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

To: 4ConservativeJustices; KLT
Hey! KLT!

Stick a fork in this one, he's done.
190 posted on 08/26/2002 7:47:59 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez
I think he ran out of stupid things to say....

"Policy of Containment" Hah, Hah, Hah, Hah.....now that was a good one...

192 posted on 08/27/2002 5:33:01 AM PDT by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
My point has been proven.

Not quite.  You have yet to refute any decision of SCOTUS, and I cited quite a few.  You have cited exactly zero.

I asked you to specifically cite which part of the War Powers Resolution you found to be unconstitutional, I even provided a link to a great article discussing the WPR in detail, instead, you cited the resolution passed by Congress in the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11.

My bad.  Even though you specifically addressed the WPR the text I cited from your post #115 was the latter resolution.  I will correct my error below.

The War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress in the 1970's, while Nixon was president.

The War Powers Resolution (93-148) passed 7 Nov 1973, stated,

SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Sections 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(3) follow the Constitution.  The power of Congress to delegate the ability to declare war, or any other legislative power, has already been refuted by the Supreme Court of the United States (see previous comments from those 19th century luminaries.  Secondly, the wording of the WPR cites "specific" statutory authorization, yet a blanket resolution against terrorists hardly meets that definition.

The Persian Gulf War was conducted under a 1991 congressional resolution, not the WPA of 1973.  As noted in the header to this article, "President Bush has argued that the resolution Congress passed after the Sept. 11 attacks also gives him broad authority to conduct operations in Iraq."

Again, please refer to the decision by founding father Justice John Jay in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Federalist Paper #74 by Alexander Hamilton, the opinion held by Abraham Lincoln, the opinion Justice Davis in ex parte Milligan, and numerous other decisions by the Supreme Court.

Stick a fork in this one, he's done.

I hope you enjoy crow.

193 posted on 08/27/2002 8:02:44 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | 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