"By that kind of reasoning, our government can take any power not specifically denied to it in the Constitution. That's not true, Luis."No one took anything away from anyone.
The President, in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief, has to look to Congress for the funding to conduct a military campaign. Should congress decide to issue a formal declaration of war, then, and by the very constitutional role as Commander In Chief, the president, and only the president, can declare a victory, and the situation secured.
Now, the constitution specifically says that only congress can declare war, but that does not mean that it required the President to wait for an Act of Congress to set out our fighters to intercept a fleet of ChiCom bombers on its way to California, and then to secure ourselves, nor does it say that the US military can ONLY be deployed in the event of a declared war.
You are arguing in favor of Saddam Hussein being able to violate a document he himself signed, because it took away his ability, as the leader of a sovereign nation, to provide for the defense of his nation?
And against the US having the ability to do whatever their constitutionally elected government does in order to secure the nation after an attack on our soil, because the Constitution does not allow it?
The President is REQUIRED by the un-Constitutional War Powers Act to withdraw all military forces at the end of 8 months. We've been bombing Iraq almost daily since the end if the Gulf War, in violation of the War Powers Act .
To: exodus
"No one took anything away from anyone..."
"...Now, the Constitution specifically says that only Congress can declare war, but that does not mean that it required the President to wait for an Act of Congress to set out our fighters to intercept a fleet of ChiCom bombers on its way to California, and then to secure ourselves, nor does it say that the US military can ONLY be deployed in the event of a declared war..."
# 262 by Luis Gonzalez
*************************
I never said that the President didn't have the power and duty to respond to an emergency.
I'm saying that we are not in the middle of an emergency NOW. The emergency stiuation was over within days.
Congress had plenty of time to go over the facts, and issue a Declaration of War. It's been over a year, and Congress STILL hasn't decided whether we're at war or not.
Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch.
To: exodus
"...You are arguing in favor of Saddam Hussein being able to violate a document he himself signed, because it took away his ability, as the leader of a sovereign nation, to provide for the defense of his nation?
And against the US having the ability to do whatever their constitutionally elected government does in order to secure the nation after an attack on our soil, because the Constitution does not allow it?..."
# 262 by Luis Gonzalez
*************************
I said that Saddam, as the sovereign of an independent nation, has the duty to protect his subjects from harm.
Saddam IS the law in his nation. ANY action he takes is completely legal.
I've said that OUR government is based upon the Rule of Law, with that law based upon the written Constitution.
Our President is not a sovereign. His decision IS NOT law.
He is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress.