It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
For Gerry, giving a single office the entirety of the country’s war powers contradicted the goals of a republic, and he and Madison proposed a quick edit, replacing “make” with “declare” so that the Constitution would read “Congress shall have power to declare war.” The change codified congressional authority but made the clause flexible enough to enable the President to defend the country during emergencies. The delegates worried that Congress would be out of session or would act too slowly if foreign forces invaded America. So, despite their resolve to dilute Executive power, they gave the office an implied authority to “make war” as an insurance policy of sorts for America’s security.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Your claim that getting congressional approval is unprecedented and unnecessary is absolute absurdity--in fact, Obama's own lawyers told him to do so before striking Syria during his presidency, and he did.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
These two grant the POTUS Constitutional authority to utilize military force to not only defend the United States and retaliate against attacks on the United States, but also to reinforce the foreign policy of the United States.
For Gerry, giving a single office the entirety of the country’s war powers contradicted the goals of a republic, and he and Madison proposed a quick edit, replacing “make” with “declare” so that the Constitution would read “Congress shall have power to declare war.” The change codified congressional authority but made the clause flexible enough to enable the President to defend the country during emergencies. The delegates worried that Congress would be out of session or would act too slowly if foreign forces invaded America. So, despite their resolve to dilute Executive power, they gave the office an implied authority to “make war” as an insurance policy of sorts for America’s security.
I don't think it can be argued that "defense of America" ends at America's borders (unless you're Ron Paul, in which case that old coot is simply too detached from reality to carry much weight these days.)
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Executive privilege regarding conducting military strikes outside of Congressional declared wartime is rather specific to situations that mandate a commander in chief sort of emergency response. Right?
The "liberal media" that supposedly wants to DESTROY Trump, yet they wont take this softball that lands on the home plate?
Instead last year, a year ago when Trump bombed that airport in response to that "chemical" "attack", all they've ever done since is frame the issue around how unsuccessful it was.
We're all being played together folks, including against each other, by all the same fountainheads as one another.
They know he has 90 days to convince congress to declare war.
Just like obama did with all them other countries he bombed without them.
Or they are just stupid.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: Gothmog
Can you tell me where in the Constitution ?
I believe I have eye problems and cannot see it...
Bill Clinton took out a baby formula manufacturing plant
Barack Obama took out an aspirin manufacturing plant
Donald Trump took out a bleach plant.
But , I will be waiting on your answer to the first question...
And who put a cruise missile through gaddafi's window?
These assholes in congress better get their poop in a pile.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: burdman30ott6
At this point, you're admitting that the ground is shaky when it comes to the POTUS acting unilaterally--if it was so set in stone, like you claim, and so proven by studying the constitution and citing precedence, then the ground would be rock solid. Yet here we are, with precedent for the action, and it's still exceptionally shaky ground.
I say it's unconstitutional, you don't.
Here we sit, shaking around in the ether of differing opinions and no legal ruling to prove one side right with any finality.
The world in which we always seem to find ourselves anymore when it comes to government authorities.
I'm back away from this thread, now, I think. I've said my piece more than once, with links and quotes and legal experience on the matter. People can obviously have their own opinions regardless.
Best regards.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
This was long, long before the modern era of the UN, US foreign interests, and the like. As time has passed and the world has changed, the understanding of the Executive Branch's powers has also expanded. I don't think it can be argued that "defense of America" ends at America's borders (unless you're Ron Paul, in which case that old coot is simply too detached from reality to carry much weight these days.)
“The Vesting Clause grants the president a wide array of unspecified powers pertaining to foreign affairs.”
You won’t hear this argument in many casual discussions of presidential war powers, but since Yoo cited it in a draft memorandum he wrote for the Department of Defense in early 2002, it’s worth a brief reply.
The Vesting Clause can be found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” According to this view, the Vesting Clause bestows on the president a host of unspecified powers in addition to the specific ones listed in the rest of Article II. The Framers of the Constitution, they say, thereby showed that they wanted the president to exercise all powers that would have been recognized in the eighteenth century as being fundamentally executive in nature, even if those powers are not actually mentioned in the Constitution. Congress, on the other hand, is assigned no such open-ended authority but is instead limited by the Constitution to all “legislative Powers herein granted,” a reference to the specific list of powers that then follows. The conclusion: the president may rightly exercise all powers relating to foreign affairs (since such powers are by their nature executive) except those specifically assigned to Congress.
Unfortunately for Yoo, he will not find any support for his views on executive power and the Vesting Clause in the state constitutions drawn up after 1776, in the Federalist, or in the state ratification debates. Nowhere in the state constitutions do we see any indication of an intent to vest the executive with an array of unspecified powers beyond those that were expressly mentioned. In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton argued that the American president would be much weaker than the British king, and cited the specific list of powers the Constitution grants the president. That argument would have been absurd and dishonest if the Vesting Clause had given the president an additional reservoir of powers beyond those Hamilton catalogued. Curtis Bradley and Martin Flaherty, writing in the Michigan Law Review, conclude that “in the thousands of pages recording these debates the argument that the Vesting Clause grants the president a general foreign affairs power simply does not appear.”
In short, there is no constitutional support for the presidential war powers claimed by mainstream left and right. That’s why they usually wind up claiming that the congressional power to declare war is “obsolete.” They can’t deny its existence, so they deny the document in which it is contained. And that means they lose the argument.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Similarly, "American Security" doesn't know borders nor does it today mean purely America's held land. It meant, at that time, that the Executive branch held the power to defend America and America's interests... not within America's borders, not "only if America is directly assailed" but "defend this country." Fast forward to today and it is just as implicit... "America" is this country, our people, our interests, and our policies.
Again, 100% Constitutional, legal, and right whether you think so or otherwise really doesn't mean a damn thing.