Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by FrancSevin You keep missing my point. We do not need to declare war. Because we don't, doesn't ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:35 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,093
Thanks: 9,229
Thanked 5,462 Times in 3,693 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
You keep missing my point.
We do not need to declare war. Because we don't, doesn't make military action illicit. Ill advised maybe but perfectly within our right as a sovereign nation.
your point makes no sense.
the constitution and says the Congress is the ONLY branch that can initiate MILITARY action. the War powers act (imo unwisely) CONDITIONALLY hands some of that power to the president.
there's NO provision in the constitutions AT ALL for any "limited" military actions franc.
NONE.
Again the constitution is Clear. Why do people keep pointing to the sad fact that congress and the executive branch keep disobeying it (Clinton Kosovo, etc.) as if that makes it OK?
it simply does not.
At least If we take the constitution seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
I'll stop trying to explain the simple facts with examples. Because in the world of military actions, protection of sovereignty, and wars, the definition of "legal" is an oxymoron.
SO as i said ANYTHING Goes. the LAW the constitution DOES not matter that's what W Said when he started spying on us all, breaking into homes without warrants, and torturing people, that's what Obama said as he attacked Libya and drone struck more than dozen countries, killed U.S. citizens at his pleasure, and continued all the Bush did.

It amazes me that some folks like yourself will finally admit to the fact tht you really don't CARE what the constitution says, if you think you MIGHT be threatened in someway. the KING sending out the troops dispatching the enemies using secret intel is fine.
because LEGAL is an oxymoron when we're at "war".

And, W did declare that we're in an ongoing war on terror Plus that the world is the battlefield (including the U.S.) so the constitution is basically moot.
I'm not sure how you can escape that conclusion.

all the whining folks do about he 2nd and other amendment is BS, since we're at war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
I'll leave it with this from Ambassador Nikki Haley
“We have to be very conscious of the fact that we cannot allow even the smallest use of chemical weapons. That’s why you saw the president strike this past weekend, that’s why you saw him expel 60 Russian spies after the attack in Salisbury,” Haley said, referring to a March incident where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned in public. After that attack, Haley said:
“If a chemical attack could take place there, it could take place anywhere.”
No hard evidence of the perps in either event but that doesn't matter either.
As long a strong leader has secret intel the people should just cheer him on to defeat "the enemies" it's war. no rules or constitution applies.

I have to say the nonchalant so-called pragmatism appeals to fears and selective use of the constitution and international law by many on the right leaves me a bit ill.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 04-17-2018 at 03:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:29 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,991
Thanks: 7,091
Thanked 9,879 Times in 5,623 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
your point makes no sense.
the constitution and says the Congress is the ONLY branch that can initiate MILITARY action. the War powers act (imo unwisely) CONDITIONALLY hands some of that power to the president.
there's NO provision in the constitutions AT ALL for any "limited" military actions franc.
NONE.
Again the constitution is Clear. Why do people keep pointing to the sad fact that congress and the executive branch keep disobeying it (Clinton Kosovo, etc.) as if that makes it OK?
it simply does not.
At least If we take the constitution seriously.



SO as i said ANYTHING Goes. the LAW the constitution DOES not matter that's what W Said when he started spying on us all, breaking into homes without warrants, and torturing people, that's what Obama said as he attacked Libya and drone struck more than dozen countries, killed U.S. citizens at his pleasure, and continued all the Bush did.

It amazes me that some folks like yourself will finally admit to the fact tht you really don't CARE what the constitution says, if you think you MIGHT be threatened in someway. the KING sending out the troops dispatching the enemies using secret intel is fine.
because LEGAL is an oxymoron when we're at "war".

And, W did declare that we're in an ongoing war on terror Plus that the world is the battlefield (including the U.S.) so the constitution is basically moot.
I'm not sure how you can escape that conclusion.

all the whining folks do about he 2nd and other amendment is BS, since we're at war.


No hard evidence of the perps in either event but that doesn't matter either.
As long a strong leader has secret intel the people should just cheer him on to defeat "the enemies" it's war. no rules or constitution applies.

I have to say the nonchalant so-called pragmatism appeals to fears and selective use of the constitution and international law by many on the right leaves me a bit ill.
The Constitution gives no authority to the "commander and chief" to direct the military? Is that your conclusion?

As for proof of the "perps" you aren't serious are you?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/w...mplicated.html


How can you expect me to take you serious when you present such "opinions" as fact?

Here's a non opinion, a fact, for which I hold a strong opinion.

Obama dropped over 25,000 Bombs on both Syria and Iraq in 2016. under what authority did HE do so. The Presidency is an office, not a man. President Trump has the same authority to engage the same enemy as President Barak did for years.

My opinion is you should hold both Administrations to that standard. Perhaps you have and I missed it.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 04-17-2018 at 04:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:49 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,093
Thanks: 9,229
Thanked 5,462 Times in 3,693 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
The Constitution gives no authority to the "commander and chief" Is that your conclusion?
show me in the constitution the presidents authority to initiate foreign military actions of ANY kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
As for proof of the "perps" you aren't serious are you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/w...mplicated.html
How can you expect me to take you serious when you present such "opinions" as fact?
Here's anon opinion fact for which I hold a strong opinion.
Obama dropped over 25,000 Bombs on both Syria and Iraq in 2016. under what authority did HE do so. The Presidency is an office, not a man. President trump has the same authority to engage the same enemy as Barak did for years.

