Michael; I’m sure you’re aware of Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in *Marbury v. Madison* wheren Justice Marshall defined the Court’s power of judicial review and the Court’s ability to review the Constitutionality of federal or state laws (and/or other governmental actions); thereby laying the foundations of federal constitutional jurisprudence and review.
Whether you like it, or don't like it, "It Is~~What It Is". *"It Is*" and has always been since the turn of the 19th Century within our Nation. You go on to say: *"support your claim -- point to the Article, Section and Clause or AmendmentGood Luck!"* Likewise, in the same, "*Whether You Like It Or Don't Like It*" Category, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eleven grants to the Congress the power to wage war; (and to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal); (In the "*Same Church~~Different Pew*" Category!); and firing a hand full of Tomahawk Missiles at a directed target, to get the attention of a renegade asshole, is by no means a declaration of war...Far from it! There is no continuous ongoing engagement or conflict; there's no designation of troops or anything more than a one time engagement which falls into the powers designated to the President under *Article II Section 2 of the Constitution*. To interpret the action by President Trump in any other fashion would literally be Unconstitutional.... On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:07 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chief Usurper Marshall proclaimed it was the Court's power/authority to > "say what the law is". > The Constitution does not provide any such thing. > > No idea if it has come before the Court. > > I *do*, however, find it curious that MOST decisions are not BOTH > predictable AND unanimous. That they are not demonstrates that it is a > charade ... a myth to maintain the master-slave/serf relationship. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all > Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which > would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as > honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same > passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... Their > power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not > responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The > Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever > hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would > become despots." -- Thomas Jefferson, The Real Thomas Jefferson, p.499 > > > > > > At 06:02 PM 4/9/2017, you wrote: > > This could be challenged in court Michael. That is its proper function. > Has it been? > > On Apr 9, 2017 7:18 AM, "MJ" <[email protected]> wrote: > > That the government does as it pleases has NOTHING (per se) to do with > whether its actions are constitutional. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "The term "national security" isn't even in the Constitution. It means > whatever public officials want it to mean." -- Jacob Hornberger > > > > At 10:23 AM 4/8/2017, you wrote: > > We were engaged in Vietnam without the declaration of war for years along > with the entire Middle East debacle. Although I think our policies in the > region are misguided this missile attack is permitted the president can > make military strikes until he runs out of money. > > On Apr 8, 2017 7:51 AM, "MJ" <[email protected]> wrote: ROTFLMAO! [pssst > ... you contradicted yourself] > Regard$, --MJ > “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war r with Congress, > therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until > after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a > measure.†-- George Washington > > > > > At 03:19 PM 4/7/2017, you wrote: > > I believe in the three powers of government; and I am also a stickler for > an act of war being declared only by Congress. > In this quick, decisive instance,  Rand Paul is misplaceed.  (And > Lil' Marco was actually correct for once!)  The Presidennt does not need > a Congressional blessing in order to give an order to rain down a battery > of Tomahawk Missiles!  > The concept is ludicrous. > > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:13 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: 07 > April 2017 > > Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise > The military intervention solved nothing, while bypassing Congress, > betraying the president’s non-interventionist st supporporters, and > highlighting his hypocrisy. > CONOR FRIEDERSDORF > Early the morning of August 21, 2013, six densely populated neighborhoods > in Syria “were jolted awake by a seseries o of explosions, followed by > an oozing blanket of suffocating gas,†the Washiington Post reported > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?utm_term=.6e3619a47ee1> > at the time. “Unknown to Syrian offificials,s, U.S. spy agencies > recorded each step in the alleged chemical attack, from the extensive > preparations to the launching of rockets to the after-action assessments by > Syrian officials. Those records and intercepts would become the core of the > Obama administration’s ¢s evidendentiary case linking the Syrian > government to what one official called an ‘iœindiscriminate, > inconceivable horrorÃor’ÂÂÂthe use of outlawedwewedwed toxins to > kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children.†> Days later, President Obama declared that he was ready to order a military > strike on Syria to punish its leader, Bashar al-Assad, for using chemical > weapons while waging civil war, but added that > <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html> as > “president of the worldÃââ‚€™s oldest est constitutional > democracy,†he would consult Congress. LLegislators never didd vote to > approve a strike, in part because the American public did not want to > intervene militarily in Syria. > And a bitter Obama Administration critic, Donald Trump, took to Twitter to > weigh in. “If Obama attacks Syria and d innocecent civilians are hurt > and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!†the reeal estate > developer wrote. “What I am saying is stayay out of Syriaia,†> Trump added days later. “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLILISH LEADER,â†> he emphasized, “DO DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO M MANY VERY BAD > THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!†> Most importantly, Trump Tweeted this: > > [image: Emacs!]  Â > Trump explicitly understood that a military response would require > congressional approval. Yet Thursday, Trump ordered a strike on Syria > without seeking that approval, citing a chemical weapons attack by the > Assad regime. “Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles were e fired d from > American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean at Al Shayrat > airfield,†The New York Times reported > <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-syria-airstrikes.html>.The > cost in missiles alone was roughly $50 million. > > There are those who supported the presidentâ€â„„¢s ac actions. > Prior to the strike, various members of the military-industrial complex, > hawkish pundits, and social-media users outraged by killings of Syrian > civilians demanded that Trump do something in response to the abhorrent > slaughter of innocents. But Trump never swore to slake a vocal > minority’s outrage. He swore to uphold the ConConstituttution. And if > his 2013 statement on bombing Syria left any doubt as to whether he > understood the proper role of Congress, he had lots of reminders prior to > Thursday. > Back in 2013, “more than 100 House lawmakersrsâ€Ã¢€â€œ–at le least > 98 98 Republicans and 18 Democrats––signed on to a letter formallallally > requesting thathat President Obama seek congressional approval for any > military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-explores-possible-legal-justifications-for-strike-on-syria/2013/08/28/0d9c6c08-0fe3-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html>,†> the Washingtton Poost reported. “The letter > <http://rigell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/0097_001.pdf>, first written by > Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), suggests that failure to seek congressional > authorization for military strikes would be unconstitutional.†> That warning was reasserted this week. Senator Mike Lee, a Utah > Republican, put it this way: > > [image: Emacs!]  Â > Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said â€ÅÅ“thehe president > needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the > Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate." > He added, "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make > us safer and Syria will be no different." > Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told CNN’s s s > Jack Tapper that President Trump should “certaiainly comeme to > Congress†before acting in Syria. > And elected officials were not alone. > “If Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the UnUnited S States > Constitution means anything, it means that the president must obtain > congressional approval before taking us to war against a sovereign nation > that has not attacked the U.S. or its allies and is not threatening to > attack the U.S. or its allies,†declared > <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446512/rand-paul-right-dont-launch-war-syria-without-congressional-approval> > National Review’s David French, w, who serserved in the Judge Advocate > General's Corps during the Iraq War. > “There is no reason to forego congressional d debate e now, just as > there was no reason to forego congressional debate when Obama considered > taking the nation to war against Syria in 2013,†he expplaineed. > “Congressional approval is not only constitutionanal, it t serves the > public purpose of requiring a president to clearly outline the > justifications for war and his goals for the conflict. It also helps secure > public support for war, and in this instance it strikes me as reckless that > we would not only go to war against a sovereign nation, we’d also > court a possible military encounter er with ah a great power.†> Other commentators made a substantive case against a strike. Robert Farley > was especially succinct > <http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/04/syria-2>: > > [image: Emacs!]  Â > Combine all of these factors: > Strong substantive arguments against a strike. > Risk of escalation into a major powers conflict. > Dubious legality. > Multiple members of Congress preemptively expressing skepticism about the > legality. > The president himself formerly declaring congressional approval would be > necessary for such a strike. > If there are no consequences for a president who unilaterally orders > military action under all those conditions, what use is a Constitution that > vests the legislature with the war power? Yet much of the political press > acts as if the war power is not even contested. > Take David Sanger’s news analysis in the Ne New YorYork Times, “ > Striking at Assad Caries Opportunities, Risks for Trump > <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/woworld/mimiddleeast/airstikes-syria-trump-russia.html?_r=0>.†> The article confidently asserts that “the Syria > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?inline=nyt-geo> > action gives the Trump administration an opportunity to demand that Mr. > Putin either contain or remove Syria’™s leadeader, Bashar al-Assad > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/bashar_al_assad/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, > or else Mr. Trump will expand the limited American military > actionÂÂÂand quicklyšÂÂif the Russian president fails to do > so.