Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.

Oct 3 debate in review

Once again, the constitutionality of teh legislation is questionable, with a verdict not renderable by teh judiciary due to the fact that the only person capable of potentially violating this resolution is the one peron the judiciary is specifically banned from ruling againt- it rests with congress to enforce it's own resolution and as such is not so much a legal fact as it is a general statement of position- rather like the Monroe doctrine which could not, in fact, be enforced on foreign powers.

Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Once again, the constitutionality of teh legislation is questionable,
And until a verdict is given it stands in law, of which he was in violation of.

A verdict was given- that verdict was that the judiciary cannot render a verdict. The judiciary is the system of courts of law. If it is not able to be ruled on by the judiciary it is not law. it is a resolution.

Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
A verdict was given- that verdict was that the judiciary cannot render a verdict. The judiciary is the system of courts of law. If it is not able to be ruled on by the judiciary it is not law. it is a resolution.
What is your source for that? It's in the Federal Code as a law so if there is some source stating it's not a law I'd be interested in reading it.

From the wiki.... The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check

So if we call it a law, that's what matters, even if that law has no constitutional grounds. If the legislature drafts a law disbanding the supreme court, well, who's going to rule on it, after all, it's a law, right?

(Plus i just noticed earlier you failed to notice that the earlier poster was claiming Obama was going to make troops buy insurance, which si what teh snopes article stated was false, not bill their current insurance, which is what it indicated was a very short lived idea)

There is more to a law than being passed by the legislature- they may call it a law but no court of law will touch it and the executive branch consistantly insists it is unconstitutional- which means 2 of 3 branches of government do not consider it a law in any real or meaningfull way.

I suspect you're making things up, that's why I asked for your source that it's not considered a law. I'm really not interested in your opinion of whether or not it's actually a law. Please give a source that speaks from some legal authority that (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] of federal law isn't actually federal law.

every fact I have given you is in teh exact same wikki you were quiting. Do you only read the parts you agree with?

It says there is controversy and dispute. It doesn't say a law being controversial means it can be ignored at will by the President because it's not a real law.

Again, source please.

for a new perspective, however, why don't you look at this brief which states
In light of that understanding, we advised that the President had independent constitutional authority unilaterally to order "(1) deployment abroad at some risk of engagement - for example, the current presence of the fleet in the Persian Gulf region; (2) a military expedition to rescue the hostages or to retaliate against Iran if the hostages are harmed; (3) an attempt to repel an assault that threatens our vital interests in that region." Id. at 185-86. See also Presidential Powers Relating to the Situation in Iran, 4A Op. O.L.C. 115, 121 (1979) ("It is well established that the President has the constitutional power as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief to protect the lives and property of Americans abroad. This understanding is reflected in judicial decisions
. . . and recurring historic practice which goes back to the time of Jefferson.").
as well as
The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994) ("[B]oth Secretary [of War] Knox and [President] Washington himself seemed to think that this [Commander in Chief] authority extended to offensive operations taken in retaliation for Indian atrocities.") (quoted in Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331 n.4. Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331-32 n.5.
in short the senate and congress have no practical authority to restrain teh president in teh use of military force under the constitution. By the way- the briefing I site was the legal advice to Bush in 2001.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-10-23 09:00:06am local time
Myth-Weavers Status