And also as a side note, (but a very important one!) The Congress does not call the State Militias/National Guards into service.....Again, an Executive Branch obligation; and the President is the one who activates such entities....
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
