Posted on 05/03/2007 1:07:40 PM PDT by pabianice
Headline at 4pm: Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton have lined-up votes to "de-authorize the Iraq War" by repealing the authorizing legislation from 2002. Nothing further yet...
Aha.. he was talking to himself!
Their antics are encouraging moslem terrorists in every part of the world-including North America and Europe. We know that’s true because we’ve posted-to here, LGF, JW, probably many other sites-articles and editorials from moslem media sites , crowing over the “defeat” of the USA. What does that mean? Not only are more terrorist acts recognized as such likely, but many “lesser” acts of violence that make life in the west that much more hellish. e.g., There may be a girl-perhaps several girls-somewhere in a major EUropean city who will be gang raped and slashed because of triumphalist emotions evoked in an “immigrant” reader by those articles from the moslem media-articles directly inspired by the acts of these traitor scum.
There was not a single Senator in the chamber. Byrd was talking to himself and the TV cameras.
Surrender retroactively.
Technically, Congress did not declare war in 2002.
They simply passed legislation (Public Law 102-1) that gave the President the authority to declare war. In essence, they ceeded this Constitutional power to the President
The difference is subtle, but important:
- Congress does not have any authority to determine how a war should be conducted, including surrender. Even if Congress had been successful in passing a timetable, the President would have a sound Constitutional challenge.
- The President can veto any Bill, Order, Resolution, or Vote from Congress. He cannot veto a Declaration (but that didn’t happen). This legislation can include this transfer of authority - or its removal.
Since Congress didn’t bother to Declare War they can’t very well Undeclare War. De-authorize would imply they have authority, but they can only provide funding. Or not.
Nothing unless you're a liberal. Victory in Iraq means defeat of the Democrat party in 2008. That's why the liberals are not on the American side of this conflict.
Making up the rules as they go. Any presidence for this?
LOL, that’s what I suspected.
Hillary is now trying to unring the bell.
the hildabeast is up
The liberals must be pretty sure they will NEVER regain the WH. Otherwise these idiots would know that anything the do to a republican president, we could do to theirs.
The longer they fixate on this crap, the smoother the rest of the government will work.
Is it just her and KKK Byrd now?
Horrible for them ... which delights the hell out of me.
You think she realizes she and sheets are making a lifetime’s worth of RNC campaign ads?
GOD will have very little to do with “sheets” byrd when he dies. Hell will, however!
LLS
I think just her....
Doesn’t matter... Being a Clinton means never having to say you’re sorry.
Were their fingers crossed behind their backs?
Does calling Kings-X count?
Did they think it was a vote on "Time Out" for Saddam?
There is a word for this kind of behavior: Childish.
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.