Replies

Crow?

Laughable.

There was an attack on the United States, and whether you agree with the wording of the resolution passed after 9/11, it pertains.

Then again, you could put your money where your mouth is and challenge the constitutionality of the WPR, or of the congressional resolution, or go to court claiming that the actions of either the president, or congress, are unconstitutional.

You won't, and you won't mostly because as much as you claim that these things are important to you, they aren't sufficiently important to do anything other than discuss the exact definition of the word "specific", and what you believe to be a "blanket resolution" on some internet bulletin board.

I don't bother refuting any SCOTUS decisions you have posted, because they do not apply...much as you would love to stretch them, they are irrelevant.

The reason why I have cited zero, is because the WPR has never had its constitutionality challenged in the nearly thirty years its been the law of the land.

The congress has given the president specific statuatory authorization to find all those involved in the attacks.

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

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Crow?

Is that a feather sticking out of your mouth?

The reason why I have cited zero, is because the WPR has never had its constitutionality challenged in the nearly thirty years its been the law of the land.

Just because it has not been challenged does not mean that it's Constitutional.

I don't bother refuting any SCOTUS decisions you have posted, because they do not apply...much as you would love to stretch them, they are irrelevant.

I cited references to 5 decisions by the US Supreme Court which specifically refute the delegation of powers. When you have time read them, each and every one specifically deals with the executive illegally exercising legisislative powers. Another held that the Constitution applies equally to rulers and men, in times of war and peace.

There was an attack on the United States, and whether you agree with the wording of the resolution passed after 9/11, it pertains.

Yes there was an attack. I despise those that attacked us and want them found and destroyed. But I refuse to believe that the Constitution granted one man the power to declare war at his sole discretion. Have Congress pass a resolution specifically naming Iraq, Iran, Syria, or al Queda, UBL, whomever, and the issue we're debating is moot.

Is that a feather sticking out of your mouth?

Not with 5 SCOTUS decisions backing up my position.