Abdication...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <blockquote>Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necesary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probablity of the British invading us" but he will say to you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't."

    The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I inderstand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. </blockquote>

    The above passage was taken from a letter from Abrham Lincoln to William Herndon in refutation of Mr. Herndon's support of James Polk's war with Mexico.

    It applies equally, today, to President Bush's policy of pre-emption in the case of Iraq, or any other threat his deluded mind might percieve. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war, and it doesn't really matter how many times it's been done before, they violated the Constitution in abdicating their power to send troops into harms way to the President.
    Similarly, the President had no right to accept such powers, and in doing so he violated the Constitution.

    ANY who authorized this abdication of authority stand in contempt of the very foundation of the Republic, and are unworthy of the office they hold, just as ANY who accepted such authority stand in contempt of the Constitution and are unworthy of the office they hold. {Yes, that means John Kerry AND George Bush)
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Congress gave very specific authority to the President to fight the war on terrorism, based on his authority as Commander-in-Chief to determine where the enemy was and how to best fight him.
    And using your logic, the Civil War, the Mexican incursions, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were all also illegal, since we didn't declare war then either.
    While you are very correct in saying that Congress holds the power to declare war, I don't think we'll see another declared war anytime soon. It just doesn't happen any more. Congress does still hold the power to put troops in harm's way; they voted to use our troops in fighting the GWOT. I see nothing wrong with the way things occurred.
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    The Congressional bill was a formality, anyway. The President has supreme authority as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He can attack anybody at any time without Congressional permission, he just thought it would be proper to obtain Congressional permission this time. There's a time limit on how long he can keep them in one place, though, that was passed into law after Vietnam.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    the president does NOT have supreme authority. Thats why we have a balance of power in this nation. What the president CAN do is deploy troops anywhere and have 60/90? days to inform and get congressional approval. If congress denies that approval then he has to withdraw the troops. I think thats how it works.
     
  5. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    He has 60 days, extendable another 30 days, for a total of 90 days. The act is called "The War Powers Act of 1973".

    The War Powers Act of 1973
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    While every President since Nixon has declared the War Powers Act an unconstitutional breach of presidential powers, every one of them has complied.
     
  7. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Which was, in and of itself, a violation of the Constitution and an abidication of powers granted solely to Congress by the Constitution.
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    It doesn't make them right...only hypocrites and betrayers of their oaths of office.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    The constitution, in some ways, it what some call a "living document". Oh that's right you libs only believe THAT when there's something constitutional that inhibits the socialism you love so well. I forgot.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Actually, Bully, I'm pleased to see that you have turned into somewhat of a Constitutionalist. I wonder if you would be willing to agree with these other positions:

    1. The Constitution does not grant the federal government to provide for education; therefore, all federal spending on education should cease.
    2. The Constitution does not grant the federal government to provide for the health of US citizens; therefore, all federal spending related to vaccines, health research, AIDS treatment, breast cancer, etc. should cease.
    3. The Constitution does not grant the federal government to provide for art; therefore, all federal spending on the arts should cease.
    4. The Constitution does not grant the federal government to provide for the safety of Americans; therefore, all federal spending on safety boards and research should cease.
     

Share This Page