RE: "Hostilities"

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: "Hostilities"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: "Hostilities"

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: "Hostilities" - 6/24/2011 8:35:18 AM

xssve

Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

Just more pub political theater - talking out both sides of their mouth as usual.

All I know is, Libyan's are laying their own lives on the line for freedom, how can you not support that and call yourself an American?

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 121

RE: "Hostilities" - 6/24/2011 10:12:12 AM

thishereboi

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Hardly. 'Somepne' who is deemed a conservative would have been pretty straight Fs in school, and wouldn't have thought that the school administration should be burdened with having to do anything at all for the students except increase the superintendents bonusus.

I guess I am not a conservative after all. And my conservative friends aren't either. Imagine that, I thought it had to do with my political views and all this time all I had to do was look at my GPA

Edited to add: I did get lousy grades in high school, but I was a tree hugging liberal back then, so maybe you have it backwards.

< Message edited by thishereboi -- 6/24/2011 10:13:20 AM >

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 122

RE: "Hostilities" - 6/24/2011 11:01:32 AM

errantgeek

Posts: 156
Joined: 6/20/2011
Status: offline

Going back a few pages...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It is interesting to say the least, the war powers act is a poorly written punitive encroachment on presidential power.

Actually, I disagree with the traditional interpretation of the War Powers Act. I think it's an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. The thing to keep in mind is, the Constitution hinges the activation of Commander-in-Chief power and duty to being "called into the actual Service of the United States", which I would interpret as one of two conditions: a state of national emergency (characterized by, taking a clue from the Suspension Clause, invasion or rebellion), and a declaration of war by Congress. Presidents were very quick to note the vagueness of the clause and interpret it to mean not only protection of U.S. assets and allies abroad from emergent situations (and later, threat) as well and use the vagueness to wage undeclared (yet, Congressionally authorized) war; the Franco-American War (better known as the Quasi-War) was the first of many.

What the War Powers Act does first and foremost is legitimize that interpretation, which was a very broad reading of the Commander-in-Chief clause from the beginning, after nearly 200 years of precedent. The only reason it was remotely an issue in '73 was due to a Congressional FUBAR (seriously, a blank check to "defend SEATO" after an incident that was even at the time regarded as extremely shady? Way to go, Congress.) and strong desire to save face among the American populace.

But that's just my personal opinion of it.

< Message edited by errantgeek -- 6/24/2011 11:03:32 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 123