2012 US Presidential Elections

[hellboy76]

RON PAUL 2012

WOW, really? That ad showed up on top?

I have ad-block, so I couldn't see. Drat! Good stuff.

Mine was a fucking Herman Cain one but I think it was just trying to get me to order a pizza.

[hellboy76]

Two, parts of the constitution are as batshit crazy as the bible, i.e. the section saying we should count black people as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes.

That clause was amended (what a concept!) and the fact that something misguided existed in the Constitution at some point in history shouldn''t render the entire document moot for eternity, should it? Was Jesus wrong about feeding the hungry because the Bible condoned stoning for various misconducts?

I don't think the Constitution says anything about it, other than giving the right to declare war. Not how it should be used, etc. I don't think we have been in a state of declared war since 1942.

So the Constitution grants the Congress a pointless formality? Isn't it implicit in this clause that the power to declare war is the same as the power to go to war? Perhaps the quagmire in Iraq, and various other unnecessary worldwide police actions, could have been averted if the Congress hadn't ceded their granted war powers like a bunch of pussies. The consolidation of so many war powers in the executive alone makes us less free, weakens the democracy, and the fact that it's been going on this way for so long (since 1942, or longer) is an appeal to common practice and not a good reason at all.

A guideline? Fine, but it should NOT be followed blindly.

The United States Constitution: Supreme Guideline of the Land

If we have laws we should follow them, and if we don't like laws we should get rid of them. I know that's not the way the world works, but in my dreams it is.

I wish your dreams were how it worked. And very little is implicit in the Constitution most is left up to interpretation because no one really knows what the hell most of the founding fathers meant. I am all for making it a lot harder to use military action, but the Constitution is no help.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

Oh ok...

[iceblox]

Where in the Constitution does it give Obama the authority to lead us to war based on an UN or NATO resolution?

I don't think the Constitution says anything about it, other than giving the right to declare war. Not how it should be used, etc. I don't think we have been in a state of declared war since 1942.

A war should be declared by the Congress and then the President can direct the war. The hypocrisy of Obama is that he gained all the votes by criticising Bush to no end on exactly the things Obama himself would do more of - Patriot act, warrantless tapping, police state (Houston Police Department now has drones which can knock someone off from the air), going after whistleblowers etc. Obama, on his own accord, took us to war in Libya, and now Uganda, without even checking with the Congress. Bush at least pretended he did.

Do you even realize how limited our Involvement in Libya was? Its not really that big of an issue honestly. He did pull troops out of Iraq for the most part. Also Afghanistan is a war that we should have won under the Bush administration but instead we got sidetracked with Iraq. I do agree however that we should at least be pulling some troops out of Afghanistan.

How does it matter how limited it was? If he had put even 1 soldier in harms' way without going through the process, that's one too many. How much involvement is limited in your mind? 1 soldier? 10 soldiers? 100? 1000? You are looking at this through a utilitarian lens, while I look at through a right vs. wrong lens.

Yes, he is pulling out the troops from Iraq and replacing them with private security contractors, with even more per head cost to the taxpayer. Who is he trying to fool? This is like how some company managers lay off full-time employees to show a reduced head count to the management and then hire contractors to make it up - the result is the same, except it's more costly. Why build an embassy in Iraq which is larger than Vatican City if we are pulling out?

Be honest with yourself, friend. Don't blindly support a candidate, support the candidate's principles. I was an Obama supporter in 2008, but I am honest with myself that I am willing to admit I was wrong, and promise myself that I won't make the same mistake again.

[hellboy76]

Where in the Constitution does it give Obama the authority to lead us to war based on an UN or NATO resolution?

I don't think the Constitution says anything about it, other than giving the right to declare war. Not how it should be used, etc. I don't think we have been in a state of declared war since 1942.

A war should be declared by the Congress and then the President can direct the war. The hypocrisy of Obama is that he gained all the votes by criticising Bush to no end on exactly the things Obama himself would do more of - Patriot act, warrantless tapping, police state (Houston Police Department now has drones which can knock someone off from the air), going after whistleblowers etc. Obama, on his own accord, took us to war in Libya, and now Uganda, without even checking with the Congress. Bush at least pretended he did.

