Cindy Sheehan quits

[loosecannon]

And then of course there is this link for Commander in Chief....

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/07.html

from your link the author of the constitution sed:

The Limited View .--The purely military aspects of the Commander- in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. Hamilton said the office ''would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.'' 106 Story wrote in his Commentaries: ''The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command. The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was no necessity that he should, take the com mand in person; and there was no probability that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed of superior military talents.''

iow next to no powers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is the link that got me to the page......

Look down to "31 U.S.C. Chapter 11" it is a law created in 1950. I imagine it existed in some form before then also, but this is good enough.

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/laws/

 

[loosecannon]

No it is a law from 1950.

No sorry you are wrong. Check your own link and click where it says "how recent is this?"

Then apologize profusely.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No sorry you are wrong. Check your own link and click where it says "how recent is this?"

Then apologize profusely.

Are you stupid? Check the link I provided, it may have had changes recently but the LAW is from 1950.

 

[loosecannon]

LOL - I've had that song in my head ever since I read your post. That's cool, though - it's a great tune.

Well we are stuck with the same tune.

Dylan was the tops.

 

[loosecannon]

Are you stupid? Check the link I provided, it may have had changes recently but the LAW is from 1950.

Are YOU stupid. the law was passed in 2006.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As for your quote from the Commander in chief section, I notice you stopped the quote just before this part....

...........................
In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: ''His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in- chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.
.............................

and of course the link is as above...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...icle02/07.html

 

[loosecannon]

"Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

That means use the military however he likes...

No according to Hamilton who wrote the constitution it means the pres wasn't even expected to assume the CIC responsibilities unless he was a practiced general.

And even then it was nothoing more than general responsibilities. NOT the power to declare war or manage the whole affair.

EXPRESS responsibilities over the military and almost EVERY SINGLE AUTHORITY OVER THE MILITARY were assigned to Congress.

You SOOO lose.

 

[loosecannon]

As for your quote from the Commander in chief section, I notice you stopped the quote just before this part....

...........................
In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: ''His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in- chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.
.............................

and of course the link is as above...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...icle02/07.html

1850 was 70 years after the fact General Gunny Sarg. Hamilton was THE authority.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will assume you just missed my post....

the law is 31 U.S.C. Chapter 11......

Here is when it was created....

31 U.S.C. Chapter 11 - The Budget and Fiscal, Budget, and Program Information
(Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950)

From my link above.....

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/laws/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1850 was 70 years after the fact General Gunny Sarg. Hamilton was THE authority.

Wrong again.... First what you noted has to do with DIRECT assumption of command. Second the part I quoted is from the Supreme Court, you remember them? They determine what is and is not Constitutional?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you stupid? Check the link I provided, it may have had changes recently but the LAW is from 1950.

I apologize for this. It is late and I typed out of irritation. BUT you are wrong.

 

[red states rule]

The "face of the anti-war movement" calls it quits yesterday and no one comments? Wassup wid dat?

I do hope it is not a Mike Tyson type of retirement

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do hope it is not a Mike Tyson type of retirement

She gonna start biting ears? )

 

[red states rule]

She gonna start biting ears? )

Like Mike, she has done and said some strange things

They both need help

 

[Gunny]

Find me a link, cuz i have consti scholars who say otherwise.



Then you are at odds with the design of the constitution Gunny.

Congress has ALL the power to make legislation. The measly exec can veto or approve.

In exactly the same measure do you believe or not that Congress has a full right to veto any of the pres's appointments.

Veto power is identical to "advise and consent" powers.

I'm at odds with the Constitution; yet, you just said the exact same thing I did.

 

[maineman]

Oh, mama - can this really be the end...

...to be stuck inside of Mobile with those Memphis Blues again....

 

[red states rule]

...to be stuck inside of Mobile with those Memphis Blues again....

While on her self pity tour, Cindy Crackpot actually said in a radio interview Moveon.org is NOT part of the anti war left


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/1343232

 

[maineman]

While on her self pity tour, Cindy Crackpot actually said in a radio interview Moveon.org is NOT part of the anti war left


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/1343232

and that has to do with Memphis and Mobile....HOW?

 

[red states rule]

and that has to do with Memphis and Mobile....HOW?

Pointing another lie by a liberal kook

Not surprised you did not get it