Impeachment!
Should Obama be impeached?
Voting for this poll has ended.
0
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.It is a power. It's the power to to tell the President "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop". That's what a declaration of war means. Or do you think that the writers of the Constitution honestly believed that Congress, with its infamously tedious and drawn out sessions and it's penchant for divisiveness, should always be the one to decide when to attack and when not to?
Yea. That'll work.
[color=#2e1a6b]He was supposed to have congress' authorization all along, but he disregarded it. The war powers act just forced him to comply
Uh, no. What he did need to do was consult with Congress on whether or not the situation merited the use of armed forces, either before or immediately after implementing such measures. What the War Powers Act did was restrict that to only the before in essentially all circumstances.
[color=#2e1a6b]in a way, it gives him more power, since it gives him the right to attack in emergencies.
Technically, it's not "giving" him the right to act. He already had that. What it does is narrow it down. A lot.
[color=#2e1a6b]They have no right to decide whether something is constitutional or not, that's what the judges are for (not that they do their job). Until the act is overturned by the judges, it is law, and it is treason for them to defy it.
The War Powers Act was not an original part of the constitution. So assuming that it IS constitutional is just as wrong as saying that it isn't. And you're right. That is the judges' job. The judges decide whether or not the Act itself is constitutional and, if they deem it is, whether or not the actions of the President constitute treason. And it's not like they've never had cases about this. I already mentioned Clinton in Kosovo. And do you know why the courts never found Clinton guilty of violating the Constitution? Because (and I'm merely speculating here) they thought petty squabbles over a stupid act that was never actually in the Constitution in the first place didn't merit any kind of punishment. Especially when what he did really didn't do anything to endanger the United States.
So yea. Just because Congress passed it as an Act doesn't make it constitutional. Or are you saying you believe the National Defense Authorization Act is completely constitutional?
[color=#2e1a6b]The word "attack" is not used in past tense. The president can defend or intercept an attack without congress' approval. What he can't do is make an "emergency" offensive siege on someone who isn't attacking us.
That's rich. You're saying it's alright to attack once we "see" the first punch being thrown, but not if we have reason to suspect that it's going to be thrown beforehand. The problem with that is that you can't guarantee that first punch isn't going to hit. Sure, you'll be making a move before it lands, but the fact that it's going to land remains.
I'm not saying we should always preemptively strike, but I don't think it would be wise to completely take the option off the table either. Not like it matters, though. If such a situation were to arise, I doubt anyone outside of Congress would give a rat's ass about congressional approval. They may bitch about it now when it's little things the President does, but if it were something much more threatening, much more powerful, then yea. They probably wouldn't care either.
[color=#2e1a6b]Congress stripped the president the right to use armed forces? you must be referring to the right to invade other countries without congress' declaration of war. I already explained that he didn't have that power.
Yea. That's what I'm talking about. And you should probably do a better job of explaining it.
0
To put it simply, this is what I learned in American Gov 101. The president is free to start wars as he pleases so long as congress is not in session which I understand happens pretty frequently. The catch is that the troops deployed need to be recalled in 30 days I think, but by that time of course the war would be in full swing and one cannot simply remove troops from Mordor. So the prez gets they what dey wants.
0
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.It is a power. It's the power to to tell the President "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop".
[color=#2e1a6b]That doesn't explain how it's a power. I mean, [b]I have the power to tell president "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop". What can the Congress do that I can't?
That's what a declaration of war means. Or do you think that the writers of the Constitution honestly believed that Congress, with its infamously tedious and drawn out sessions and it's penchant for divisiveness, should always be the one to decide when to attack and when not to?
[color=#2e1a6b]yeah, that's exactly what I think. We should be tedious and careful when declaring war. The early colonists hated how the England's king would constantly start wars which skyrocketed the taxes. They wanted to avoid this, so they didn't allow the president to start wars whenever he wanted.
...So yea. Just because Congress passed it as an Act doesn't make it constitutional. Or are you saying you believe the National Defense Authorization Act is completely constitutional?
[color=#2e1a6b]The NDAA violates the constitution (bill of rights), so it is unconstitutional. The war powers act doesn't violate the constitution
[color=#2e1a6b]The word "attack" is not used in past tense. The president can defend or intercept an attack without congress' approval. What he can't do is make an "emergency" offensive siege on someone who isn't attacking us.
That's rich. You're saying it's alright to attack once we "see" the first punch being thrown, but not if we have reason to suspect that it's going to be thrown beforehand. The problem with that is that you can't guarantee that first punch isn't going to hit. Sure, you'll be making a move before it lands, but the fact that it's going to land remains.
I'm not saying we should always preemptively strike, but I don't think it would be wise to completely take the option off the table either. Not like it matters, though. If such a situation were to arise, I doubt anyone outside of Congress would give a rat's ass about congressional approval. They may bitch about it now when it's little things the President does, but if it were something much more threatening, much more powerful, then yea. They probably wouldn't care either.
[color=#2e1a6b]The option to preemptively strike before they attack is still available. But Congress has to declare war first.
0
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]That doesn't explain how it's a power. I mean, I have the power to tell president "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop". What can the Congress do that I can't?If you're looking for an answer to that question, then I'm shocked. I mean, Congress also has the power to raise the said armed forces and how money is appropriated to them, right? Unlike you and I, they can decide whether or not they want to fund these things, right? But of course you know that. After all, you brought that up before.
And it's not like Congress has ever been the one that got up and decided "hey, maybe we should declare war". Every single time in the nation's history that we've officially declared war, it was always the President who brought the matter up to Congress. The only times they've ever complained about it was when the President acted before telling Congress (which, for the most part, has been in minor engagements).
[color=#2e1a6b]yeah, that's exactly what I think. We should be tedious and careful when declaring war. The early colonists hated how the England's king would constantly start wars which skyrocketed the taxes. They wanted to avoid this, so they didn't allow the president to start wars whenever he wanted.
Yea...no. To be honest, I don't know what the writers of the Constitution actually thought about when they wrote it (probably because I wasn't there, something I'm assuming is true for you as well), but I'd like to think that they were smart enough to realize that there may be situations where we literally do no have the time to deliberate on these things. At very least, the way they wrote the Constitution leaves enough room for it to be interpreted as such.
[color=#2e1a6b]The NDAA violates the constitution (bill of rights), so it is unconstitutional. The war powers act doesn't violate the constitution
You're saying that if something doesn't violate the Constitution, then it's constitutional. That's wrong. Especially when talking about Acts. Acts are pieces of legislation written and passed by Congress; they are not a part of the Constitution, therefore they are technically neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
Does that mean Congress doesn't have to worry about the question of whether or not it's actually constitutional? No. But the only time the question matters is when one of two parties, either the men who wrote the act or the subjects of the act, brings a case against the other party to court. The courts then decide whether or not any of this, either the act itself or any possible violations of the act, actually violate the constitution.
So yea, again. The War Powers Act doesn't violate the constitution (or, at the very least, a court has never said so). But don't mistakenly assume that saying that means it's supported by it.
[color=#2e1a6b]The option to preemptively strike before they attack is still available. But Congress has to declare war first.
I hope you realize how illogical what you're saying is. Congress will never declare war unless it can be proven that the opposing nation has been an aggressor in armed conflict. They cannot declare war on a nation that technically hasn't attacked us yet. That yet is what a preemptive strike is trying to avoid; it's a preventive measure. If Congress has to first declare that a state of war exists, then there's nothing preemptive/preventive about it. In fact, what it would actually be doing is alerting the opposition of what our intentions are, thus defeating the purpose of the preemptive strike in the first place.
0
constitution wrote...
Spoiler:
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.It is a power. It's the power to to tell the President "you're doing the right thing" or "you should stop".
If you're looking for an answer to that question, then I'm shocked. I mean, Congress also has the power to raise the said armed forces and how money is appropriated to them, right? Unlike you and I, they can decide whether or not they want to fund these things, right? But of course you know that. After all, you brought that up before.
[color=#2e1a6b]What do you mean "I'm shocked"? I asked you to explain how "declaring war" is a power, and you replied by saying that congress can basically encourage ("your doing the right thing") his actions, or discourage ("you should stop") his actions. Anyone can do that, that's not a power.
