Rep. Massie Debates Iran War Powers Resolution

[TNHarley]

No, he cant commit murder. Murder is covered under state and federal law. War is covered in federal law too. Its called "the war powers resolution of 1973", as we both know.

You are simply too stupid to continue this further.
Good day.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ok, and my argument is that it is unconstitutional.

What is unconstitutional and what specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

Especially how is Trump violating the Constitution more than other presidents since WWII?

 

[Godboy]

You are simply too stupid to continue this further.
Good day.

What did i say that is incorrect?

 

[Godboy]

What is unconstitutional and what specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

Especially how is Trump violating the Constitution more than other presidents since WWII?

Ive been going back and forth with him for 3 days now. He has no answers to any of these questions. He merely proclaims that its unconstitutional.

 

[TNHarley]

What is unconstitutional and what specific part of the Constitution does it violate?

Congress has no authority to delegate its legislative duties.
The constitution gives the power of war to congress, not the president.
The power of war is a legislative act.
I have explained this multiple times in this thread.

Especially how is Trump violating the Constitution more than other presidents since WWII?

He isnt. He is just the same old same old.
My issue is with the act itself. Not which prez is doing it.

 

[Godboy]

Congress has no authority to delegate its legislative duties.
The constitution gives the power of war to congress, not the president.
The power of war is a legislative act.
I have explained this multiple times in this thread.

He isnt. He is just the same old same old.
My issue is with the act itself. Not which prez is doing it.

Incorrect. The constitution merely states that only Congress can formally DECLARE war. It doesnt say a god damn thing about military strikes or temporary military engagements.

 

[TNHarley]

For the ******* morons.
war
[wɔː]
noun
verb
war (noun)
wars (plural noun)

1. a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country:

 

[Seymour Flops]

Congress has no authority to delegate its legislative duties.
The constitution gives the power of war to congress, not the president.
The power of war is a legislative act.
I have explained this multiple times in this thread.

Fair enough. I hope you feel the same about agencies creating regulations.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not "the power of war." It makes the POTUS the commander in chief of all Armed Forces, so he is clearly in charge of all military actions short of a declared war.

He isnt. He is just the same old same old.
My issue is with the act itself. Not which prez is doing it.

Precedent counts.

 

[TNHarley]

Fair enough. I hope you feel the same about agencies creating regulations.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not "the power of war." It makes the POTUS the commander in chief of all Armed Forces, so he is clearly in charge of all military actions short of a declared war.

I do.
If you attack another country, its war.

 

[Godboy]

For the ******* morons.
war
[wɔː]
noun
verb
war (noun)
wars (plural noun)

1. a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country:

If a US Navy vessel is at sea and they are suddenly attacked by a foreign ship, are they allowed to engage in war as defined in your post? Of course they can fire back. Everyone knows they can fire back, yet they would be engaging in "war" by doing so, without Congressional approval.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I do.
If you attack another country, its war.

Precedent says no declaration of war is needed.

The law says the president may send troops into combat for up to ninety days absent congressional action.

The Constitution gives him command of the armed forces, including state militias when called into federal service.

No court case disagrees with any of the above.

It seems that objections are based on opposing Donald Trump specifically, rather than law, precedent, or case law.

 

[TNHarley]

Precedent says no declaration of war is needed.

The law says the president may send troops into combat for up to ninety days absent congressional action.

The Constitution gives him command of the armed forces, including state militias when called into federal service.

No court case disagrees with any of the above.

It seems that objections are based on opposing Donald Trump specifically, rather than law, precedent, or case law.

Precedent was roe v wade but it went back to the states, didnt it?
Precedent was seperate schools for blacks, but that changed, didnt it?
Precedent means nothing. Especially when its unconstitutional.
The supreme law of the land doesnt. But who cares, right? Its just the constitution. The document that secures rights, and keeps the govt in check. **** that document. Right?
You are the one that keeps bringing up trump. My issue is the act itself. The WPA. AUMFs. You arent going to gaslight me because I support checks and balances, and the govt not creating itself more power.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Precedent was roe v wade but it went back to the states, didnt it?
Precedent was seperate schools for blacks, but that changed, didnt it?

