Re: A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

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$,
--MJ

I 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.txtDo provide 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.
> > > > No question who wears the pants here.
> > > > > As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if
> > > > Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama
> > > > and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his
> > > > regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.
> > > > > The Arab League and African Union are
> > > > denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For
> > > > eastern Libya provided more than its fair share
> > > > of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And
> > > > jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.
> > > > > Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S.
> > > > intervention to prevent "unspeakable
> > > > atrocities," security police of Yemen's
> > > > President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred
> > > > 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of
> > > > the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.
> > > > > Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran,
> > > > would U.S. protests have been so muted?
> > > > > In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops
> > > > from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to
> > > > save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened
> > > > by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout
> > > > in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the
> > > > Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.
> > > > > This crackdown on Bahrain's Shia has been
> > > > denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah
> > > > Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world,
> > > > ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.
> > > > > Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and
> > > > in Iraq after the Americans ousted the
> > > > Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are
> > > > heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of
> > > > Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.
> > > > > They are a majority in Bahrain, where the
> > > > U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is
> > > > now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.
> > > > > Riyadh must have regarded the threat to
> > > > Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the
> > > > religious divide...
>
> 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.