Replies

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.

exodus says: "[The President] 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."

It does? Where does it say that? I mean where does it specifically say that?

Regards,

Boot Hill

You're now being a comnpletely dishonest debater, shame on you.

I have provided ample evidence of the Congress's involvement, and of their actions under the Constitution to conduct the current action against the terrorist networks threatening the security of the nation. And you continue to ignore that, trying desperately to somehow create the image of a president acting against the wishes of Congress, and the constitution.

Quit lying.