You then said how congress has the power to fund and maintain an army. While this is true, this power is not given to congress by the "declaring war" clause. If you look at the 18 clauses (posted above), you'll see that the power to maintain the military has its own clause. The power to fund the military is also its own clause. So, you still haven't explained how "declaring war" is a power. You admitted it was a power in your first reply.
[b]And it's not like Congress has ever been the one that got up and decided "hey, maybe we should declare war". Every single time in the nation's history that we've officially declared war, it was always the President who brought the matter up to Congress.
[color=#2e1a6b]There's nothing wrong with the president going to congress to ask for permission to start a war.
[color=#2e1a6b]The NDAA violates the constitution (bill of rights), so it is unconstitutional. The war powers act doesn't violate the constitution
[b]You're saying that if something doesn't violate the Constitution, then it's constitutional. That's wrong. Especially when talking about Acts. Acts are pieces of legislation written and passed by Congress; they are not a part of the Constitution, therefore they are technically neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
Does that mean Congress doesn't have to worry about the question of whether or not it's actually constitutional? No. But the only time the question matters is when one of two parties, either the men who wrote the act or the subjects of the act, brings a case against the other party to court. The courts then decide whether or not any of this, either the act itself or any possible violations of the act, actually violate the constitution.
So yea, again. The War Powers Act doesn't violate the constitution (or, at the very least, a court has never said so). But don't mistakenly assume that saying that means it's supported by it.
[color=#2e1a6b]Doesn't the 18
[color=#2e1a6b]The option to preemptively strike before they attack is still available. But Congress has to declare war first.
[b]I hope you realize how illogical what you're saying is. Congress will never declare war unless it can be proven that the opposing nation has been an aggressor in armed conflict. They cannot declare war on a nation that technically hasn't attacked us yet.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I'm pretty sure that all they need is proof that they're a threat to our national security.
0
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]What do you mean "I'm shocked"? I asked you to explain how "declaring war" is a power, and you replied by saying that congress can basically encourage ("your doing the right thing") his actions, or discourage ("you should stop") his actions. Anyone can do that, that's not a power. You then said how congress has the power to fund and maintain an army. While this is true, this power is not given to congress by the "declaring war" clause. If you look at the 18 clauses (posted above), you'll see that the power to maintain the military has its own clause. The power to fund the military is also its own clause. So, you still haven't explained how "declaring war" is a power. You admitted it was a power in your first reply.
I don't want to make a false assumption here, but it sounds like you're saying that none of the clauses are related to one another. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regardless, if you want a definitive answer, it's not hard. The 11th clause gives Congress more authority than you to say we should or shouldn't be at war. So when Congress says something about it, even if you're saying the same thing or something else, it's more important. The President is constitutionally obligated to at least listen to Congress, not you.
[color=#2e1a6b]There's nothing wrong with the president going to congress to ask for permission to start a war.
That's the thing. Every time the President's gone to Congress about it, it's because war was completely inevitable. He wasn't "asking for permission" so much as saying "yo, these guys attacked us, so i'm gonna do something about it. Hope you're cool with that." And of course they were. The American public would be outraged if they weren't.
[color=#2e1a6b]Doesn't the 18th (final) clause support the war powers act?
No. What the 18th clause supports is the creation of laws regarding the other sections of the government. It doesn't say those laws aren't subject to review and interpretation. That's what the courts are for.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I'm pretty sure that all they need is proof that they're a threat to our national security.
And who's going to find that proof? They are? No. If a visible attack has not already been made by an opposing nation/international actor, then the burden of organizing and presenting any and all information that may be evidence of a possible attack as a case to bring forth before Congress falls on the President and the Executive Department. A declaration of war is like a trial to see whether or not a state of war exists or will exist. That takes time. Time that both the Executive and Legislative Branches may or may not have. You make it sound simple, but it's really not.
And I like how you seemingly disregarded the second half of that paragraph in my last post. To a certain extent, it makes this part of the argument a moot point. Even if we get a declaration of war before the attack, we're still letting them know about it because we're declaring it. That essentially takes away the first strike advantage.
0
If Iran doesn't pose a serious threat ( which I highly doubt ), then there is no reason to declare war.
Since Israel ( -_- obviously ) doesn't like their neighboring country from evolving into a industrial country with advanced weapons, better living and a chance to make some good money from the country, they tell their little brother Mr.USA to go to war against them since they assume it is a national threat to them.
The congress has the power to declare war, and they can also say no to the president if they wish to do so. The congress has a much higher power and the president HAS to follow most of their rules if it involves the countries owns interest.
George Washington wrote once that he doesn't want any allies, only in the time of need or to fight off forces that threatens national security, but he didn't want any permanent allies since it can throw the country out of balance because of other countries issues.
Since Israel ( -_- obviously ) doesn't like their neighboring country from evolving into a industrial country with advanced weapons, better living and a chance to make some good money from the country, they tell their little brother Mr.USA to go to war against them since they assume it is a national threat to them.
The congress has the power to declare war, and they can also say no to the president if they wish to do so. The congress has a much higher power and the president HAS to follow most of their rules if it involves the countries owns interest.
George Washington wrote once that he doesn't want any allies, only in the time of need or to fight off forces that threatens national security, but he didn't want any permanent allies since it can throw the country out of balance because of other countries issues.
0
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]What do you mean "I'm shocked"? I asked you to explain how "declaring war" is a power, and you replied by saying that congress can basically encourage ("your doing the right thing") his actions, or discourage ("you should stop") his actions. Anyone can do that, that's not a power. You then said how congress has the power to fund and maintain an army. While this is true, this power is not given to congress by the "declaring war" clause. If you look at the 18 clauses (posted above), you'll see that the power to maintain the military has its own clause. The power to fund the military is also its own clause. So, you still haven't explained how "declaring war" is a power. You admitted it was a power in your first reply.
I don't want to make a false assumption here, but it sounds like you're saying that none of the clauses are related to one another. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't know what you mean by "related", but I'm saying that the power to fund and maintain the army is not achieved by the power to declare war.
[b]Regardless, if you want a definitive answer, it's not hard. The 11th clause gives Congress more authority than you to say we should or shouldn't be at war. So when Congress says something about it, even if you're saying the same thing or something else, it's more important. The President is constitutionally obligated to at least listen to Congress, not you.
[color=#2e1a6b]You said the president must listen to congress, which could mean:
A. he just hears what congress has to say and then ignores them
or
B. he is required to comply with congress' decision on declaring war
To figure out which one is true, let's me ask you through a hypothetical example. The president sent an attack on Syria and engaged in combat. The president tells congress what he's doing, and congress says "we refuse to declare war as they do not possess a threat to our national security". Is the president required to stop attacking them and pull out?
[color=#2e1a6b]There's nothing wrong with the president going to congress to ask for permission to start a war.
[b]That's the thing. Every time the President's gone to Congress about it, it's because war was completely inevitable.
[color=#2e1a6b]And when war is not completely inevitable, he doesn't go to congress, and starts the war without a declaration.
[color=#2e1a6b]Doesn't the 18th (final) clause support the war powers act?
[b]No. What the 18th clause supports is the creation of laws regarding the other sections of the government. It doesn't say those laws aren't subject to review and interpretation. That's what the courts are for.
[color=#2e1a6b]huh?
I think you're saying that the law is supposed to be reviewed by the courts (which I agree with), but how does that show that the war powers act isn't constitutional?
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I'm pretty sure that all they need is proof that they're a threat to our national security.
And who's going to find that proof? They are? No. If a visible attack has not already been made by an opposing nation/international actor, then the burden of organizing and presenting any and all information that may be evidence of a possible attack as a case to bring forth before Congress falls on the President and the Executive Department.
[color=#2e1a6b]You act like this is a new idea... do presidents not have evidence of a possible attack when they start an undeclared war?
If they have evidence, then they just show this evidence to congress. If they don't, then that just shows that they shouldn't have started a war
[b]A declaration of war is like a trial to see whether or not a state of war exists or will exist. That takes time. Time that both the Executive and Legislative Branches may or may not have. You make it sound simple, but it's really not.
[color=#2e1a6b][color=#2e1a6b]War is not something to be taken lightly; it cost loads of money and kills enemy soldiers as well as our own. Something as serious as war should take time; if it doesn't take time, somethings wrong.
[b]And I like how you seemingly disregarded the second half of that paragraph in my last post. To a certain extent, it makes this part of the argument a moot point.
[color=#2e1a6b]sorry, I didn't notice that last argument. I didn't quote that other part of it because It was kinda based off your previous statement, which I didn't agree with
[b]Even if we get a declaration of war before the attack, we're still letting them know about it because we're declaring it. That essentially takes away the first strike advantage.
[color=#2e1a6b]At most, it might take away a sneak attack. They will have no idea when we're attacking, where we're attacking, or what weapons we're attack with... all they'll know is that the most powerful army in the world is going to attack.
0
He shouldnæ have been elected in the first place. He didn't have enough experience, and that's what I constantly said during the election. I favoured McCain, personally.
0
Mash Karas wrote...
He shouldnæ have been elected in the first place. He didn't have enough experience, and that's what I constantly said during the election. I favoured McCain, personally.I favor no politics at all.
Like I said before, this is all a system that keeps cycling itself by wasting resources and taking others from it as well.
I had this feeling that this was all a set up.
-2
Don't give a fuck. America has been traveling in a downward spiral for years now. Things like this are to be expected.
0
pspkiller626 wrote...
From the view of our boys' families, I would give Obama a big FUCK YOU in the face. Them soldiers were barely pulled out of Iraq and now it's coming to this? If this happens for real, Obama might as well be kicked out of office immediately.From the taxpayer's view, this will only mean heavier taxes than ever. This will cause an endless chain of economic trouble; higher taxes and higher living costs, further inflation and so on.
The irony of it all is that Obama was awarded a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE only 3 years ago, and now he's on the verge of moving against Iran who hasn't done anything to trigger a violent reaction against it.
IMO, effective diplomacy should be deployed. There are some foes that will simply not listen, but it does not seem like the Iranians are in such a state. Hatred and more suffering are the only things born of war, which is why I believe that peaceful methods should be deployed.
Obama was awarded the prize for being black. He even said that the peace prize wasn't for anything he's ever accomplished rather than a bribe.
Plus according to the amendment, the President has the ability to order troops to invade for a period of 6 weeks maybe? Before Congressional approval is needed to continue the war.
0
Sprite wrote...
pspkiller626 wrote...
From the view of our boys' families, I would give Obama a big FUCK YOU in the face. Them soldiers were barely pulled out of Iraq and now it's coming to this? If this happens for real, Obama might as well be kicked out of office immediately.From the taxpayer's view, this will only mean heavier taxes than ever. This will cause an endless chain of economic trouble; higher taxes and higher living costs, further inflation and so on.
The irony of it all is that Obama was awarded a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE only 3 years ago, and now he's on the verge of moving against Iran who hasn't done anything to trigger a violent reaction against it.
IMO, effective diplomacy should be deployed. There are some foes that will simply not listen, but it does not seem like the Iranians are in such a state. Hatred and more suffering are the only things born of war, which is why I believe that peaceful methods should be deployed.
Obama was awarded the prize for being black. He even said that the peace prize wasn't for anything he's ever accomplished rather than a bribe.
Plus according to the amendment, the President has the ability to order troops to invade for a period of 6 weeks maybe? Before Congressional approval is needed to continue the war.
Well in case you didn't know, six weeks is a hell of a lot of time and it is more than enough to quickly make a plan and make a chain of events occur that will definitely keep the war going more than mere six weeks.
0
People like to forget the president's actual job.
1. To represent the Unites States as head diplomat
2. Commander of the Armed Forces
He absolutely has the authority to use air strikes as he sees fit. To implement a draft, he would need the approval of congress. To land a standing army on foreign soil, he does not need approval.
It would be cool, but presidents of the past(?recent) have never gotten approval for armed conflict, all the South America and Central Europe business of the past few decades shows that.
1. To represent the Unites States as head diplomat
2. Commander of the Armed Forces
He absolutely has the authority to use air strikes as he sees fit. To implement a draft, he would need the approval of congress. To land a standing army on foreign soil, he does not need approval.
It would be cool, but presidents of the past(?recent) have never gotten approval for armed conflict, all the South America and Central Europe business of the past few decades shows that.