Actual question (really)
-
"those Democrats have found some Republican libertarian-leaning allies." Levin
so there it is - and could maybe even spell trouble for an upcoming Senate trial in which the Rs may not ALL be unified against having witnesses?
(just starting to see some cracks thats all)
-
it's pitiful. Collins, Paul, Lee are just a few of the attention whores that will get on the news by
throwing tantrums like the left does.
-
Don't recall all the details right off at the moment, but my understanding is this is actually a good thing.
We're currently operating under a non ratified, non Constitutional situation (post 9/11) where a President can pretty much do as he wants.
By returning to the rules, which this Act basically does, it would prevent future Presidents from getting us bogged down in endless wars again.
I believe POTUS (per Constitution) has 60 days for Military action, and then another 30 days to pull those Troops back home if Congress does not declare War.
In case you haven't noticed, POTUS is working on getting us out of the ME and these endless wars.
Sometimes you have to attack to clear a way too move out (Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq soon) .
Right now, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait want us to have some Troops in their Countries, and I know for sure SA is paying $1B to do so (Kuwait may be same).
Publicly, Iraq (Iranian controlled) wants us to leave, but privately word is they want us there still (Training).
POTUS wants us to operate Constitutionally, so don't let these votes freak you out - we're doing things now that we really shouldn't be doing.
He is literally restoring Constitutional Law to the Country, and that is one reason things are taking so long (being done by the book).
Apply this too other areas, and you should have an idea of what else is coming.
-
Okay I know a lot of people don't like Donald Trump. I get it. Still even if you don't do you think it's a good idea that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have voted to curtail the president's War Powers? I would think that it would be counterproductive for any president regardless of party to have to go through weeks or months of a song and dance with Congress before making a military decision? Anybody that has an actual opinion I'd be glad to hear it.
WSS
Okay I know a lot of people don't like Donald Trump. I get it. Still even if you don't do you think it's a good idea that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have voted to curtail the president's War Powers? I would think that it would be counterproductive for any president regardless of party to have to go through weeks or months of a song and dance with Congress before making a military decision? Anybody that has an actual opinion I'd be glad to hear it.
WSS
Yes, because the powers to declare and regulate War belong solely to Congress, according to the Constitution:
[The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...[and] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".
-Article I, Sec. 8, US Constitution
Are the Democrats in the House hypocrites for wanting to curtail Trump's war powers while not doing so under previous Democratic president administrations? Sure. The same can also be said for Republicans doing the same thing as well during Republican-led administrations, and these represent failures of Congress as a whole to do their job. However, as other posters stated, this is a non-binding resolution from only one chamber of Congress, so it has no real teeth; its just a political stunt. If Congress really wants to limit Trump's war powers, they have the power to do so through passing binding resolutions/laws which do so, or by using their power of the purse to curtail the scope of President Trump's military actions through appropriations bills.
In short, is this just a political stunt by the Democrats? Most likely. Is it wrong for Congress to limit the scope and scale of War powers the President can use? No, because that is their constitutional right and that is how the Founders framed the Constitution. The Constitution was designed so that no President could undertake military action/war without the authorization of Congress. The fact that Congress has lapsed on this responsibility for nearly a century points to a decay in our republic's functioning, and more than likely needs a new Constitutional amendment to further clarify the scope and scale of the President's ability to use military force.
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us".
- Abraham Lincoln
-
what grabbed my attention was the reactions of Sen Mike Lee and Rand Paul after the WH briefing.
you know, when you are representing the republican side of the debate - you are allowed to disagree
even say so - not unlike those on the left and now maybe even from the WH team that ran this briefing.?
so Lee and Paul support "reigning in" military powers of the POTUS
what grabbed my attention was the reactions of Sen Mike Lee and Rand Paul after the WH briefing.
you know, when you are representing the republican side of the debate - you are allowed to disagree
even say so - not unlike those on the left and now maybe even from the WH team that ran this briefing.?
so Lee and Paul support "reigning in" military powers of the POTUS
As far as I know, it has always been the position of Sens. Lee and Paul to curtail presidential encroachment on Congressional powers, and to restore the balance of powers as dictated by the Constitution. Their stance on this matter is less of a Republican v Democrat position as it is a constitutional one. They have been consistent on this view through several presidential administrations.
-
I seriously question the "sixty days". Where does that come from?
An enemy blows up one of our embassies, skirmishes break out...and they go into hiding for about 55 days,
and then the President, especially a Republican president who has been fought, lied about, falsely accused and falsely investigated,
undermined with leaks, etc etc etc by the left...
and we are helpless to fight back after 55 days? So the left refuses to declare war, they go on to slaughter Americans at other embassies, etc etc etc etc, the President is helpless to do anything, the leftwing Congress refuses to let him, and then come time for the presidential election, of course the left would ridicule the Presudent for not fulling his Constitutional Duty to protect us.
Right now, we have congress people in the house who want America to fail at every turn. They can't be trusted with the truth - they will just leak it to the media.