My opinion is you should hold both Administrations to that standard. Perhaps you have an I missed it.
I haven't missed it at all. I do think Obama unconstitutionally did the same as well and I said so at the time. And I got similar "Ho Hum. but he's the president, the president can do what he wants, becasue well... he's the president and 'War on Terror don't you seee!'" replies or silence.

And what's the objective 3rd party proof that Assad did the latest chem attack? last I heard the inspector haven't been in, and the only reports of the attacks are from Assad's enemies. not exactly objective.

Concerning the poisoning in England the reports are not conclusive. No one has even die i believe, from this strongest chem agent ever ever.

Seems to me Trumps actions are based on opinion and hearsay, so far, not fact.
Unless you want to believe he has "top secret evidence." .
Ok well that's fine,... if you just want to trust the gov'ts word.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:27 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 52,675
Thanks: 2,028
Thanked 32,341 Times in 18,860 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
show me in the constitution the presidents authority to initiate foreign military actions of ANY kind.
It doesn't...

HOWEVER, Trump used a military authorization of force that Congress DID pass...

Ryan: No need for Congress to authorize Syria strikes

Quote:
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday that President Trump has broad authority to attack Syria, precluding the need for Congress to act beforehand.

The existing AUMF gives him the authority he needs to do what he may or may not do,” Ryan said during a press briefing in the Capitol.

The Pentagon is currently operating under a 17-year-old authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) approved in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks. A number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have pushed for years for Congress to pass an updated AUMF, reflecting the expanding geography and evolving enemies that have marked the war against terrorism since 2001.

Ryan, echoing the concerns of many Republicans in his conference, warned that a new AUMF might prove too short a leash on the U.S. military to ensure the nation’s security.

“What I would hate to do in this time when we have asymmetric threats across the globe, particularly with ISIS, is to have an AUMF that ties the hands of the military behind their backs,” Ryan said. “The last thing I want to see is an AUMF that makes it much more difficult for our military to respond to keep us safe, because they have the authority to do that right now.”

Ryan also urged the administration to take the lead in an international response to the latest chemical attacks — an effort he says Trump is already undertaking.

“I won’t get ahead of the president. He is taking a very deliberate and careful response and approach to this. We’ve discussed this,” Ryan said. “[But] I think it’s important for us to help lead the international community to making sure that people are held accountable for these mass atrocities.”
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:25 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,093
Thanks: 9,229
Thanked 5,462 Times in 3,693 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
It doesn't...

HOWEVER, Trump used a military authorization of force that Congress DID pass...

Ryan: No need for Congress to authorize Syria strikes
I think Ryan and these republicans mentioned are CRAZY for wanting to the give the president MORE military powers. They are idiots IMO.
But thankfully the AMUF does NOT give Trump (or Obama or W) the right to attack any nation at any time. That's pure BS. But what he seems to be proposing would cede ALL military authority to the executive branch. the exact opposite of what the constitution requires.

It's weird to me that so many Republicans want to throw this part of the constitution under the bus. Do you really want a limited military dictatorship. Chief general with Troops on the boarders and around the world running missions, "military actions"/wars without ANY public oversight at all? Sons and daughters sent who knows where and spending Lord know how much killing Lord knows who?
shessh God help us.

But here's a relevant portion of the AMUF. IMO it's FAR to Broad already but still it's more limited than what Ryan asserts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMUF
Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Syria had ZERO to do with 9/11, ZERO.....for that matter ISIS had ZERO to do with 9/11.
And again Nothing that Syria did falls under the War Powers act or the Executives constitutional powers.

Ryan is blowing smoke.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:45 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,991
Thanks: 7,091
Thanked 9,879 Times in 5,623 Posts
Default Re: Striking the Syrian Regime is not legit

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
It doesn't...

HOWEVER, Trump used a military authorization of force that Congress DID pass...

Ryan: No need for Congress to authorize Syria strikes
Thanks CNRedd

For the record, I never said the Constitution authorized the President to 'initiate" war actions. I said he was authorized to "direct" them.

I am so tired of this deceit used to "twist" the conversation. Such tactics by both the left and the right to discredit for political reasons, the action of a person with whom they don't agree, is used to confuse and conflate. I don't fault Mr. Wonder for the error.

And, I apologize for leading and teasing him on.

The Constitution is and exquisite document of only five pages. In simple terms it lays out the frame work for the construction of a government and the protections of individual rights and freedoms. Unlike a 6,600 page bill for Obamacare which tries, it does not define a solution for every action and need of the government.

It is not written in Lawyer Speak

And it doesn't declare, for instance, how fast we can drive on the Interstate. It merely indicates how that "rule" can be achieved.

Constitutionally, the Office of the President is given specific powers of what they can and cannot do with regard to military actions, without prior notification and/or permission of the Congress. For example, the President has been granted this through the War powers Resolution of 1973 , by Congress. And by extension the Constitution. That's not a stretch of logic, but how it is Constitutionally done.

The office of the President must answer to Congress for those actions taken. So far, the Congress has not pulled him back form taking action in Syria. After all, they authorized it. So why is it not "legit?"
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
legit, not, regime, striking, syrian, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0