Cheney: A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism!

[Giancarlo]

I don't agree with you, Oerdin, on that assessment of Afghanistan. Does the highway built mean anything? Or the growing power of the central government? Yes the Army could be bigger, but the country is fractured and fragmented. It'll take years.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The way in which all our wars have been started since ww2 appears to imply that this line in the constituion had no meaning whatsoever.

Congress voting for a bill giving the President the power to invade country X at his choosing is sufficient to satisfy the Constitutional mandate, IMO. After all the President IS the Commander-in-Chief and Congress authorizing war and then giving the President the authority to initiate war at his convenience is a declaration of war for all intents and purposes. They don't have to pass something that specifically says "Declaration of War" on it.

And GePap, Congress has in past authorized the executive branch to be able to make regulations stemming from laws which have been passed. That's the only way that executive agencies have been able to enforce some of the laws which have been passed. This is the same precept. Congress passes a law authorizing force and giving the President the right to decide when to initate that force.

It sounds as if for those wars in which congress passed legislation of any kind implying use of force against a specific enemy the legislation is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war. Is that how it works?

[Ned]

Geronimo, Yes. It really cannot work in any other fashion because the laws of war, even from the time of Cicero, require an ultimatum. A president cannot give an ultimatum without the authorization from Congress that, should the ultimatum fail, a state of war shall exist.

Even though the above is the ultimate reason for a prior Congressional authorization, the resolutions are typically worded in even more vague fashion in order to give the president a lot of room to negotiate.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This is the problem I have with Joe's position. I have a good friend who just so happens to be an Indian Sikh. Post 9/11 there were all sorts of red necks looking for brown skinned "Arab looking" people and unfortunately Sikhs fit that discription to an uneducated piece of white trash. Sikhs are not muslims nor Hindus but their religion does call on males to wear a turban on their head so, like Jews wearing Yamicas, the Sikhs stand out and make easy targets for bigots.

I just wrote a statement of what if. Boy did it get a reaction.

However if I did see some people that don't live in my court and they were drawing a diagram of the court and taking measurement, I would call the Police.

Our local 7-11 is run by an Arab, and he and I get along very well.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Geronimo
It sounds as if for those wars in which congress passed legislation of any kind implying use of force against a specific enemy the legislation is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war. Is that how it works?

It may have the same results as a declaration of war, but it isn't technically.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It sounds as if for those wars in which congress passed legislation of any kind implying use of force against a specific enemy the legislation is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war. Is that how it works?

Yep, basically. It's now established practice. And it isn't like anyone can raise a suit over it (no one has any standing... and it's a political question), and no one will impeach the President, if he was acting on authority from a Congressional resolution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I hope this is you just thinking it wouldn't be reformed properly and not you saying the curent system is the most perfect a human mind could devise?

Correct. The only politicians talking about tort reform basically want to take away our right to sue or limit the damages we can recover. I am not down with that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Correct. The only politicians talking about tort reform basically want to take away our right to sue or limit the damages we can recover. I am not down with that.

You are, though, up for the high costs that result from runaway juries.