-
what grabbed my attention was the reactions of Sen Mike Lee and Rand Paul after the WH briefing.
you know, when you are representing the republican side of the debate - you are allowed to disagree
even say so - not unlike those on the left and now maybe even from the WH team that ran this briefing.?
so Lee and Paul support "reigning in" military powers of the POTUS
As far as I know, it has always been the position of Sens. Lee and Paul to curtail presidential encroachment on Congressional powers, and to restore the balance of powers as dictated by the Constitution. Their stance on this matter is less of a Republican v Democrat position as it is a constitutional one. They have been consistent on this view through several presidential administrations.
As far as I know, it has always been the position of Sens. Lee and Paul to curtail presidential encroachment on Congressional powers, and to restore the balance of powers as dictated by the Constitution. Their stance on this matter is less of a Republican v Democrat position as it is a constitutional one. They have been consistent on this view through several presidential administrations.
Of course Rand Paul, an erstwhile libertarian, is going to be one of the few that are consistent on this. That's part of the libertarian deal to be against for a military detergent across the board. I have no doubt he'd feel the same way regardless of which president were in the White House.
And I do agree with Cal that I don't think you could trust this particular congress with any kind of sensitive military information. Then again if the tables were turned and the tenor of the two parties relationship or the same as it is now I don't supposed I'd trust Republicans to refrain from sabotaging a Democrat president.
Still over the eight years of Afghanistan escalation by President Obama you didn't hear this kind of hyperventilation over going to war. And there were a lot more casualties there.
WSS
-
As far as I know, it has always been the position of Sens. Lee and Paul to curtail presidential encroachment on Congressional powers, and to restore the balance of powers as dictated by the Constitution. Their stance on this matter is less of a Republican v Democrat position as it is a constitutional one. They have been consistent on this view through several presidential administrations.
Of course Rand Paul, an erstwhile libertarian, is going to be one of the few that are consistent on this. That's part of the libertarian deal to be against for a military detergent across the board. I have no doubt he'd feel the same way regardless of which president were in the White House.
And I do agree with Cal that I don't think you could trust this particular congress with any kind of sensitive military information. Then again if the tables were turned and the tenor of the two parties relationship or the same as it is now I don't supposed I'd trust Republicans to refrain from sabotaging a Democrat president.
Still over the eight years of Afghanistan escalation by President Obama you didn't hear this kind of hyperventilation over going to war. And there were a lot more casualties there.
WSS
Of course Rand Paul, an erstwhile libertarian, is going to be one of the few that are consistent on this. That's part of the libertarian deal that's part of the libertarian deal to be against for a military detergent across the board. I have no doubt he'd feel the same way regardless of which president wore in the White House.
And I do agree with Cal that I don't think you could trust this particular congress with any kind of sensitive military information. Then again if the tables were turned and the tenor of the two parties relationship or the same as it is now I don't supposed I'd trust Republicans to refrain from sabotaging a Democrat president.
Still over the eight years of Afghanistan escalation by President Obama you didn't hear this kind of hyperventilation over going to war. And there were a lot more casualties there.
WSS
So does the Army use Tide or Xtra? Perhaps Arm and Hammer? Personally, I prefer Gain. ?
-
Of course Rand Paul, an erstwhile libertarian, is going to be one of the few that are consistent on this. That's part of the libertarian deal that's part of the libertarian deal to be against for a military detergent across the board. I have no doubt he'd feel the same way regardless of which president wore in the White House.
And I do agree with Cal that I don't think you could trust this particular congress with any kind of sensitive military information. Then again if the tables were turned and the tenor of the two parties relationship or the same as it is now I don't supposed I'd trust Republicans to refrain from sabotaging a Democrat president.
Still over the eight years of Afghanistan escalation by President Obama you didn't hear this kind of hyperventilation over going to war. And there were a lot more casualties there.
WSS
So does the Army use Tide or Xtra? Perhaps Arm and Hammer? Personally, I prefer Gain. ?
So does the Army use Tide or Xtra? Perhaps Arm and Hammer? Personally, I prefer Gain. ?
I must be missing something. ? What I know I missed is this weird quirk with Google Voice typing that sometimes repeats a phrase. Sorry.
PS I think Susan buys Arm & Hammer because it's cheap I would prefer tide because that's what my grandmother used.
WSS
-
So does the Army use Tide or Xtra? Perhaps Arm and Hammer? Personally, I prefer Gain. ?
I must be missing something. ? What I know I missed is this weird quirk with Google Voice typing that sometimes repeats a phrase. Sorry.
PS I think Susan buys Arm & Hammer because it's cheap I would prefer tide because that's what my grandmother used.
WSS
?
I must be missing something. ? What I know I missed is this weird quirk with Google Voice typing that sometimes repeats a phrase. Sorry.
PS I think Susan buys Arm & Hammer because it's cheap I would prefer tide because that's what my grandmother used.
WSS
Of course Rand Paul, an erstwhile libertarian, is going to be one of the few that are consistent on this. That's part of the libertarian deal to be against for a military detergent across the board. I have no doubt he'd feel the same way regardless of which president were in the White House.
?
-
Ahh
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login