1
   

constitutional amendment to limit war powers

 
 
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 12:11 pm
Senators considering constitutional amendment to limit war powers
RAW STORY
Published: February 5, 2006

New York -- As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great-the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens-that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers, Massimo Calabresi and Timothy J. Burger report in MONDAY's TIME. Excerpts:

#
In the public-opinion battle over domestic eavesdropping, Bush won the first round by arguing that he needed the unchecked power to learn "if there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda." With poll numbers split on the issue, spooked Senators hunkered down. But in recent days, Senate Democrats and the Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman, Arlen Specter, have fired off nine letters to the Justice Department and the White House demanding information on the domestic-spying program. At Senate hearings last week, the former head of the National Security Agency refused even in closed session to say how many phones had been tapped in the U.S. This reticence comes after conflicting public estimates from President Bush ("a few" U.S. phones) and his Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff ("thousands").

A source familiar with the nascent constitutional amendment says one version would make clear that any actions by the President as Commander in Chief that affect domestic policies or U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive control of Congress. "Congress can't completely cede wartime power to the President," the source says. Talk of an amendment could end up as merely a lever in hearings. Then again, the first 10 amendments-better known as the Bill of Rights-were demanded by the states in part to curb the Constitution's broad presidential powers.

DEVELOPING...FULL STORY ON TIME LATE SUNDAY AFTERNOON...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,997 • Replies: 40
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 01:55 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 02:16 pm
A very important issue for America. We dont need a Ceasar or a King.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 04:54 pm
GWB = Great Wind Bag, is a stealth King George.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 10:06 pm
In addition to limiting war powers Bush should be impeached and soon.

This is not a matter of IF Bush broke the law. He admits that he did the spying and brazenly said he would continue.

Damn tooting the presidential powers need to be severely cut. We don't need a dictator or a king.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 08:06 pm
So did he break the law? I thought he did and in doing so committed a treasonous act and should be impeached!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 08:20 pm
Nope. He hasn't broken the law.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 09:34 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
A very important issue for America. We dont need a Ceasar or a King.

So to you, for the elected commander in chief to start a war after much consultation with congress, like many of the American presidents in history, makes someone a Caesar or king. Truly, you are living on a different planet.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 09:35 pm
teenyboone wrote:
So did he break the law? I thought he did and in doing so committed a treasonous act and should be impeached!

Which law was that again?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 07:54 am
Why go half way. Make it a constitutional amendment that only when a Democrat is in office can we wage war.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 08:10 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
So did he break the law? I thought he did and in doing so committed a treasonous act and should be impeached!

Which law was that again?


FISA
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Nope. He hasn't broken the law.

When I made my statement, I was referring to Members of the Senate, Democrat AND Republican who have stated equivocabally, that the President broke the law under Article II of the Constitution, which HE made under Oath at the time of his induction into office! The Senate has also said that they did NOT give the President the power to spy on American Citizens. They have the FISA Court, which the President can even apply for 72 hours, AFTER they have invoked this "so-called" power! We are supposed to be a democracy, not a monarchy! We fought a Revolution to get rid of King George of England, but now do we have King George of America? If the President of the United States BROKE the law, he is subject to the offense of Treason, which is an impeachable act. These are NOT my words, but the words of Sen. Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, a Republican! HE was the first Senator to bring this UP and it must have been upsetting to him as he is a far-right Republican! Bill Clinton did not break ANY law except a vow he made to his WIFE to honor HER! He lied like ANY man would if he were caught with the goods, which was, he had an immoral relationship with a woman OTHER than his wife and for this, HE was impeached! Nixon, resigned, rather than face impeachment! He LIED! He TAPED! He authorized a break-in of the Democrat National Office at the Water-Gate Hotel! Thus, you had Water-Gate! Republicans have NEVER gotten over THIS! So then a campaign of "dirty-tricks", Nixon could only "dream" of, by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, by "outing" a CIA Operative, also a treasonable act! BTW, the trip to Africa for her husband was orchestrated by Dick Cheney! She had NOTHING to do with the trip! They "outed" her when her husband refused to LIE about the "yellowcake" incident! READ THE NEWS! Watch CNN! Hell, watch FOX! They even reported this! I am referencing what I heard in the mainstream media, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX! the Repugs aways repudiate by saying none of them had anything to do with it! Oh yeah? Why did Bush hire a lawyer? Why did Colin Powell quit? Why is Scooter Libby now singing? Why isn't Ashcroft in jail? The man who ran against a DEAD man and LOST? I am neither Democrat or republican. Just observing, sir! Cool
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:59 pm
revel wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
So did he break the law? I thought he did and in doing so committed a treasonous act and should be impeached!

