A challenge for both right & left

Robo

Robo

Verified User
Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution, “The Congress shall have the power to………declare war…….”

Article Six, United States Constitution…..”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Article Five, United States Constitution.”The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ……….”

I challenge any and all rightist and or leftist to explain how the Congress can and has passed a “War Powers Resolution” that overrides that constitutional clause without a constitutional amendment.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how I lost the right to my property to the 16th amendment. But I did?
 
Liberty said:
I'm still trying to figure out how I lost the right to my property to the 16th amendment. But I did?
Click to expand...

At least the bastards passed an amendment even though it contradicts every other principle of the Constitution and flies in the face of freedom.

As the bastards operate today totally outside of constitutional rule of law the scum-bags swear to uphold, they could have just put a fucking gun in our backs and told the truth, “This Is A Fucking Stick Up.”
 
Classic Liberal said:
At least the bastards passed an amendment even though it contradicts every other principle of the Constitution and flies in the face of freedom.

As the bastards operate today totally outside of constitutional rule of law the scum-bags swear to uphold, they could have just put a fucking gun in our backs and told the truth, “This Is A Fucking Stick Up.”
Click to expand...
The truth is the truth.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution, “The Congress shall have the power to………declare war…….”

Article Six, United States Constitution…..”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Article Five, United States Constitution.”The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ……….”

I challenge any and all rightist and or leftist to explain how the Congress can and has passed a “War Powers Resolution” that overrides that constitutional clause without a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

First off, you can thank the leftie Democrats that controlled Congress in 1973 for passing this resolution in an effort to reign in Dick Nixon because they believed that Nixon was a greater threat to our nation than the Commies. Yes I know it sounds retarded, but Liberals tend to be incredibly retarded to believe in a historically failed Progressive Liberal ideology and agenda in the first place.

But here is an article that answers your question brilliantly:

Virginia Law Review

ARTICLE: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

FEBRUARY, 1984

70 Va. L. Rev. 101

Author

Stephen L. Carter *

Excerpt

ANYONE wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 1 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution. That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." 2 If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance.

Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power. Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 and, although matters have been complicated by the United States Supreme Court's decision late last Term in Immigration and Naturalization Service ...

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=8097a102e8ea1f9f0f3c01b0164b8b49
 
Truth Detector said:
First off, you can thank the leftie Democrats that controlled Congress in 1973 for passing this resolution in an effort to reign in Dick Nixon because they believed that Nixon was a greater threat to our nation than the Commies. Yes I know it sounds retarded, but Liberals tend to be incredibly retarded to believe in a historically failed Progressive Liberal ideology and agenda in the first place.
Click to expand...

It sounds retarded if you believe Democrats were actually trying to ”reign in” Nixon by giving him unconstitutional powers to conduct wars without a congressional declaration of war. They could have impeached the bastard for constitutional violation crimes

Are you a fucking idiot or what?
 
Classic Liberal said:
It sounds retarded if you believe Democrats were actually trying to ”reign in” Nixon by giving him unconstitutional powers to conduct wars without a congressional declaration of war. They could have impeached the bastard for constitutional violation crimes

Are you a fucking idiot or what?
Click to expand...

It sounds retarded to you because you're an idiot who hasn't the first clue what this resolution did and what it's intent is, or anything for that matter. Perhaps if you had the reading comprehension beyond a gullible lemming, you would gather a clue on what it means.

It's intent is to prevent a President from acting without engaging Congress on any act of war. Democrats, who were responsible for getting us into Vietnam, deflected the Vietnam War onto Richard Nixon who had campaigned to get us out of Vietnam. It was the way Democrat Presidents had involved us in Indo China that caused the 1973 resolution to be passed, not to enable Presidents, but to limit them which is why the debate over Constitutional separation of power.

Did you read the article I posted, or just gloss over it without attempting to comprehend it so you can continue to remove all doubt that you are nothing more than a vulgar, gullible buffoon?
 
Truth Detector said:
It's intent is to prevent a President from acting without engaging Congress on any act of war. Democrats, who were responsible for getting us into Vietnam, deflected the Vietnam War onto Richard Nixon who had campaigned to get us out of Vietnam. It was the way Democrat Presidents had involved us in Indo China that caused the 1973 resolution to be passed, not to enable Presidents, but to limit them which is why the debate over Constitutional separation of power.
Click to expand...

