What War?

[PoorManQ45]

I'm curious. Has Congress actually declared war yet(refering to Iraq/Afghanastan)? If so, who was war declared on?

If my memory serves me correctly: A president can only use US military troops for 90day and receive funding. After 90 days, either congress will have declared war, or funding for the military will be stopped.

[NY94J30]

We don't declare war anymore, not since WWII.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news....html

[PoorManQ45]

OMG!Quote »(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.[/quote]OMG!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!! So, Congress now has the power to create any laws in which it deems "necessary and proper for carrying into execution". Hmmm... If you think about it, that can apply to every single thing .

Quote »(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.[/quote]So what is in bold is what the president uses to justify his non-existent war.

[themadscientist]

I declared war on poser-chumps years ago. I will stay in the feild until the enemies of true car enthusiasts are destroyed and forced to join roleplaying online game groups for fear of going out on the streets and getting clowned again.

[PoorManQ45]

Umm... I think this is what I was talking about

Quote »(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.[/quote]

[NY94J30]

OMG!

OMG!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!! So, Congress now has the power to create any laws in which it deems "necessary and proper for carrying into execution". Hmmm... If you think about it, that can apply to every single thing .

So what is in bold is what the president uses to justify his non-existent war.

First, read Art I, Sec 8 in your "handheld pocket constitution." Second, read the second link - the joint resolution from Congress.

[PoorManQ45]

Yeah, I just read that. So congress made a joint-resolution. Which made the deployment of military legal.

I don't understand, Why didn't they just skip all of the crap and just declare war?

*edit* Also, I notice that nowhere in that second link does it mention Afghanistan. So, was there a Joint Resolution made for that one?

[The Mic]

Welcome to a couple of years ago.

[PoorManQ45]

What? Was this what you guys talked about a couple years ago on Nico?

Remember, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, or a variation of it.

[The Mic]

It's been beaten to death. Let this thread die, please.

[PoorManQ45]

nah...

I'm too lazy to search for other threads. You give me link

[The Mic]

I don't just mean on NICO. Everyone has said it, and its been beaten to a pulp. The politics vogue is out, whining about life is in.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

whining about life is in.

I'm emoooo.

[jdmfreak]

LOL!

WTF is happenin to this place?

[Cold_Zero]

Congress gave him the Authroization of Military Use with S.J.Res. 23 | H.J.Res. 64.

Technically, they authorized the user of the military to go after anyone who was responsible for 9-11.

[JustinStrife]

*gives thumbs up to Cold_Zero*

This war is just one of MANY issues that divide us. Unfortunetly I don't see anything short of another 9-11 bringing both the left and the right together again....

[Jesda]

I dont like bringing the left and right together. Conflict helps to reveal everyone's faults. That period after 9/11 where legislation was going through without a hitch kind of bothered me.

[BuudWeizErr]

Technically, they authorized the user of the military to go after anyone who was responsible for 9-11.

Hmm.. well I guess it's settled.I mean, Iraq and Saddam were, after all, behind the attacks.

[PoorManQ45]

Hmm.. well I guess it's settled.I mean, Iraq and Saddam were, after all, behind the attacks.

I surely hope that you meant to put a brhind that.

I dont like bringing the left and right together. Conflict helps to reveal everyone's faults. That period after 9/11 where legislation was going through without a hitch kind of bothered me.

Very well put Jesda. It was very scary when bills, and other crap giving the president "unlimited power" were passed without a second glance. And all the president had to say was, "Remember 9/11" . THat was truely horrific of Congress to so hastily pass stuff through the house and senate

[Cold_Zero]

Hmm.. well I guess it's settled.I mean, Iraq and Saddam were, after all, behind the attacks.

Chunki,I was solely speaking about the War in Afghanistan, in relation to S.J.Res. 23 | H.J.Res. 64. The war in Iraq was not justified by S.J.Res. 23 | H.J.Res. 64, but rather by S. J. Res. 45, 46 and H. J. Res. 114.

