User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:19:07 PM EDT
[#1]
yes, when was the last time congress declared war? Hmmm....maybe he last war we won?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:22:47 PM EDT
[#2]
It is certainly strange bedfellows for me to agree with a California Democrat but, I support the repeal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:24:06 PM EDT
[#3]
when does one end a war against a tactic?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:25:37 PM EDT
[#4]
He has a (D) next to his name so I'm against this bill
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:26:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Does it get rid of TSA as well?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:27:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
yes, when was the last time congress declared war? Hmmm....maybe he last war we won? The AUMF is a declaration of war. ETA: There is a lot of talk about changing the AUMF right now. For whatever reason its getting no press. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:29:03 PM EDT
[#7]
At least he's not a hypocritical little ass-sniffer like all the Dems who howled about Bush but haven't uttered a peep since Owebama continued and expanded the power grab.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:45:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
yes, when was the last time congress declared war? Hmmm....maybe he last war we won? Exactly, there is a reason it's supposed to be hard to go to war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 2:57:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Let me guess... The "sunset" is supposed to happen around the beginning of 2017?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:10:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Is it a trap?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:15:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Is it a trap? It has to be, somewhere somehow this would bite us in the ass. PS I did not read the article so just my guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:30:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it a trap? It has to be, somewhere somehow this would bite us in the ass. PS I did not read the article so just my guess. He's removing the unconstitutional power of the president to declare war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:40:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Well you know, the president said it was time to define an end to the war. I took it to mean he meant it was over. Let's kill all of the state-of-emergency crap. Like the Patriot act, citizen drone surveillance over the homeland, Homeland security, etc. All of the Statist wet dream shit. All of it. Return to the pre- 2001 way of doing things. Less intrusive, overbearing, freedom hating, individual rights violating government. fuck yeah.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:51:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Yep. An initiative we should all support.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:55:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Let me guess... The "sunset" is supposed to happen around the beginning of 2017? Article says 2014, when we pull out of Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:04:56 PM EDT
[#16]
This is like when your wife says "I don't mind if you buy that gun."
What's your angle woman? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:05:55 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
It is certainly strange bedfellows for me to agree with a California Democrat but, I support the repeal. This. Strange days indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:09:44 PM EDT
[#18]
A California Democrat doing something I agree with?
Whats the catch tho....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:21:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:30:41 PM EDT
[#20]
I'm...tentatively okay with this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:41:00 PM EDT
[#21]
another way to look at this is an emergency power vent to remove existing powers from a future non democratic president.
god knows these communist rat fucks don't want this draconian shit storm they've wrought for these last 5 years( wire tappings, congressional inquiries, UAV's etc..) to come STRAIGHT DOWN on their heads. so fuck it. you dick's chose to expand an already unconstitutional piece of stinking shit legislation..effectively making this snowball bigger. let's let it roll on down the hill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:42:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. Interesting point, I guess there is debate on wether the presidents power extends beyond repelling an invasion with only congress having the authority to initiate hostilities. I found this, its going to take me a few hours until I can sit down to read and digest it fully. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 4:47:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. Interesting point, I guess there is debate on wether the presidents power extends beyond repelling an invasion with only congress having the authority to initiate hostilities. I found this, its going to take me a few hours until I can sit down to read and digest it fully. On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between "declaring" war and "engaging in" (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or "levying" war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.
Also, even if one just agrees with the "repelling invasion" argument, our response to Pearl Harbor did not require a declaration of war nor did 9/11. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:07:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. So you think the President can invade Canada without congressional authorization? If the power to declare war is invested in Congress and not granted to anyone else, only Congress has that power. A President going to war without congressional authorization violates the Constitution. A President responding to an attack or an immediate threat doesn't - but must go to Congress to do anything more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:09:58 PM EDT
[#25]
Must be a cold day in Hell because I agree with him. Congress should declare war not the President (any President for that matter).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:11:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. So you think the President can invade Canada without congressional authorization? If the power to declare war is invested in Congress and not granted to anyone else, only Congress has that power. A President going to war without congressional authorization violates the Constitution. A President responding to an attack or an immediate threat doesn't - but must go to Congress to do anything more. Yeah, I believe the Commander in Chief can use the military in any way he sees fit except for domestic law enforcement. So, you think that had Congress not voted to pursue war against Japan, the CinC could have done nothing? What about the Germans declaring war on us? Congressional approval required? 9/11 was an invasion of our soil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:12:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
yes, when was the last time congress declared war? Hmmm....maybe he last war we won? After 9/11, congress authorized the use of force against those responsible and terrorist wherever we could find them. Before the Iraq invasion, congress authorized Bush to invade and remove saddam. IMO that was a legal ' declaration of war '. Not sure what else you are looking for. The constitution says that congress has the power to declare war then its up to the POTUS to prosecute that war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:14:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. Interesting point, I guess there is debate on wether the presidents power extends beyond repelling an invasion with only congress having the authority to initiate hostilities. I found this, its going to take me a few hours until I can sit down to read and digest it fully. On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between "declaring" war and "engaging in" (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or "levying" war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.
