Rep. Kucinich (D). Good looking wife...dumb as a box of hammers.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Korea and Viet Nam were both longer than 90 days but the War Powers Act wasn't in force then. Thus the President could do whatever he wanted with the military.

how has this war been carried out for longer than 90 days?

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

 

[Oscar Wao]

how has this war been carried out for longer than 90 days?

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

Yup.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]qqofBUzU63c[/youtube]

[youtube]422uTaGxY8o[/youtube]

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I know what the WPA is...I'm arguing its constitutionality.....

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I know what the WPA is...I'm arguing its constitutionality.....

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

Just the Constitution.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

[youtube]qqofBUzU63c[/youtube]

[youtube]422uTaGxY8o[/youtube]

Show all the videos you want...Constitutionality and reality are 2 entirely different things when national security comes into play.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I know what the WPA is...I'm arguing its constitutionality.....

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

Just the Constitution.

Well, it's been nothing more than just a <blasphemy removed for 3rd Commandment reasons> piece of paper since the early 1900s.

 

[Oscar Wao]

[youtube]qqofBUzU63c[/youtube]

[youtube]422uTaGxY8o[/youtube]

Show all the videos you want...Constitutionality and reality are 2 entirely different things when national security comes into play.

We use the word "national security" too loosely sometimes.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I know what the WPA is...I'm arguing its constitutionality.....

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

Just the Constitution.

If that were the case he would be impeached for failing to fulfill his oath of office.....try again.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

[youtube]qqofBUzU63c[/youtube]

[youtube]422uTaGxY8o[/youtube]

Show all the videos you want...Constitutionality and reality are 2 entirely different things when national security comes into play.

We use the word "national security" too loosely sometimes.

That may be true but let's look at reality.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

how has this war been carried out for longer than 90 days?

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

True...and they can also give it up...which they did.

 

[elvis]

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

Just the Constitution.

Well, it's been nothing more than just a <blasphemy removed for 3rd Commandment reasons> piece of paper since the early 1900s.

I don't think Bush actually said that, but anyway...

I have thought a lot about this type of thing. For example, I think FDR violated the constitution more than Bush has. But was it worth it? or should we have followed the constitution and let Japan have the entire pacific and maybe california, just to follow the rules?

 

[elvis]

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

True...and they can also give it up...which they did.

Looking back, why would congress do that/

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]qqofBUzU63c[/youtube]

[youtube]422uTaGxY8o[/youtube]

Show all the videos you want...Constitutionality and reality are 2 entirely different things when national security comes into play.

I'm merely putting up the videos because they're relevant to the topic, and I happen to agree with both men. But constitutionality and reality are not two entirely different things whatsoever. Especially when our national security was never threatened by a nation, like Afghanistan for instance.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

Just the Constitution.

If that were the case he would be impeached for failing to fulfill his oath of office.....try again.

All of our Presidents in the history of this country haven't been impeached for doing so. I can count on my fingers, at least 10 Presidents who have failed their oaths of office. In fact, I'd probably have to count my toes too.

Only Johnson and Clinton have been impeached, and they weren't in the hot seat for Constitutional reasons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Point taken...but we need to get reality down first before we go traipsing off into Constitutional issues....and reality is the President is NOT in violation of the War Powers Act.

Just the Constitution.

If that were the case he would be impeached for failing to fulfill his oath of office.....try again.

Sure he would.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Just the Constitution.

Well, it's been nothing more than just a <blasphemy removed for 3rd Commandment reasons> piece of paper since the early 1900s.

I don't think Bush actually said that, but anyway...

I have thought a lot about this type of thing. For example, I think FDR violated the constitution more than Bush has. But was it worth it? or should we have followed the constitution and let Japan have the entire pacific and maybe california, just to follow the rules?

WWII was declared.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

True...and they can also give it up...which they did.

Where does the Constitution say they can vote to give their power to the President?

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

 

[elvis]

Well, it's been nothing more than just a <blasphemy removed for 3rd Commandment reasons> piece of paper since the early 1900s.

I don't think Bush actually said that, but anyway...

I have thought a lot about this type of thing. For example, I think FDR violated the constitution more than Bush has. But was it worth it? or should we have followed the constitution and let Japan have the entire pacific and maybe california, just to follow the rules?

WWII was declared.

oh, sorry, I was talking about the imprisonment of Japanese American citizens.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

how has this war been carried out for longer than 90 days?

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

No its not. Besides, that isn't what happened. The President went to Congress to ask for permission to invade Iraq. They voted yea and voted to fund it. He invaded. That is exactly what was supposed to happen. They didn't vote to give any authority to the President. They voted in favor of making war. Declaration or not, they it was Constitutional. You really should be careful throwing around that word, when it is apparent you do not know what it means.