Do you even realize how limited our Involvement in Libya was? Its not really that big of an issue honestly. He did pull troops out of Iraq for the most part. Also Afghanistan is a war that we should have won under the Bush administration but instead we got sidetracked with Iraq. I do agree however that we should at least be pulling some troops out of Afghanistan.

How does it matter how limited it was? If he had put even 1 soldier in harms' way without going through the process, that's one too many. How much involvement is limited in your mind? 1 soldier? 10 soldiers? 100? 1000? You are looking at this through a utilitarian lens, while I look at through a right vs. wrong lens.

Yes, he is pulling out the troops from Iraq and replacing them with private security contractors, with even more per head cost to the taxpayer. Who is he trying to fool? This is like how some company managers lay off full-time employees to show a reduced head count to the management and then hire contractors to make it up - the result is the same, except it's more costly. Why build an embassy in Iraq which is larger than Vatican City if we are pulling out?

Be honest with yourself, friend. Don't blindly support a candidate, support the candidate's principles. I was an Obama supporter in 2008, but I am honest with myself that I am willing to admit I was wrong, and promise myself that I won't make the same mistake again.

I don't think you can blame a president for using a system in a way that is allowed. The constiution does not lay out how things should work in times of war, so it became easy to circumvent. Hell the founders did not even want a standing army.

"The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."

I found this (have not checked the numbers but add in the next 12 years)

As of 1999, the U.S. military had troops in 132 countries. Since 1950, the military has been deployed 71 times to 42 countries and U.S. soldiers have died in 17 operations in 16 countries with more than 98,000 U.S. dead and more than 279,000 wounded. All of this has occurred without a declaration of war.

You tell me, what IS the process and where is it law on how it happens? As far as I can tell Congress just gives "authorizations" to the President so he can declare war, instead of Congress.

[iceblox]

I wish your dreams were how it worked. And very little is implicit in the Constitution most is left up to interpretation because no one really knows what the hell most of the founding fathers meant. I am all for making it a lot harder to use military action, but the Constitution is no help.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

Oh ok...

Assuming you really want to know how to interpret the Constitution, you need to understand the minds of the Founding Fathers. You need to read their essays, quotes, memoirs etc. Perhaps, the best explanation of the Constitution are the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, 3 of our Founding Fathers. You got to have a yearning to learn and seek the truth.

[hellboy76]

I wish your dreams were how it worked. And very little is implicit in the Constitution most is left up to interpretation because no one really knows what the hell most of the founding fathers meant. I am all for making it a lot harder to use military action, but the Constitution is no help.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

Oh ok...

Assuming you really want to know how to interpret the Constitution, you need to understand the minds of the Founding Fathers. You need to read their essays, quotes, memoirs etc. Perhaps, the best explanation of the Constitution are the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, 3 of our Founding Fathers. You got to have a yearning to learn and seek the truth.

That's all well and good, but law should not be left to interpretation, and you can read everything you want, but without asking, and sorry to be frank here, you have no fucking clue what they meant. I don't know you from Adam, why would I believe you or any other man living today, knows what they truly meant?

[iceblox]

I don't think you can blame a president for using a system in a way that is allowed. The constiution does not lay out how things should work in times of war, so it became easy to circumvent. Hell the founders did not even want a standing army.

"The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."

I found this (have not checked the numbers but add in the next 12 years)

As of 1999, the U.S. military had troops in 132 countries. Since 1950, the military has been deployed 71 times to 42 countries and U.S. soldiers have died in 17 operations in 16 countries with more than 98,000 U.S. dead and more than 279,000 wounded. All of this has occurred without a declaration of war.

You tell me, what IS the process and where is it law on how it happens?

The president is not using the system, he is misusing the system, by abusing the power of Executive Orders.

