Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya - By Ron Paul

[Demosthenes11]

day might be right. plow might just be trolling

[Plow]

You really don't grasp that?

I mean I can spell it out but I wouldn't think I should have to.

That was, I thought, the simplest way I could put it, but I guess I could rephrase it as...

What of those "powers" is congress incapable of stopping? The closest would be inappropriate use of executive order, and that's every bit as subject to congressional action as any law they make themselves.

[Demosthenes11]

I honestly can't believe this thread is now about how little power the president has today. There are no words.

[Kuya]

Gonna start ignoring plow for a bit

[Plow]

It's sad that they can't even try to deny the fact that they can't discern between effectiveness and legal power.

[Plow]

Guess I'll be afk vetoing the 82 votes for the NAT so that any of this side discussion can actually matter.

[Rhinox]

I honestly can't believe this thread is now about how little power the president has today. There are no words.

Obama supporters are trying so hard now.

.

[Demosthenes11]

me and rhino agreeing should be quite the fucking message...

[Plow]

Indeed, it should definitely tell you something.

[aurik]

This thread isn't about how little power the president has, it's about how Kuya somehow thinks that because the president can wield the power given to him by the constitution, that makes the position somehow ascendant.

[guartz]

Why don't we discuss how morally unethical it is for a member of our society to have rights assigned to them that shouldn't exist in the first place. Like a right to start a war, for example.

[Marootsoobutsu]

This thread isn't about how little power the president has, it's about how Kuya somehow thinks that because the president can wield the power given to him by the constitution, that makes the position somehow ascendant.

The President is in command of the military, but he is not Constitutionally authorized to use it aggressively against another nation unless authorized to by Congress... especially if you read it based on what the writers meant by "war". They had a very Lockean definition, and whether you call it "hostilities" or "police action" or any other damned thing you want to make it not sound like a war, it would all pretty easily fit inside their definition. The President is still able to utilize the military in non-aggressive matters at will (teaching, foreign aid, etc...), and during times of war he-- and never Congress-- calls the shots. He decides how the war is fought, and all decisions on the war ultimately end with him... except when to start it, and when to end it. But you are right: once war is engaged, Congress having any say is a terrible, terrible thing... it was an absolute disaster in Viet Nam. That said, they are the most democratic branch, and the most accountable to the people... they should be the branch that declares war, and any of this crap should require a Congressional declaration. It better puts the nation behind the action, and if you feel strongly enough to order people to die, and to kill, you damned well better have the nation in agreement behind it, and you damned well better be willing to be honest about what's going on. Hiding behind legalese when it comes to war is disgusting, and it certainly makes no difference to the people who are invaded, uprooted, and slaughtered.

The check and balance regarding war is essentially that the President is not supposed to engage in war unless authorized by Congress, but likewise holds the ultimate veto in that he can order the military to remain peaceful... not that he has total control of the military, including when and how to use it unilaterally and Congress only gets the purse strings (though that is part of it, too).

[aurik]

Actually the president is constitutionally authorized to do pretty much whatever the fuck he pleases with the military.

The restriction on declaring war comes because "war" means a whole hell of a lot more than some army fighting.

[Day]

Aurik don't you know it's a full scale war if we kill a few sand niggas?

[Siatdiat]

I think they understand the precedent of that though. They know they will be doing the same shit in office

This is all I see it as.... some group of very rich people already know who the next president will be, and looking at Carter to Reagan, then Clinton to GW, it'll be something similar at the next election. The shit is lined up for "the people to be tired of a weak bleeding heart democrat president" and elect another republican for 4 to 8 years. Democrat and Republican don't really mean anything, except facades. Money is how you vote in this country. Fuck PT Barnum, US politics is the greatest show on earth, just don't look behind the curtain.

[Kuya]

This thread isn't about how little power the president has, it's about how Kuya somehow thinks that because the president can wield the power given to him by the constitution, that makes the position somehow ascendant.

I find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe that the signing statement and executive orders that in effect legislate by proxy are powers granted to the president by the constitution.

Actually the president is constitutionally authorized to do pretty much whatever the fuck he pleases with the military.

The restriction on declaring war comes because "war" means a whole hell of a lot more than some army fighting.

You were earlier critizicing me for making statements that are debateable sound like facts, yet here you are speaking as if the concept of war both used internationally and used in the Constitution refer only to "total war" and this contention is somehow also not debateable.

For thee and not for me, apparently.

[aurik]

Well why don't you point me to where in the constitution / bill of rights, aside from the 3rd amendment, where the president's use of the military is restricted to times of war. I'll also note here that the use of the military is deliberately not under the advise and consent paragraph. So it's pretty clear that his exercise of the military isn't contingent on the approval of congress and in no way is reliant on a declaration of war.

If congress doesn't like how he is "faithfully" executing the law, they have the ability to impeach him.

[Kaslo]

I find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe that the signing statement and executive orders that in effect legislate by proxy are powers granted to the president by the constitution.
You were earlier critizicing me for making statements that are debateable sound like facts, yet here you are speaking as if the concept of war both used internationally and used in the Constitution refer only to "total war" and this contention is somehow also not debateable.

For thee and not for me, apparently.

Your lack of understanding of what an executive order is is dumbfounding.

[Kuya]

Can someone explain aurik's deal? He's pretending like someone is arguing that the president does not have control over the military under times of peace, when time and time again, what has been said is that the constitution says that only congress may declare war.

You lack of understanding of what an executive order is is dumbfounding.

lol

[aurik]

You have a mental block.

With the exception of the 3rd amendment the president can do whatever the fuck he wants with the military regardless of whether war has been declared or not.