†(Did the strike give Trump that opportunity? No evvidence is > presented for that conclusion.) The construction frames future > interventions in Syria as if they are Trump’s ¢s prerogative. Even the > part of of the article dedicated to the risks that Trump assumed in > striking does not so much as mention the matter of legality. > Why is that critique ignored even as elected officials make it? > > [image: Emacs!]  Â > And why did so many in the media call the Syria strike “surgical†> ? > > r> > r> > https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850256936041762816 > > As I've explained before at great length > <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/calling-us-drone-strikes-surgical-is-orwellian-propaganda/262920/>, > that characterization is Orwellian propaganda. > Congress erred by doing nothing when Obama waged war illegally in Libya. > It will compound that error if there are no consequences now for > Trump. Every legislator who has expressed the beelief that it would > be illegal to strike Syria without their permission should start acting > like they meant what they said. Given what recent presidents have been > permitted, impeachment over this matter alone would understandably lack > popular legitimacy. But I wouldn’t mind id if anti-war ar legislators > created a draft document titled “Artiticles of Impeachment,â†> wrote a paragraph about this strike at the top, and put Trump on notice > that if he behaves this way again, a coalition will aggressively lobby > their colleagues to oust him from office. > The alternative is proceeding with an unbowed president who is out of his > depth in international affairs, feels entitled to wage war in ways even he > once called illegitimate, and thinks of waging war as a way presidents can > improve their popularity. > Or as Trump himself once put it: > > [image: Emacs!]  Â > Today, Trump is desperate. He is flailing from failure to failure in > domestic policy, with dismal approval ratings and no clear way to increase > themÂÂÂexcept by trying to exploit the Ameerican public’s s s > historic tendency to rally around a president at war. There has never been > a stronger case for preemptively reining in a president‬™s ability > to unilaterally launch military strikes on foreign countries that are not > attacking us. > To allow a man of Trump’s character to retretain th that power, after > its expansion by decades of presidents who pushed it beyond the bounds of > the Constitution, would be folly. > > https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/ > president-trumps-syria-strike-was-unconstitutional-and-unwise/522228/ > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="27f0dbd7.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="27f0dbd7.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 7ad51e9b4305c26f_0.2 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="27f0dc16.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="27f0dc16.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 7ad51e9b4305c26f_0.5 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="27f0dbf7.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="27f0dbf7.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 7ad51e9b4305c26f_0.3 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="27f0dc06.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="27f0dc06.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 7ad51e9b4305c26f_0.4 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="27f0dbc8.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="27f0dbc8.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 7ad51e9b4305c26f_0.1 > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="292c700d.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="292c700d.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: c9d74236c62eb51c_0.5 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="292c6ffd.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="292c6ffd.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: c9d74236c62eb51c_0.4 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="292c6ed4.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="292c6ed4.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: c9d74236c62eb51c_0.1 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="292c6fde.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="292c6fde.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: c9d74236c62eb51c_0.2 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="292c6fed.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="292c6fed.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: c9d74236c62eb51c_0.3 > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="2df07f31.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2df07f31.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 38105638e38684df_0.2 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="2df07f60.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2df07f60.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 38105638e38684df_0.5 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="2df07f12.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2df07f12.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 38105638e38684df_0.1 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="2df07f41.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2df07f41.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 38105638e38684df_0.3 > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="2df07f51.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2df07f51.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 38105638e38684df_0.4 > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
