The claim is that our being in Iraq is 'defending the Constitution'. Stating that the President is Commander in Chief has nothing to do with that.
Stating that the President is Commander in Chief has nothing to do with that.
Quote: from whoisabs at 9:46 pm on July 26, 2008
So you still refuse to explain what Iraq has to do with the Constitution?
Especially considering that it goes pretty much directly against Article 1 section 8?
How is invading a country that did not attack us complying with A2, S2?
Quote: from Forever Angel at 3:24 am on July 27, 2008 The C-in-C ordered the troops into Iraq. As per A2, S2, the military complied with that order. What is so hard to understand about that? That's not what we are talking about. Your argument has nothing to do with showing how the invasion of Iraq based on the argument that Bass gave on 9/11 has anything to do with complying with the Constitution. All you are saying is that the military complied with A2S2. You have not addressed the actual point.
The C-in-C ordered the troops into Iraq. As per A2, S2, the military complied with that order. What is so hard to understand about that?
That's not what we are talking about. Your argument has nothing to do with showing how the invasion of Iraq based on the argument that Bass gave on 9/11 has anything to do with complying with the Constitution. All you are saying is that the military complied with A2S2. You have not addressed the actual point.
What is the 'actual point' that I'm supposed to be addressing? I'm just answering the question about the Constitutional reason there are US troops in Iraq. And abs' question about A1,S8.
Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam, see before school was let out I was to do a psychology report for confusive anger cause Im in AP classes and to test anger and Ive been doing this all summer long so this was basiclly a project you participated in, thankyou and I have all the info I need and have a good day
lol. Sad attempt to back out of your bullshit.
Quote: from bassguitarplayer2010 at 9:48 pm on July 26, 2008 Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam, So you ARE a troll. Ok now we agree.
Okay okay time to come back to reality, okay to tell you the truth this whole argument was a scam,
Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:32 pm on July 26, 2008 I wasn't defending what 'Bass' was arguing, I was responding to 'abs' post. It's not 'defending' the Constitution, it's simply complying with it. Article 2, Section 2 is what the Constitution has to do with Iraq. Huh? How is it complying with it? How is invading a country that did not attack us complying with A2, S2?
I wasn't defending what 'Bass' was arguing, I was responding to 'abs' post. It's not 'defending' the Constitution, it's simply complying with it. Article 2, Section 2 is what the Constitution has to do with Iraq.
Huh? How is it complying with it? How is invading a country that did not attack us complying with A2, S2?
Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?"
A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President.
The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.
What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.
These two distinct roles, that of the Congress and that of the President, bring up the interesting and important questions: can the United States be "at war" without a declaration of war? If we can, then what is the point of a declaration? If not, then what do we call hostilities without a formal declaration?
The question of the need for a declaration of war dates all the way back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson sent a squadron of warships to the Mediterranean to protect U.S. shipping against the forces of the Bey of Tripoli. Jefferson's instructions to the squadron were that they act in a defensive manner only, with a strictly defined order of battle. When a Tripolitan cruiser shot at a U.S. ship, the U.S. forces seized the ship, disarmed it, and released it. Jefferson's message to Congress on the incident indicated that he felt the acts to be within constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton wrote to Congress and espoused his belief that since the United States did not start the conflict, the United States was in a state of war, and no formal declaration was needed to conduct war actions. Congress authorized Jefferson's acts without declaring war on the Bey.
Not all acts of war, however, need place the United States into a state of war. It is without doubt an act of war to fire upon a warship of another nation. In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship operating off the Sinai coast. But the United States did not react as though it were at war, even though many considered the attack deliberate (both Israel and the U.S. later determined the attack to have been a mistake caused by the cloud of war).
It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.
Prove to the fact that Im brainwashed, prove it, PROVE IT!
see, in texas these faggots can't speak english or spanish, just fail