[nuQ]

I surely hope that you meant to put a brhind that.

Very well put Jesda. It was very scary when bills, and other crap giving the president "unlimited power" were passed without a second glance. And all the president had to say was, "Remember 9/11" . THat was truely horrific of Congress to so hastily pass stuff through the house and senate

those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. if you remember, right after 9/11, anyone that dared to question bush's or the governments laws and executive decisions (patriot act, etc), in the so-called "war on terrorism" was called a traitor, taliban lover, bin laden supporter, etc. it's so funny (in an ironic way) to hear all the people who used to say to me "you have to support bush or you're just supporting the terrorists" who a few months ago were now saying you have to vote him out and support kerry!!!! do a search here on NICO and read some of the political threads right after 9/11 up to a year ago,,, many of us did a complete 180!!!! i just hope that when something else happens in the future, the american people can ignore the media bend and rationally think about what is being forced on them, instead of just reacting in an emotional way. hard to imagine how many more of our civil liberties can be taken away under the guise of "fighting terrorism"!

[nuQ]

http://www.libertyzone.com/Com....html

check out this site.

[Jesda]

I surely hope that you meant to put a brhind that.

Very well put Jesda. It was very scary when bills, and other crap giving the president "unlimited power" were passed without a second glance. And all the president had to say was, "Remember 9/11" . THat was truely horrific of Congress to so hastily pass stuff through the house and senate

The great humor is that Ted Kennedy later came out railing against W for legislation he sponsored and voted for. *sigh* Everyone's an *******.

[squeefoo]

Keep in mind the Constitution has been obviated since 1937 - 38, and we are under a "modified contract" (UCC) system. The Supreme Court now decides contract law and Contitutional cases since then.

Good old FDR and his Bolshevic handlers have been given a free pass by the revisionists for all the damage done by this.

Frank Chodorov outlined this very well in "The Income Tax: Root of All Evil" written in the 1940's I think. It's free to read online.

[NY94J30]

Keep in mind the Constitution has been obviated since 1937 - 38, and we are under a "modified contract" (UCC) system. The Supreme Court now decides contract law and Contitutional cases since then.

Good old FDR and his Bolshevic handlers have been given a free pass by the revisionists for all the damage done by this.

Frank Chodorov outlined this very well in "The Income Tax: Root of All Evil" written in the 1940's I think. It's free to read online.

Since when did the UCC become the sole determinant of contract law? And what does contract law - much of which is determined at the state level - have to do w/ the war in Iraq? Moreover, what the hell are you talking about ("the Constitution has been obviated" a 'modified contract' system"???). It sounds like you just read a book you want to talk about.

[squeefoo]

There is no need to be rude, I read the book many years ago. Chodorov is a pioneer of the Libertarian mindset, and explains matters in a simple, concise and biographical manner.

I'm glad you asked.This link may help awaken:http://www.supremelaw.org/auth...4.htm

EDIT:Don't be afraid to look around this site.PS My statement was meant in an overall sense, which would be explained by reading the above link.

[NY94J30]

It wasn't my intent to be rude; my only intent was to determine the point of what still seems to be a non-sequitor post. I browsed around the site you linked, and neither the legal arguments nor the use of superlative impress me. I picture the "Supreme Law Firm" hq as something of a cabin deep in the woods of Montana. Your "Private Attorney General" doesn't have any law training - not that that necessarily matters, though here...

Are you an associate in the Supreme Law Firm? Or do you just not want to pay income tax? Or think that the AG does not represent the U.S. as a constitutional matter?

Are you seriously suggesting that this guy is credible, would you stake your credibilty on his?


Modified by NY94J30 at 4:19 PM 1/9/2005

[nismo510]

the wars a fars anyways

[Jesda]

The war should stay a fars distance away!

[nismo510]

they shouldnt be there.but lets not get in to it