Well, I'll be...

[Kuciwalker]

In fact, it's an open question whether Congress can prevent the President from initiating hostilities against a foreign power. (He is commander in chief of the armed forces, but only Congress can declare war.)

[DinoDoc]

I think he gets to bomb people for 30 days before seeking permission.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In fact, it's an open question whether Congress can prevent the President from initiating hostilities against a foreign power. (He is commander in chief of the armed forces, but only Congress can declare war.)

Silly right wing talk radio hosts are not a valid source for Constitutional law.

[Kuciwalker]

Relevant sections of the Constitution (for OB):

Article 1, Section 8:

Congress shall have the power...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Silly right wing talk radio hosts are not a valid source for Constitutional law.

I don't listen to the radio or TV, dufus. I talk about constitutional law with lawyers who practice[d] it.

[Kuciwalker]

The War Powers Resolution, which binds the President to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Every President since Nixon has held it as unconstitutional, and it has never been tested in court.

[Dinner]

Read history and have more of a basis for your silly arguments then some partisan hack on Fox News. Deny you listen all you want but the funny thing is you mimic their positions on just about everything so pardon me if I don't trust your claims.

Edit: A quick google search shows that many of the people who were claiming that Bush could wire tap any American they pleased without a warrant despite not several duly passed laws which say other wise are now also pushing this garbage claim that Bush can do what ever he wants without Congressional approval. Of course this claim flies in the face of what actually has occurred in the last 200 years of American history. I'm sure Kuci prefers to continue parroting Fox News though.

[Kuciwalker]

Unlike Oerdin, I know WTF I'm talking about.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Read history and have more of a basis for your silly arguments then some partisan hack on Fox News. Deny you listen all you want but the funny thing is you mimic their positions on just about everything so pardon me if I don't trust your claims.

I'm covering up my shameful Fox-watching

[Dinner]

Why you keep parroting Fox News' latest partisan headlines but keep denying you watch? Either way you are certainly parroting the right wing propaganda so you must be getting it from some right wing source.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unlike Oerdin, I know don't WTF I'm talking about.

Fixed to reflect reality.

[Dinner]

I'm off to work.

[Kuciwalker]

If the War Powers Resolution were ever tested in court (unlikely) the court would probably call it a political question and toss it back to Congress. It'd then be up to them to cut funds or impeach the President.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unlike Oerdin, I know don't WTF I'm talking about.

Fixed to reflect reality.

[Kuciwalker]

IMO, as much as it may be a problem in this case, I think it's a good idea to keep the CINC power concentrated in the executive.