Yes, both by court cases that overturned precedent.

Precedent means nothing. Especially when its unconstitutional.

It doesn't mean "nothing." It must be and almost always is followed faithfully until a new precedent is set.

Is anyone actually taking this to court? Allah knows, they have been suing Trump as often as Billionaires are willing to finance the lawsuits. What case has been brought here?

The supreme law of the land doesnt. But who cares, right? Its just the constitution. The document that secures rights, and keeps the govt in check. **** that document. Right?

That the power to declare war is the same as the power to fight a war is your interpretation, not the plain language of the Constitution. You can argue that the courts should rule that it is, but that has not happened yet.

You are the one that keeps bringing up trump. My issue is the act itself. The WPA. AUMFs. You arent going to gaslight me because I support checks and balances, and the govt not creating itself more power.

We didn't have this kind of talk about the president using the military without a declaration of war when Trump was not president. That leads me to believe that the anger is about Trump (as usual) and not about the Constitution.

Maybe you are the exception. You are telling me that if I search your posting history, I will find just as many posts decrying Biden's attacks on Syria and Iraq?

 

[Godboy]

Precedent was roe v wade but it went back to the states, didnt it?
Precedent was seperate schools for blacks, but that changed, didnt it?
Precedent means nothing. Especially when its unconstitutional.
The supreme law of the land doesnt. But who cares, right? Its just the constitution. The document that secures rights, and keeps the govt in check. **** that document. Right?
You are the one that keeps bringing up trump. My issue is the act itself. The WPA. AUMFs. You arent going to gaslight me because I support checks and balances, and the govt not creating itself more power.

• Clause 3 Acts Requiring Consent of Congress
• No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
  
  
  

  Article I Section 10 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

  constitution.congress.gov
  
  

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, both by court cases that overturned precedent.

It doesn't mean "nothing." It must be and almost always is followed faithfully until a new precedent is set.

Is anyone actually taking this to court? Allah knows, they have been suing Trump as often as Billionaires are willing to finance the lawsuits. What case has been brought here?

That the power to declare war is the same as the power to fight a war is your interpretation, not the plain language of the Constitution. You can argue that the courts should rule that it is, but that has not happened yet.

We didn't have this kind of talk about the president using the military without a declaration of war when Trump was not president. That leads me to believe that the anger is about Trump (as usual) and not about the Constitution.

Maybe you are the exception. You are telling me that if I search your posting history, I will find just as many posts decrying Biden's attacks on Syria and Iraq?

I am anti-war. And im not just anti-war when there is a certain letter in front of someones name.
And im certainly against the state giving itself more power. The constitution gave them enough.
And im going by what the constitution actually says, not making shit up to justify the fat ass bombing Iran.

 

[Godboy]

I am anti-war.

No you arent. Im certain that you agreed with the US entering WW2.

 

[Godboy]

.
And im going by what the constitution actually says, not making shit up to justify the fat ass bombing Iran.

The Constitution says that a president can respond to a threat if there isnt enough time to delay for a Congressional vote. I literally just posted it and you gave that post a laughing imoji.

 

[TNHarley]

• Clause 3 Acts Requiring Consent of Congress
• No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
  
  
  

  Article I Section 10 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

  constitution.congress.gov

Ok, I was done with your dumbass, but I cant pass this retarded shit up.
The compact clause?

That is about individual states.

 

[Godboy]

Ok, I was done with your dumbass, but I cant pass this retarded shit up.
The compact clause?

That is about individual states.

States are strictly forbidden from engaging in war, retard.

 

[Godboy]

Ok, I was done with your dumbass, but I cant pass this retarded shit up.
The compact clause?

That is about individual states.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The Supreme Court has stated that this provision contemplates the use of the state’s military power to put down an armed insurrection too strong to be controlled by civil authority,1 and held that the organization and maintenance of an active state militia is not a keeping of troops in time of peace within the prohibition of this clause.2 The Supreme Court has also held that the divestments of state power in this Clause, together with Congress’s express authority to build and maintain the Armed Forces under Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13, reflect a complete delegation of authority to the Federal Government to provide for the common defense and show that the states renounced their right to interfere with national policy in this area in the plan of the Convention.3