Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PsyOp
GWB's administration is the first to come out and take the un-equivocal position the Second Amendment protect the the right of the individual to Keep And Bear Arms. Thereby ensuring that the measures taken to fight terrorism will be kept in check in the way intended by the founders.

Hollow words at best, actions speak louder than words.

I would also like to add that in times of war, the federal government has always assumed additional powers, only to return them to the people when the war is over.

No declaration of war. Where is bin Laden?. Care to extrapolate with any examples of "only to return them to the people when the war is over.". We've already been told that this war will go on for a long time.

Look's like you've swallowed the hook, line and sinker.

And before you slam Bush's budget compromises, go take a look at the one's Reagan made with the Dems. And remember that, just as they did then, the Dems are failing to live up to the agreements they made in the compromise.

What kind of drugs are you on?. Reagan's "compromise" was the largest increase in federal spending every recorded, subsequently increasing the deficit by something on the order of 400%.

You need a reality check.

---max

587 posted on 06/05/2002 8:18:25 PM PDT by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: max61
"No declaration of war."

One is not needed, Congress has already authorized Bush to take whatever action is necessary to defend the US from further terrorist acts.

It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.

The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

604 posted on 06/05/2002 8:33:02 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies ]

To: max61
Hollow words at best, actions speak louder than words. I would also like to add that in times of war, the federal government has always assumed additional powers, only to return them to the people when the war is over. No declaration of war. Where is bin Laden?. Care to extrapolate with any examples of "only to return them to the people when the war is over." We've already been told that this war will go on for a long time. Look's like you've swallowed the hook, line and sinker. What kind of drugs are you on?. Reagan's "compromise" was the largest increase in federal spending every recorded, subsequently increasing the deficit by something on the order of 400%. You need a reality check. ---max

Better drugs than your using judging from your knee-jerk response. You might try lithium for those violent mood swings that keep you from reasoning clearly.

You made my point about Reagan without even realizing. As for Bin Laden I don't need to see his body. I've never seen Hitler's body, but I'm pretty sure we won that war.

As for no declaration of war, I'm not bothered by that in the least under the situation - this way we can go where we need to to get the bastards without have to ram another "declaration" through the Senate everytime we had to go into a new country. Can you imagine what the Dems would do with that opportunity? Of course you didn't.

Here's a little tip on civilized discourse. If you wish to argue a point without looking like an un-educated moron, don't begin the posts with insults, followed by facts you barely understand.

If you use fact the way a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination - you will never convince anybody of your position.

I stand ready to havemy mind and opinions changed at any time. But I demand a civilized and polite dialogue that does not begin with presuption of the intelligence of people you've never met. That is the very definition of stupidity.

861 posted on 06/06/2002 12:09:11 AM PDT by PsyOp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson