I must be tired. This sentence made no sense to me at all. Can you be more clear? 
Posted on 03/01/2003 3:14:26 PM PST by exodus
**********************
Um, Vietnam HAS been in the news, ever since they decided to send workers to a sweatshop under the guidance of a South Korean Businessman. BUT NOT BEFORE THEY ALL UNDERWENT PATRIOTIC CLASSES. Except the South Korean Businessman just gots found guilty in a Federal Court in Hawaii for slave trafficking. But I fergot. Vietnam is not commie anymore. HA!
There are quite a number of tryannical nations the world over who are not communist, but are nevertheless tyrannies. There are even very capitalistic tyrannies, and slavery can exist in a free society, too; communism has no monopoly on that, either.
As I said, I know nothing of present-day Vietnam.
I must be tired. This sentence made no sense to me at all. Can you be more clear?
**********************
War was declared on us.
By Iraq? When did that happen?
I don't need to since that is not the case. Congress gave him the authority to decide when hostilities should commence. That is their "declaration of war". The Congress can, if it so chooses withhold funding if they disagree OR they can rescind the Joint Resolution. Now, you may not like that but your entire argument is unsupportable given the lack of a REQUIREMENT for congress to exercise its POWER to declare war or the lack of "proper" language or format such a declaration must use. You don't have a leg to stand on.
That's for Congress to decide, not you, and not the President.
**********************
They are acting in full compliance of the Constitution, and the War Powers Act.
The War Powers Act is illegal.
It gives the President the authorization to have six-month long wars, without a Declaration of War from Congress.
Now you're just arguing in circles.
It's time for me to crash anyway....
**********************
Congress gave him the authority to decide when hostilities should commence. That is their "declaration of war".
Congress delegated the power to decide when or if hostilities would commence.
If the President can decide not to go to war, it isn't a Congressional decision.
By the way, hello, friend.
The War Powers Resolution is still illegal.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article 1, Secion 8, Clause 11:
To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
This one of those "foregoing Powers" mentioned above. And the rest of the legislative branches powers have to do with making laws governing "any Department or Officer thereof", not tranfering legislative powers to them.
Tell me, in your thinking, how is such a transfer of powers not a violation of the separation of powers?
If that is what it was you MAY have a point but it is not the situation. The only thing Bush has discretion on is the timing. Congress has already spoken as to who war will be waged upon. You have no argument to make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.