Which law was that again?


FISA

I don't believe you. Which specific provision of FISA did he break, and how?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 04:11 pm
Quote:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.


Denial doesn't become you Brandon. It seems to be your only defense these days. Deny it and demand evidence then pretend you didn't get it and demand the evidence again.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 06:25 pm
teenyboone wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Nope. He hasn't broken the law.

When I made my statement, I was referring to Members of the Senate, Democrat AND Republican who have stated equivocabally, that the President broke the law under Article II of the Constitution, which HE made under Oath at the time of his induction into office! The Senate has also said that they did NOT give the President the power to spy on American Citizens. They have the FISA Court, which the President can even apply for 72 hours, AFTER they have invoked this "so-called" power! We are supposed to be a democracy, not a monarchy! We fought a Revolution to get rid of King George of England, but now do we have King George of America? If the President of the United States BROKE the law, he is subject to the offense of Treason, which is an impeachable act. These are NOT my words, but the words of Sen. Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, a Republican! HE was the first Senator to bring this UP and it must have been upsetting to him as he is a far-right Republican! Bill Clinton did not break ANY law except a vow he made to his WIFE to honor HER! He lied like ANY man would if he were caught with the goods, which was, he had an immoral relationship with a woman OTHER than his wife and for this, HE was impeached! Nixon, resigned, rather than face impeachment! He LIED! He TAPED! He authorized a break-in of the Democrat National Office at the Water-Gate Hotel! Thus, you had Water-Gate! Republicans have NEVER gotten over THIS! So then a campaign of "dirty-tricks", Nixon could only "dream" of, by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, by "outing" a CIA Operative, also a treasonable act! BTW, the trip to Africa for her husband was orchestrated by Dick Cheney! She had NOTHING to do with the trip! They "outed" her when her husband refused to LIE about the "yellowcake" incident! READ THE NEWS! Watch CNN! Hell, watch FOX! They even reported this! I am referencing what I heard in the mainstream media, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX! the Repugs aways repudiate by saying none of them had anything to do with it! Oh yeah? Why did Bush hire a lawyer? Why did Colin Powell quit? Why is Scooter Libby now singing? Why isn't Ashcroft in jail? The man who ran against a DEAD man and LOST? I am neither Democrat or republican. Just observing, sir! Cool


No, the president has been accussed, by some, of breaking the law. It's no uncommon thing anymore it seems. Some will even say "The president has claimed and usurped unlimited power to do whatever he wants and to do so without any checks or balances--the laws be damned. And then he has the audacity to assert that questioning him on this power grab will harm our country."

None of this makes it true that any law has been broken.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 07:57 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
So did he break the law? I thought he did and in doing so committed a treasonous act and should be impeached!

Which law was that again?


<siigghhhhh>

F I S A
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 08:00 pm
McGentrix wrote:
None of this makes it true that any law has been broken.


F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A
F I S A


and....

F I S A
0 Replies
 
Armageddon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:05 am
TeenyBoone pointed out many president's flaws. How astounding that a human put in a position of power might make a mistake. You didn't mention some of our earlier ones, though. Since they were among the first, they are slightly more significant.

Andrew Jackson, who had an interesting, and very questionable, career prior to presidency didn't stop while president, when he raised a militia to murder a US senator (SC-- Doctrine of Nullification was hardly Constitutional, and President Jackson was going to take the manner in to his own hands.)
Licoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, which is guaranteed in Article I, Section IX of the Constitution.

Both of these presidents are still revered today, though rarely in the same place.

Pointing out illicit acts goes nowhere.

For your other points, impeachment is not something to be thrown around lightly. If we look at the two presidents we've impeached before (Johnson and Clinton), we'll see we haven't been the most mature with this right, and should try to learn with time.
It is the president's right as Commander in Chief to declare "Conflict" (though for all intents and purposes, war) on a foreign country, and to wage said war as he chooses. To impeach a president for practicing their rights as president is repeating what the republican party did to Clinton.

Besides, impeachment is probably the worst thing you can do for a country. It suspends almost everything being done, almost all legislations, etc. It has to be worth it. If a president organized a prostitution ring, this would cause for impeachment. If he makes a descision someone disagrees with, this is not cause for impeachment.


*No, I'm not a republican. I do not support Bush. I do, however, support the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2006 07:52 pm
Armageddon wrote:
Licoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, which is guaranteed in Article I, Section IX of the Constitution.
.....

*No, I'm not a republican. I do not support Bush. I do, however, support the Constitution.


hi armageddon. just wondering here, did lincoln do this through any kind of legal instrument, or was just a decision made and enacted in private ?
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 08:55 am
Armageddon wrote:
TeenyBoone pointed out many president's flaws. How astounding that a human put in a position of power might make a mistake. You didn't mention some of our earlier ones, though. Since they were among the first, they are slightly more significant.

Andrew Jackson, who had an interesting, and very questionable, career prior to presidency didn't stop while president, when he raised a militia to murder a US senator (SC-- Doctrine of Nullification was hardly Constitutional, and President Jackson was going to take the manner in to his own hands.)
Licoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, which is guaranteed in Article I, Section IX of the Constitution.

Both of these presidents are still revered today, though rarely in the same place.

Pointing out illicit acts goes nowhere.

For your other points, impeachment is not something to be thrown around lightly. If we look at the two presidents we've impeached before (Johnson and Clinton), we'll see we haven't been the most mature with this right, and should try to learn with time.
It is the president's right as Commander in Chief to declare "Conflict" (though for all intents and purposes, war) on a foreign country, and to wage said war as he chooses. To impeach a president for practicing their rights as president is repeating what the republican party did to Clinton.

Besides, impeachment is probably the worst thing you can do for a country. It suspends almost everything being done, almost all legislations, etc. It has to be worth it. If a president organized a prostitution ring, this would cause for impeachment. If he makes a descision someone disagrees with, this is not cause for impeachment.


*No, I'm not a republican. I do not support Bush. I do, however, support the Constitution.

I respect your answer, however, when referencing Bush as the Commander in Chief, it means he has the power to command the Army and the Navy, nothing else. That is in the constitution too! You also have the telecommunications companies as accomplices, even if they KNOW that his power is limited, which Bush doesn't think is! He thinks he has Absolute Power! No one in this country has that power! We are supposed to be a country of laws, designed to guide our actions accordingly. I can't step into a theatre and yell, "FIRE", even though I am endowed with free speech! It isn't free speech when you keep your population in a state of fear, either! They have gone to the well, too many cries of "wolf", especially those yellow, orange and red alerts, that they don't even bother with anymore because no one is listening! "Be afraid, be very afraid", is the mantra that was spewing forth from the white house every week! Where was homeland security during Katrina? A real disaster! These inept cronies put in place, were to protect us from whom? Why can't this administration hire HAZMAT experts instead of a friends friend? "You're doing a helluva job, Brownie"! Bush didn't even KNOW brownie, why New Orleans and its Black population drowned, starved, accused of everything from looting to rape, which NEITHER happened! It was just the over-imagination of a police authority, run amok! How could reporters get through to the dome, while the National Guard was waiting in Mississippi for orders? While New Orleans drowned! While old people died for lack of medicines and care? While citizens slept on overpasses, no water, no food, for 5 days! This was the ultimate insult! You can go and spread democracy in Iraq, while your own citizens, suffer and die! All of the cash in millions sent to Iraq, with no oversight, because they calimd there were no banks! I saw them go into the hole where the money was kept and come up with bricks of money valued at $100,000, each! You think those Katrina victims couldn't use some of that to have their property cleaned up? No, Halliburton is sitting on fistfuls of our tax dollars instead of doing their job! Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rice/Libby/Rove/DeLay/Abramhoff/Rumsfeld and the many other CROOKS and LIARS should do BIG time for the theft and misuse of the greatest democracy on earth! Christians? Hell no, they should all burn for this! The Red cross should be abolished and let the Salvation Army show them what REAL compassion is!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » constitutional amendment to limit war powers
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 12:14:01