0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:05 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Without authorization, but without them knowing about it?


Sure. He can surprise them with it.

Bad politics, rude, but not illegal - which is all that matters to Conservatives these days, ethics and morals be damned...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:15 pm
There's a newspaper article in today's San Jose Mercury News on "Pro-torture Republicans...." It identifies McCain and Paul as "torture opponents," but that's in direct contradiction to the Bush/McCain Torture bill of 2006. McCain just can't be trusted; his ethics is showing cancer spots.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The President can order the military to combat today at this very moment if he sees fit to do so and Congress doesn't need to know about it until after the fact. Congress has to declare war if war is declared and pass the funding to sustain combat.

How did you grow up as an American and not know that?

Perhaps because "that" isn't a settled fact at all. The text of the constitution itself draws no clear line between the president's power under the "commander in chief clause" and Congress's power under the clause about declaring war. From looking at Findlaw's annotated constitution, it seems this question has not produced much conclusive federal caselaw, and remains an area of ongoing scholarly discussion. What you are presenting as a settled fact, then, is really just your subjective interpretation of the commander-in-chief-clause.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:20 pm
Combined with a generous interpretation of the War Powers Act, I think. That act is also controversial and not considered to be the final say on war powers.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:20 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The President can order the military to combat today at this very moment if he sees fit to do so and Congress doesn't need to know about it until after the fact. Congress has to declare war if war is declared and pass the funding to sustain combat.

How did you grow up as an American and not know that?


Is this really true though? I thought the power to call up the military was vested in the Congress, not the president. I was taught that the president gets to command the troops in battle, but Congress gets to choose the battle. If that has changed I wasn't aware of it.
This very second, on a whim, if he believes National Security requires it. He doesn't even have to tell Congress for 48 hours. A National Emergency is no time for government by committee. Would you really have it any other way?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:23 pm
Presumably, if it was a national emergency, Congress would already know about it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:23 pm
OBill, Any scenario close to what you describe will not be a problem for our country or congress; the congress will approve "after the fact," and so will the majority of the American People.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 12:42 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Presumably, if it was a national emergency, Congress would already know about it.
Roll the clocks back to the mid 70's and consider our relations with the Soviet Union (Hell, weren't we actively pretending Chinese Pilots weren't shooting at us then too?). Being aware there's a problem and being aware there's a need to attack pronto are two entirely different things.

CI: All evidence to the contrary; both the Congress AND the American people were fine with going into Iraq... until AFTER we did. Seems to me they've both "approved" less and less ever since. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 01:58 pm
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The President can order the military to combat today at this very moment if he sees fit to do so and Congress doesn't need to know about it until after the fact. Congress has to declare war if war is declared and pass the funding to sustain combat.

How did you grow up as an American and not know that?

Perhaps because "that" isn't a settled fact at all. The text of the constitution itself draws no clear line between the president's power under the "commander in chief clause" and Congress's power under the clause about declaring war. From looking at Findlaw's annotated constitution, it seems this question has not produced much conclusive federal caselaw, and remains an area of ongoing scholarly discussion. What you are presenting as a settled fact, then, is really just your subjective interpretation of the commander-in-chief-clause.


No, it is my understanding of the Federalist papers, long hours of sitting in history and government classes, the Constitution, subsequent interpretation of the War Powers Act of 1973 that sought to limit the President's authority to order the military into combat--the constitutionality of that has not yet been challenged and is still being debated. But the authority to launch a nuclear missile, to scramble fighters to defend against intruders, to intercept a ship at sea, or conduct necessary defensive raids, to order a bombing run, or recall a military operation remain with the President and, other than the nuclear missile thing, have been used quite frequently by all Presidents, the most recently by President Clinton.

Common sense would tell us that if a threat is imminent, the President must have authority to act on a moment's notice and he must have authority to commandeer all the nation's defense personnel and networks at all times. And he has the ability to order a full blown military strike though he could likely be called on the carpet for it by Congress later who would evoke the War Powers Act to discipline him.

The United States has not declared war against anybody since WWII but that doesn't seem to stop us from getting into them just the same.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 02:09 pm
OBill wrote: CI: All evidence to the contrary; both the Congress AND the American people were fine with going into Iraq... until AFTER we did. Seems to me they've both "approved" less and less ever since.

The people trusted Bush and congress to provide us with truth and facts; they fed us neither. Any country given the same information by Bush and congress to any country's population will have supported going to war. They, Bush and congress, failed on all fronts. You can't blame the population for the misinformation fed to us. I wrote to Senator Feinstein that I was against the vote for war, but Senator Feinstein told me they had information that required her to vote yes. About a few months after the war started, Senator Feinstein said they were lied to by the administration, and they would not have voted for war if they knew then what they know now. There's something called "trust" that is missing.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 02:11 pm
Nice catch-22 they have there.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 04:20 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
OBill wrote: CI: All evidence to the contrary; both the Congress AND the American people were fine with going into Iraq... until AFTER we did. Seems to me they've both "approved" less and less ever since.

The people trusted Bush and congress to provide us with truth and facts; they fed us neither. Any country given the same information by Bush and congress to any country's population will have supported going to war. They, Bush and congress, failed on all fronts. You can't blame the population for the misinformation fed to us. I wrote to Senator Feinstein that I was against the vote for war, but Senator Feinstein told me they had information that required her to vote yes. About a few months after the war started, Senator Feinstein said they were lied to by the administration, and they would not have voted for war if they knew then what they know now. There's something called "trust" that is missing.
Coulda saved you some typing... I could have guessed all of that. I don't think I'd place Feinstein above anything either, though. Personally, I still think Saddam did the most to obscure the facts, and we simply said better safe than sorry. You have to admit he did walk and walk like a duck <shrugs> Actually, you don't... I really don't want to get into that again.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 04:24 pm
OBill, I've followed Feinstein since she was mayor of San Francisco, and she's shown to be one of the more ethical politicians in Washington DC as far as I'm concerned. I won't ask you if you ever beat your wife, because you're not married, but you get the idea.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 04:52 pm
I wasn't altering your argument, CI. I was suggesting Bush bought a bill of goods too. Saddam was a hell of a salesman. He had me convinced before Bush was even elected (I voted Nader in that one, btw :wink:).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 05:22 pm
That Saddam obscured the facts is no excuse for our intelligence failure - nor for starting a war with a sovereign nation. You don't kill a man just because he's holding a fake gun.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 05:29 pm
Eh, yes, you do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 05:35 pm
That's where we differ.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 05:37 pm
I know.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 05:49 pm
In Saddam's case, it wasn't even a fake gun; it was an empty hand pointing his fingers. Those who failed to check it was only his fingers screwed up big time.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 05:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
In Saddam's case, it wasn't even a fake gun; it was an empty hand pointing his fingers.


That, and a police officer standing right next to him, looking at his hand and shouting "Eh, no worries, he really doesn't hold a gun!"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/21/2025 at 09:54:15