The process is, go to the Congress, get a majority approval, make an official declaration of war, and then go to war. It's not rocket science. But what the presidents often end up doing is that, knowing they won't get a majority congressional approval, totally bypass the Congress and send the troops to war using an Executive Order. That's a blatant abuse of the system. If a president could do this all by himself, what is the Congress for? The Constitution makes it very clear that only the Congress can declare a war. The president is simply not meant to have this much power.

The whole point of the American Revolutionary War was to fight the tyranny of one man - King George III. Because the Founding Fathers realized the danger of concentrating immense power in the hands of one man, they never wanted the president to have unlimited powers.

That's all well and good, but law should not be left to interpretation, and you can read everything you want, but without asking, and sorry to be frank here, you have no fucking clue what they meant. I don't know you from Adam, why would I believe you or any other man living today, knows what they truly meant?

That's the function of the Supreme Courts, to interpret the Constitution and make sure that the laws abide by the Constitution. You or me are not allowed to interpret it any way we want, although for the most part, the Constitution is pretty understandable by the common man. Jefferson was very adamant about that. And as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling, the Congress has the authority to strip the courts of its power, thereby invalidating the decision (Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution).

[hellboy76]

I don't think you can blame a president for using a system in a way that is allowed. The constiution does not lay out how things should work in times of war, so it became easy to circumvent. Hell the founders did not even want a standing army.

"The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."

I found this (have not checked the numbers but add in the next 12 years)

As of 1999, the U.S. military had troops in 132 countries. Since 1950, the military has been deployed 71 times to 42 countries and U.S. soldiers have died in 17 operations in 16 countries with more than 98,000 U.S. dead and more than 279,000 wounded. All of this has occurred without a declaration of war.

You tell me, what IS the process and where is it law on how it happens?

The president is not using the system, he is misusing the system, by abusing the power of Executive Orders.

The process is, go to the Congress, get a majority approval, make an official declaration of war, and then go to war. It's not rocket science. But what the presidents often end up doing is that, knowing they won't get a majority congressional approval, totally bypass the Congress and send the troops to war using an Executive Order. That's a blatant abuse of the system. If a president could do this all by himself, what is the Congress for? The Constitution makes it very clear that only the Congress can declare a war. The president is simply not meant to have this much power.

The whole point of the American Revolutionary War was to fight the tyranny of one man - King George III. Because the Founding Fathers realized the danger of concentrating immense power in the hands of one man, they never wanted the president to have unlimited powers.

That's all well and good, but law should not be left to interpretation, and you can read everything you want, but without asking, and sorry to be frank here, you have no fucking clue what they meant. I don't know you from Adam, why would I believe you or any other man living today, knows what they truly meant?

That's the function of the Supreme Courts, to interpret the Constitution and make sure that the laws abide by the Constitution. You or me are not allowed to interpret it any way we want, although for the most part, the Constitution is pretty understandable by the common man. Jefferson was very adamant about that. And as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling, the Congress has the authority to strip the courts of its power, thereby invalidating the decision (Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution).

Yes I understand the constiution, and the federalist documents (which were changed signifignatly prior to ratification of the constitution, many did not want a bill of rights etc) but you seem to be singling out Obama. Congress has not declared war in what, 70+ years? The constitution also says it does not want a standing army, something the founding fathers were almost universally against, but yet, here we are. So obviously the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all sleeping on the job and have been for decades and multiple administrations. So what, scrap government?

[hellboy76]

Also

"In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.


On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[12] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999.

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be deployed without a formal declaration of war."

Obama did not seek authorization (since it is clearly established, no one gives a rats ass about declaration, but from reading the above its also obvious it is not even clear if authorization is needed). Bottom line Congress could have decided to not fund the Libya excursion, and didn't.

[Bojangles]

Bottom line Congress could have decided to not fund the Libya excursion, and didn't.

Yeah that's true. This new unmanned drone warfare could mean that Congress can no longer use 'putting the troops in harm's way' as a rationale for not defunding wars that they claim to be against.