Undermining the U.S. Constitution...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Undermining the U.S. Constitution...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    352

    Undermining the U.S. Constitution...

    As some of you may(or not) know, the Senate passed the Iraq Resolution earlier tonight. One might say," It's about time those dumbass politicians did something to protect us." It makes one feel secure doesn't it? No more Weapons of Mass Destruction to hear about in the news. No more "serious" threats of terrorism on a day to day basis per Mr. Tom Ridge's color coded scale. Life couldn't be better. And then one might ask, "How does this undermine the Constitution?". After all it's for our own good.
    Article 1 , Section 8 of the Constitution states, only Congress has the right to decide when we're at war, and I quote, "To declare War , grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,". All well and good so far. Except this resolution has given the President of United States a blank check to wage war against anyone in the Middle East that he deems "Public Enemy #1".
    Under the draft resolution, if the President determined an invasion of Iran or Saudi Arabia was necessary to restore peace to the Middle East or deal with the Iraqi threat, he could easily claim he does not need further Congressional approval......The draft resolution does not specify an objective..... By failing to specify an objective, the draft resolution does not provide any criteria for its expiration.....The draft resolution states that “the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.” Likewise, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution “support[ed] the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures,” implying the use of force was a decision for the President, not Congress.
    Source

    It's easy to give the President all these powers right now, as it does not require a 2/3 majority in both Congress and Senate. But if Congress wanted to take this power back, they would have to have a 2/3 majority....

    And one might still wonder how this undermines the US Constitution?It undermines the Constitution because the Constitution makes NO allowances for "pre-emptive strikes". There is no such thing as pre-emptive self-defense.....

    The Bush Adminstration, the House, and the Senate are setting a very bad precedent for the rest of the World. What's to stop everyone else from making their own "pre-emptive strikes", against International Law.

    I forgot, we police the World.


    Apologies to our friends from abroad, who might or might not care about this.
    \"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.\" -- Dom Helder Camara

  2. #2
    The Lizard King SarinMage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    561
    i have t oagree with you. our government has learned that they can undermine the constitution and not have any reprecussions. Pople dont take war seriously, and act like its a game. its a game of chess for polititions, sending us in like pawns......

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    32
    Believe me Mahakaal, I do care. And I am really afraid of what is next. War is close now and the fact that it is only in Bush's hands to decide when makes me even more horrified.

    Btw: the problem with the precedence: India is already claiming in the same way their right for self-defense against Pakistan and we know what that means...

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    310
    I'm kinda on the fence about this issue.I believe we should go to war with Iraq,and probably a few other countries,but(as much as I think Bush is a damn good president) I don't think any one man in the US should have the kind of power to attack anyone who COULD pose a threat to us.
    What's done is done,and I don't think anyone should jump all over Bush unless he abuses this power.I think he's had one of the toughest terms to be thrown on a presidents lap in history.We've had quite a few presidents that had to deal with war or had to deal with economic problems,but not very many have had to deal with both at the same time from start to finish like he's going to have to do.We've gotta give the guy some credit.He's done everything asked of him by congress and the UN up to this point.
    [shadow]I don\'t believe in anarchy.If you\'re not smart enough to beat the system it\'s your problem. [/shadow]


  5. #5
    Senior Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    551
    News flash: The Constitution hasn't been worth the paper it's written on in over 150 years. Look at some of the usurpations of power during the Civil War, and it's been downhill since then. Welcome to planet Earth, my friend.

    And one might still wonder how this undermines the US Constitution?It undermines the Constitution because the Constitution makes NO allowances for "pre-emptive strikes". There is no such thing as pre-emptive self-defense.....
    Where does the Constitution say that military force has to be in self-defense? My copy doesn't say that. Maybe I have a bad copy.

    All it says is that Congress has the power to declare war and that the President is the commander in chief of the Army and Navy. Anything beyond that is a creature of either statute or judicial decision.
    Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    352

    For Problemchild...

    You're free to check out Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which states...

    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 .
    I never said the Constitution hadn't been abused in the past. This is all I can relate to in my life, at this point in time.
    \"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.\" -- Dom Helder Camara

  7. #7
    Senior Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    551
    You're free to check out Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which states...
    The operative word there being "State." Article I, Section 10 outlines limits on the powers of the individual states, not the Congress. That's in there to prevent Mississippi from declaring war on Alabama.

    [EDIT] I didn't mean to come off sounding like a smart@ss.... I guess I've just seen enough to make me exceptionally jaded when it comes to these things. There was a time when I cared deeply about freedom and the rule of law, but I realize now that it's hopeless and I don't have the energy to care anymore. The machine will keep rolling along, and the best any of us can hope for is to just not get caught in the wheels.
    Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3

    I'm glad

    I've been in the Marine Corps for 15 years and I have seen what Saddam is capable of doing. If he lets the UN Inspectors in and he dismantles what they find, then there will be no problems. It's up to Iraq as to how this works out, easy or not.
    As long as Saddam complies, everything will be fine, but at least he knows now that we will not allow him to give us the run around.
    I don't want war......but he is a major problem, and he's very volitile.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    97
    I think some of the people in this thread are missing the essence of what the topic is about. The concern isn't so much the fact that it's a pre-emptive strike, but the fact that the power to decide whether these strikes will occur or not now lays in the hands of one man. Since when did a democracy, (or republic) allow one man to decide whether or not we go to war? This is in total contrast to what our government was set up to do, and in strong unison to the government our forefathers once considered to be tyrannical. In fact, there is reason to believe that england is now more "democratic" then america is.

    For any of you who skipped over mahakaal's quote at the bottom of his posts, here it is again. I think it's worth reading.

    "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caeser ."

    Take that into consideration when deciding the actions of your government.
    The radiance of ignorace in a world of nothingness and all of this time your pestilence has created nothing but uselessness

  10. #10
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Congress is shamefully ducking its responsibility in this matter.
    If the war goes well, they can claim that they "supported the president".
    If it goes badly, they can claim that he alone is to blame.

    Ever since WWII, US presidents have preferred to wage presidential war
    because they have less interference from congress, and can increase
    the powers of the presidency.

    On Sept 11 2001, George should have sent a solemn message to
    congress, asking them for a declaration of war naming the nations
    and governments with whom we would be in a state of war.
    He should also have reminded them that he would refuse to
    put any of our troops in harm's way until that formal declaration was
    on his desk.

    A formal declaration of war is legal and moral cover for the president
    and the officers and men who must do the fighting. Without it, they
    can be accused of lawlessness and aggression. A declaration of war
    means that the congress and the people have determined that
    the war is both just and necessary, and that the military is not acting
    on its own, but in defense of the nation and its people.

    December 11, 1941

    The President's Message
    To the Congress of the United States:

    On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

    I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt


    The War Resolution
    Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

    Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

    Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States
    http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

    A declaration of war would also force each of us to declare which side we are on
    Maybe that's why most people are willing to let george do it on his own.
    We can then deny responsibility.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •