Under your theory, the killing of Osama bin Laden would constitute an act of war, and could have only been authorized by the Congress.
Under your theory, the rescue of American merchant sailors on the high seas from Somilian pirates could only be rectified by an Act of Congress and the declaration of war. Under your theory, the rescue of Americans on the island of Grenada could only be authorized by an Act of Congress declaring war. This same premise of yours was required in Korea in 1950; Viet Nam in 1958 through 1975; Mozambique; Somilia, and a host of other Nations, including Germany, Spain, Great Britain; Portugal, and everywhere else that we have a contingent of troops stationed! Your premise is flawed and incorrect. On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, again, I choose to play! > > Let's utilize (at least a portion) of your hypothesis, (obviously you > haven't thought this out real well, because our Forefathers had no > comparison to an Air Force, Tomahawk Missiles, or "B0mbs" as you refer to > it) but in general, the Forefathers did have the ability to foresee > scenarios that the Commander In Chief may see, be forced to engage in or > experience. > > Under your theory; the President would have to go before Congress and > obtain approval from the majority of the 535 Members before he was able to > direct any military action; bar none. > > Under your theory, each and every "Event" could be construed as a war; > meaning that during World War II, the only action that President Roosevelt > would have been authorized to engage in were the Japanese in and around the > Hawaiian islands....Nowhere else, to include Guam, the Philippines, the > Islands of Japan; nor Europe, Africa or anywhere else where hostilities > were taking place. > > Obviously this is what you (Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabert and others who are > not boned up on Constitutional Law) are calling for! > > What if Iran's Hezbollah attacks the mainland of the United States, and we > have the ability to attack this Hezbollah force before the leave the > mainland of the United States. Does the President still seek out a > declaration of war from the Congress? Back seventy-seven years ago, it > only took about 26 hours....I doubt very seriously if the 115th Congress > could act as hastily today. > > What about the potential of a nuclear attack by Crisco over in Pyongyang? > Let's assume that we learn of the potential of a nuclear attack; but have > the ability to prevent such an attack by a pre-emptive strike. Does a > President have to go to the 535 Members in order to be blessed with > protecting our National Security? > > The concept for which you and others attempt to frame is ludicrous and has > NEVER been the intent of our Forefathers, nor is it mandated by the > Congress. As stated: > > To "Declare War" has a goal; an objective; and most importantly a > conclusion and finite ending; (no matter the victor!) > > That was not the case last week when Trump ordered the launch of missiles > against a very limited target. > > Your "Fallacy" argument is stale. It reminds me of those Secular > Progressives when defeated and not capable of framing an intelligent > answer, reverting to the name calling of > "Racist/Homophobe/Islamophobe/Bigot".....It's > unbecoming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:47 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> The expected and anticipated fallacy spew ... your signature move when >> all else has failed. >> >> Regard$, >> --MJ >> >> If you don't like someone, the way he holds his spoon makes you furious; >> if you like him, he can turn his plate over into your lap and you won't >> mind. -- Irving Becker >> >> >> >> At 01:34 PM 4/11/2017, you wrote: >> >> And as again is typical, you've refuted nothing. >> >> As a side note, (this isn't something new or novel;  I realized this >> years ago during Roberts' ruling on the AFA);  you must possess common >> sense. It's requisite in life, and most especially when >> "Patriots/Militia/Minute-Men/Tax-Protestors" such as yourself start >> attempting to define and describe the Constitution; the Federalist Papers >> or the Anti-Federalist Papers. >> >> You should work on that Michael.... >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> With regard to the militias, yes. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:27 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Except you PLUCKED what you wanted (which still does not provide the >> power/authority you claim). >> >> The ENTIRE sentence is: >> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the >> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into >> the actual Service of the United States; >> >> Note the QUALIFIER "when called into actual service". >> The CONGRESS does this. >> >> The AIIS2C1 nonsense was already refuted. >> >> Any other guesses? >> >> Regard$, >> --MJ >> >> "The military state is the final form to which every planned economy >> tends rapidly." ~ Isabel Paterson >> >> >> >> > -- -- 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.