Also, even if one just agrees with the "repelling invasion" argument, our response to Pearl Harbor did not require a declaration of war nor did 9/11. Exactly what distinction is drawn among declaring, engaging in, and levying war? Hint: using 3 words that mean pretty much the same thing ("declaring" being the outlier) is not "distinguishing" among them. To distinguish them, the Constitution would have to say something like "Congress shall have the power to declare but may not levy or engage in war." Anyway, do please tell me the constitutional distinction among the 3 words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:15:28 PM EDT
[#29]
You know, if Congress, really, really, really didn't like the president's military policy, then they could exercise their Constitutional authority and cut off funding for the war -- the way Madison intended.
I agree with the posters who think this is just an attempt to hamstring the next (likely Republican) president. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:15:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Maybe he can keep on weighting and take away all power and just make this fucker a figurehead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 5:31:49 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.
Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. Interesting point, I guess there is debate on wether the presidents power extends beyond repelling an invasion with only congress having the authority to initiate hostilities. I found this, its going to take me a few hours until I can sit down to read and digest it fully. On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between "declaring" war and "engaging in" (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or "levying" war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.
Also, even if one just agrees with the "repelling invasion" argument, our response to Pearl Harbor did not require a declaration of war nor did 9/11. Exactly what distinction is drawn among declaring, engaging in, and levying war? Hint: using 3 words that mean pretty much the same thing ("declaring" being the outlier) is not "distinguishing" among them. To distinguish them, the Constitution would have to say something like "Congress shall have the power to declare but may not levy or engage in war." Anyway, do please tell me the constitutional distinction among the 3 words. Again: On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between "declaring" war and "engaging in" (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or "levying" war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.
It seems that they use the term "levying" in the definition of treason, but I don't see it used when referring to war powers. "Declare" is only a declaration of something. It actually causes no military action. See below. Of the 5 times it has been used, only once has it declared something that didn't officially already exist and the War of 1812 was already happening. It only seems to have bearing on legal and diplomatic actions. There have been only five congressionally declared wars in the history of the United States. Of those, only the first, the War of 1812, constituted an affirmative declaration of war. The remaining four, the Mexican-American War of 1846, the Spanish-American War of 1898, World War I, and World War II, merely declared the prior existence of a state of war. Notably, those declarations were accompanied by express authorizations of use of force, suggesting a distinction between declarations of war and authorizations of force
"Engage" in means actually taking action. Furthermore, under previous practice, declarations of war triggered other legal actions, such as the internment or expulsion of enemy aliens, the breaking of diplomatic relations, and the confiscation of the enemy's property. In short, the power to declare war was designed as a power to affect legal rights and duties in times of hostilities. It is not a check on executive power to engage in such hostilities in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 6:51:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
You know, if Congress, really, really, really didn't like the president's military policy, then they could exercise their Constitutional authority and cut off funding for the war -- the way Madison intended. I agree with the posters who think this is just an attempt to hamstring the next (likely Republican) president. Uh, this is congress doing exactly what you're talking about. Changing or repealing the AUMF would end the armed conflict against al Qaeda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 7:53:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Giving the president the ability to use force without Congressional approval first was a concious decision by the framers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 10:59:04 PM EDT
[#34]
Not to mention that we've been in a state of "national emergency" since 2001...
The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously since September 14, 2001, when the Bush administration invoked it premised on the September 11 attacks.
