Tell ya what guys. Y'all show me where the constitution says any use of military force is by definition a declaration of war, ergo, requiring congress. Sans that, you have a problem
On Mar 24, 10:19 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > That constitution thingy is meaning less and less every day, > unfortunately. > > And Greg.... I am shocked that you didn't realize that every action > taken militarily since 1941 has been illegal. As commander-in-chief > the President is subject to the whim of congress, not the other way > around. (its that constitution thingy again) > > On Mar 24, 8:02 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Actually, there is that Constitution thingy., > > Regard$, > > --MJWars and imperialism are Siamese twins joined at the hip. Each thrives > > off the other. They cannot be separated. -- Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows > > of EmpireAt 09:29 AM 3/24/2011, you wrote:Voting isn't deferal. You might > > say Clinton usurped, since he did not > > seek, "advise and consent", but then there's that War Powers Act > > thingy. > > You are actually saying every use of US military force since December > > 8, 1941 was unconstitutional? > > On Mar 24, 8:49 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ROTFLMAO! > > > The Congress UNCONSTITUTIONALLY deferred THEIR power. > > > Regard$, > > > --MJ"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by > > > events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no > > > longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have > > > to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that > > > we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a > > > hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, > > > anachronistic, it isn't done anymore." > > > --Chairman Henry Hyde, 10/3/2002, in session of House of Representatives, > > > during hearing on H.J. Res. 114, "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE > > > AGAINST IRAQ", discussing Ron Paul's motion to declare war.At 08:37 AM > > > 3/24/2011, you wrote:Bush got congressional approval. > > > Next. > > > On Mar 24, 7:38 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why Were You Silent, Rush, in 2003?Posted byLaurence Vanceon March 23, > > > > 2011 09:07 PM > > > > A reader informs me that today Rush Limbaugh spent his show attacking > > > > Obama for attacking Libya. What s the matter, Rush, don t you like wars > > > > started by Democrats? Why were you silent in 2003 when your friend Bush > > > > attacked Iraq to enforce UN resolutions? Oh, I think I just answered my > > > > question. > > > -- > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