Oh! That’s brilliant. The objective is to prevent a President from acting, (prosecuting a fucking war), without engaging Congress, so they write a resolution that Presidents have used to engage in war without engaging the Congress ever since. If that’s not the case, Obama is claiming he can and could prosecute actions against Syria with or without congressional approval and every legal expert I’ve seen claims he’s correct?

But there is no fucking rational debate over constitutional war powers. The Constitution in its original form gives the power to declare war to THE CONGRESS moron! There’s no constitutional authority or power for a President to declare war or to prosecute a war without a declaration of war from the Congress. Every President that has involved us in a war without a congressional declaration of war is a fucking war criminal guilty of a high crime and could have and should have been impeached and removed from office.

The war powers resolution is unconstitutional. Such legislation can only be made constitutional by a constitutional amendment because such legislation opposes and changes constitutional war powers as mandated by the Constitution without ratified amendment by the states and thereby the people.

The war powers resolution is simply legalized corruption and criminal action taken against our Constitution, by a cowardly and corrupt Congress attempting to proxy it’s sworn duty and authority to the executive branch in case the shit hit the fan like it did in Vietnam and every other stupid fucking undeclared unconstitutional fucking war since 1945.
 
Truth Detector said:
It sounds retarded to you because you're an idiot who hasn't the first clue what this resolution did and what it's intent is, or anything for that matter. Perhaps if you had the reading comprehension beyond a gullible lemming, you would gather a clue on what it means.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words Goober. You’ve explained yourself perfectly. It all boils down to what the definition of is, is, ah I mean what the definition of war is, right numb-nuts?

WAR: a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles. (Encarta English Dictionary)
 
I would say it's because both sides say "to hell with the constitution. I want it MY way and if it means screw the Constitution, tough!"
 
Mrs Magoo said:
I would say it's because both sides say "to hell with the constitution. I want it MY way and if it means screw the Constitution, tough!"
Click to expand...

Actually, Congress passing the war powers resolution was technically an attempt to re-write the intent of the Constitution. Neither the executive branch or the Legislative branch liked it for various reasons.
 
Truth Detector said:
Actually, Congress passing the war powers resolution was technically an attempt to re-write the intent of the Constitution
Click to expand...

For your information you retarded pompous asshole, that’s exactly the point my thread here was making. The fucking War powers act is unconstitutional and all of the fucking Washington bastards know it. It’s legalized corruption just like most of what they do in Washington.

Congress cannot constitutionally proxy its constitutional authority and duty to a President without a constitutional amendment and no President can constitutionally prosecute any war without a declaration of war from the Congress.
 
Classic Liberal said:
For your information you retarded pompous asshole, that’s exactly the point my thread here was making. The fucking War powers act is unconstitutional and all of the fucking Washington bastards know it. It’s legalized corruption just like most of what they do in Washington.

Congress cannot constitutionally proxy its constitutional authority and duty to a President without a constitutional amendment and no President can constitutionally prosecute any war without a declaration of war from the Congress.
Click to expand...

Oh looky here; an arrogant vulgar retarded pompous asshole calling others retarded assholes! How ironic.

Carry on asshole.
 
Truth Detector said:
Oh looky here; an arrogant vulgar retarded pompous asshole calling others retarded assholes! How ironic.

Carry on asshole.
Click to expand...

Whatamatter fucking know-it-all obnoxious BIG shot? Have you discovered you’ve had your pea-brained head up your sorry stinking ass? Ya all out of fucking absurd arguments actually relevant to the subject matter? Have you reduced yourself entirely to the feeble tactic of silly insults? How cute!!!
 
Libertarians are the only party that is smart about war. It's not about "Make love, not war" and it's not about "Putin offended us! Let's bomb him *beats chest*"

It's the ability to differentiate Unnecessary war from Necessary war that America has lost. War is expensive in cost and we lose many soldiers/parents/children/family in the process of war. War is not something to be taken lightly and the American people should know all the information behind the reason for war if war is started.

I say make love, and make war when it's necessary. But focus on diplomacy when possible because the pen is mightier than the sword.
 
Anti-Party said:
Libertarians are the only party that is smart about war. It's not about "Make love, not war" and it's not about "Putin offended us! Let's bomb him *beats chest*"

It's the ability to differentiate Unnecessary war from Necessary war that America has lost. War is expensive in cost and we lose many soldiers/parents/children/family in the process of war. War is not something to be taken lightly and the American people should know all the information behind the reason for war if war is started.

I say make love, and make war when it's necessary. But focus on diplomacy when possible because the pen is mightier than the sword.
Click to expand...


so gassing your own people to a man woman and child is fine?

your a sociopath
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top