War Powers Act: Constitutional?

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i've read and heard this topic lately and thought it interesting, because the issue is really a nitty gritty legal issue. some say, the WPA is not constitutional. i don't understand that reasoning, as the act was lawfully passed and has not been declared unconstitutional.

the president is the CIC. as CIC i believe he does not have to consult congress to defend or engage in military conduct that will keep this country safe from imminent threats. the actions taken so far in libya (iraq, afghan etc.....as well), could be considered acts of war. i have no doubt if someone launched the same action against us that we would not considered it an act of war. but, we have become political con artists in using terms and have become experts at calling something one thing, when it is really another.

for example:

is there anyone here who does not consider japan's attack on pearl harbor an act of war?
 
this is a subject that you and I tend to disagree on.....alot. 'the law is the law' is nothing more than a slogan for tyrants and despots to control the populace at large and the supreme court is usually wrong on constitutionality of things because they are too partisan and ideological.
 
funny how some don't think our attacks on lilbya are an act of war, but i am sure all think japan's attack on pearl harbor was an act of war
 
King of Proles said:
I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not (probably not), but both are acts of war. Neither were invasions though.
Click to expand...

not you. the guilty know who they are and of course will never respond in this thread despite reading it

we disagree on invasions, i'm ok with that, because i'm never wrong :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top