President Barack Obama extended George W. Bush's Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009,[45] on September 10, 2010,[46] on September 9, 2011,[47] and on September 11, 2012.[48] At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:
The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9; The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 11:05:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: He has a (D) next to his name so I'm against this bill Blind partisan stupidity cuts both ways, huh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 11:16:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
It is certainly strange bedfellows for me to agree with a California Democrat but, I support the repeal. Has me feeling all confused, but yeah, I agree with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 11:18:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
He has a (D) next to his name so I'm against this bill Sounds like the logic of a "union member" or FSA voter..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2013 11:32:19 PM EDT
[#38]
I'm going to say good bill. The executive has been granted too much power, both by Congress and that which it has stolen for itself. Obviously war is not declared at the outset of modern military engagements like it was in the past, but giving Congress more oversight and diminishing the executive's authority to use troops in what ever manner he sees fit is a good thing. The grey areas in the law at both the national and international level related to war in the modern era have created a swath of problems that will likely carry with them very serious consequences. The lack of a clear deliniation between lawful combatants, civilians, and unlawful combatants/war criminals along with the lack of definite, agreed upon periods of beligerency in the post-nation state era of international conflict has given rise to many questions on status and protections and has opened the door to too many abuses with regard to the laws of armed conflict and basic human rights. This grey area, while used by our government to pursue it's short term interests in the prosecution of the GWOT, will in the long run create situations where it can freely ignore the principles that underlay customary international law and it's protections on basic human rights, to say nothing of the risk to domestic legal protections against governmental tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:05:31 PM EDT
[#39]
To levy war is to engage in war. To declare war (as noted, an outlier from the first two) is to state that a condition of war exists. Does anyone believe that the President has Constitutional authority to engage in war except for emergencies without congressional authorization?
I don't who you're quoting, LarryG, but there is no general executive authority to engage in hostilities. Again, do you seriously believe that Obama has the authority to order troops to invade Canada? Do you seriously doubt that Congress has such authority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:06:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Giving the president the ability to use force without Congressional approval first was a concious decision by the framers. Where did they do that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:09:22 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Not to mention that we've been in a state of "national emergency" since 2001... The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously since September 14, 2001, when the Bush administration invoked it premised on the September 11 attacks.
President Barack Obama extended George W. Bush's Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009,[45] on September 10, 2010,[46] on September 9, 2011,[47] and on September 11, 2012.[48] At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:
The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9; The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment. Your source is full of shit. Full of it. A1S9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:18:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Giving the president the ability to use force without Congressional approval first was a concious decision by the framers. Where did they do that? They made him the commander in chief. They could have specified that Congress appoint a commander for the military, but did not. Read Madisons notes from the convention for details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:19:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: yes, when was the last time congress declared war? Hmmm....maybe he last war we won? declaring that using military force against a certain enemy is good to go is a declaration of war. its just the new lawyeresc way of saying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:21:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is it a trap? It has to be, somewhere somehow this would bite us in the ass. PS I did not read the article so just my guess. He's removing the unconstitutional power of the president to declare war. so a COMMANDER IN CHIEF cannot command the military to do something should the timing require swift action? i think theres a bit of huge misinterpretation of the WPA among other things... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:21:37 PM EDT
[#45]
I just looked outside and saw some flying pigs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:23:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
At least he's not a hypocritical little ass-sniffer like all the Dems who howled about Bush but haven't uttered a peep since Owebama continued and expanded the power grab. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:24:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Link Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would "sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. "The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room. Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one. Why is this a bad thing? Constitutionally its congress job to declare war, this would restore that. No, the Constitution says that Congress MAY declare war, but nowhere does it prohibit the Commander in Chief from committing them to combat. Drone strikes can be ordered without Congressional approval. That type of strike has never required Congressional oversight. How does "Authorization to Use Military Force" in any way affect law enforcement activities? Sounds like something this Dem is just throwing in to garner support. the US Constitution is not a powers not enumerated document. the Pres and Congress only have the powers specifically given to them by the document ie: declaring war. it is nothing but a dog and pony show. Obama could literally end the war today if he so wanted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:33:21 PM EDT
[#48]
is this something to protect Al Queda from drone attacks?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:34:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Is it a trap? If a kalifornia democrat is behind it then yes, it is a trap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2013 1:40:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Giving the president the ability to use force without Congressional approval first was a concious decision by the framers. Where did they do that? They made him the commander in chief. They could have specified that Congress appoint a commander for the military, but did not. Read Madisons notes from the convention for details. You think that a commander in chief has the unilateral authority to commence hostilities? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
