars in which it will implicate us,
> > > > will grind us with public burdens, and sink us
> > > > under them. I am for free commerce with all
> > > > nations; political connection with none; and
> > > > little or no diplomatic establishment. -- Thomas Jefferson
> > > >
> > > > At 10:59 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I happen to like Pat, but its not unconstitutional. Nor was Iraq nor
> > > > >Afghansitan (yea, I know, at least Bush asked congress, but he didn't
> > > > >have to), Desert Storm (BEGGED by the UN), Bosnia/Kosovo (no asky),
> > > > >Grenada (indeed asky), Vietnam or Korea.
> > > >
> > > > >Pat is right on Grenada, as there were indeed 500 American students in
> > > > >immediate peril, but thats about it.
> > > >
> > > > >On Mar 23, 8:56 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > A Foolish and Unconstitutional Warby Patrick J. Buchanan
> > > > > > "The president does not have power under the
> > > > > Constitution to unilaterally authorize a
> > > > > military attack in a situation that does not
> > > > > involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
> > > > > > So said constitutional scholar and Senator
> > > > > Barack Obama in December 2007 -- the same man
> > > > > who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile
> > > > > strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.
> > > > > > Obama did win the support of Gabon in the
> > > > > Security Council, but failed with Germany. With
> > > > > a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he
> > > > > got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil,
> > > > > Russia, India or China. All four abstained.
> > > > > > This is not the world's war. This is Obama's war.
> > > > > > The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise
> > > > > missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force
> > > > > attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.
> > > > > > "To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,"
> > > > > said Vice Adm. William Gortney.
> > > > > > "In wartime, truth is so precious that she
> > > > > should always be attended by a bodyguard of
> > > > > lies," said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.
> > > > > > In his Friday ultimatum, he said, "We are not
> > > > > going to use force to go beyond a well-defined
> > > > > goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."
> > > > > > Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi's compound?
> > > > > > So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck
> > > > > Libya that the Arab League is bailing out.
> > > > > League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency
> > > > > meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss
> > > > > attacks that have "led to the deaths and
> > > > > injuries of many Libyan civilians." We asked
> > > > > for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the "bombardment of civilians."
> > > > > > What caused Obama's about-face from the
> > > > > Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone
> > > > > on Libya was an unwise act of war?
> > > > > > According toThe New York Times, National
> > > > > Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N.
> > > > > envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped
> > > > > him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not
> > > > > invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.
> > > > > > They did not want to be seen as standing by
> > > > > when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have
> > > > > done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.
> > > > > > While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must
> > > > > go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome.
> >...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment