Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Oct 3 debate in review

   
The constitutionality of the resolution is in question, and the courts have refused to rule on it, so even if the situation were as cut and dried as you state it would not be that cut and dried.
in teh end what you have is more obstructionist Republican antics putting party before the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
Yes, but US involvement in NATO operations is automatic due to treaty obligations.
No, it's not. He still has to follow internal law. He can no more wage war without the permission of Congress after 60 days than he can do any other host of unlawful things no matter what NATO says or asks for.

Where are you getting your version of the law from anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
The constitutionality of the resolution is in question, and the courts have refused to rule on it, so even if the situation were as cut and dried as you state it would not be that cut and dried.
in teh end what you have is more obstructionist Republican antics putting party before the country.
If the courts refuse to rule on it than it's not in question, it's the law. The President can't decide on his own which rules to follow and which to ignore. He's not a dictator,

The courts declared teh issue to be outside teh purview of the courts. Not the same as saying it is law. Bush faced teh supreme court on the Gitmo prisoners being held without charges multiple times and they ruled against him every time *that* is defying the constitution and acting like a dictator. When the courts say they are staying out of it that does not make congress the defacto winner every time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
The courts declared teh issue to be outside teh purview of the courts. Not the same as saying it is law. Bush faced teh supreme court on the Gitmo prisoners being held without charges multiple times and they ruled against him every time *that* is defying the constitution and acting like a dictator. When the courts say they are staying out of it that does not make congress the defacto winner every time.
So you think the War Powers Resolution isn't the law? You're confusing me by jumping all around.

I'm getting that your opinion is that if I challenge a law and the Supreme Court refuses to hear then you think that makes me the winner?

The world is not black and white, and this is not simply a case of "the supreme court refused to hear it" If the Supreme court refuses to hear a case then the lower court's ruling holds.
Quote:
All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional
and specifically
Quote:
the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question
due in large part to the fact that the issue of what is legal or illegal for a president to do is handled not by the courts but by the process of impeachment. So in short if they weren't willing to impeach him over it, it was legal.
because that is how the constitution is written.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
So in short if they weren't willing to impeach him over it, it was legal.
Ummm no, not even close.

Quote:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.
So, yes. And whereas the resolution in question in this case serves only as an additional power for the congress to restrict the power of the presidency outside the abilities to do so ennumerated in the constitution, the only recourse they have for enforcement are those powers enumerated in the constitution, namely impeachment.

otherwise it is no more constitutional than an executive order to disband congress, in that it is one branch acting alone to restrain teh power of another branch without going through teh process of amendment.

I find it interesting that you make an absolutist statement right after denouncing absolutist statements, silveroak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
So, yes. And whereas the resolution in question in this case serves only as an additional power for the congress to restrict the power of the presidency outside the abilities to do so ennumerated in the constitution, the only recourse they have for enforcement are those powers enumerated in the constitution, namely impeachment.

otherwise it is no more constitutional than an executive order to disband congress, in that it is one branch acting alone to restrain teh power of another branch without going through teh process of amendment.
Because he wasn't convicted doesn't mean his actions were legal. There is a difference between the two.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status