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.

 

Trump's "minor" attacks completely out of Constitutional scope

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Trump, as we have seen this weekend, had a majority of support of his actions, placing him in what Justice Jackson would have considered a legitimate, solid position.


Yeah because Republican's and Democrat's have the best interests of We The Little People at heart?

Any other day most people I ever see around here can agree they're all chumps serving corporate interests, all of which march to the drummer of MSM talking points (note that FOX is MSM too), but OH time to overthrow a government and blow up some babies and woo hoo get er done!
edit on 16-4-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not a Neocon by any stretch. Look, would I have struck Syria? Possibly not, I really can't say I give a rat's ass how many of his own people Assad does or does not murder. Do I have a problem with our government flexing and firing missiles into Syria? No, I can't say that I do. But none of that is the question here. You're making an argument that it wasn't a Constitutional act and I'm saying you're flat out wrong. We can sit here fiddling with our sacks all day while we discuss the merits and, conversely, negatives of the action, but let's not make a mess on the floor making BS claims that it somehow violated the Constitution.

Oh, and I didn't use 110% because as wrong as you are, it is still mathematically impossible for you to be 110% in the wrong.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Trump, as we have seen this weekend, had a majority of support of his actions, placing him in what Justice Jackson would have considered a legitimate, solid position.


Yeah because Republican's and Democrat's have the best interests of We The Little People at heart?

Any other day most people I ever see around here can agree they're all chumps serving corporate interests, all of which march to the drummer of MSM talking points (note that FOX is MSM too), but OH time to overthrow a government and blow up some babies and woo hoo get er done!


Of course Congress doesn't give a flip about the average American... what else is new and what in the blue hell does that have to do with the Constitutionality of Trump's decision? OMFG man, your chain of logic here is a real hoot and a half. "I know what'll win me this one... Hey everybody, Congres sucks, Amirite? Yeah, ha ha, eff those Congressmen. Now can we get a little support for my BS claims that the Constitution was violated on a military strike because Congress didn't call it a crime and I hate 'em for serving corporate interests? Anybody? Bueller? Anyone? Hello, is this thing on?"

LMAO



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
and blow up some babies and woo hoo get er done!


This deserves it's own response, friend.
argumentum ad passiones alive and well in this week's episode of "How many Logical Fallacies Can We Cram Into Threads This Week?"

My jimmies remain completely unrustled, but your appear to be in a bit of a tizzy. Out of curiosity, since you brought it to the table, how many lil babies have been claimed to have been killed by Friday's strikes? I looked around and, well this is awkward, I'm not seeing Syria or Russia claiming any civilian deaths from those strikes at all. But damn, that can't be. Appeals to emotion, as most of us are aware, are as effective as a fart in a windstorm when made in absence of any actual emotion-worthy evidence. So I'm at a bit of a loss here.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not a Neocon by any stretch.


Dude in another thread I can pull up you said you still support the Iraq War, just not how it was all handled in hindsight (or something like that). Well that was Neocon policy.

Now we're discussing the core thing that allows the neocon types (which includes the DNC too) to run amok across the planet as an imposing imperialist war machine, and you're in here beating your chest like a deaf gorilla.

You support major incursions on North Korea, and Iran if they dont do what they're told?? I'll bet that betting you do wouldnt even be making a wager.

And then attacking Syria, even more, even after "our" (neocon) policies have already destroyed that little nation, you're obviously in line with that.

Well that's all the way of the Neocon. All that kind of warhawk posturing is what makes a neocon a neocon and not a mere conservative.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
and blow up some babies and woo hoo get er done!


This deserves it's own response, friend.
argumentum ad passiones alive and well in this week's episode of "How many Logical Fallacies Can We Cram Into Threads This Week?"



originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Trump, as we have seen this weekend, had a majority of support of his actions, placing him in what Justice Jackson would have considered a legitimate, solid position.


Argumentum ad populum




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

...and yet here I sit, not a neocon. I'm in favor of the US government hitting anyone outside America's borders as much as it desires because it keeps them occupied and off the asses of the American people, period. No I don't care about the casualties in far off lands, no I don't care about feels and gnashing of teeth, and no I don't care about the expense purely because we're going to spend that money on weapons regardless of who we have in office. The US is essentially the South African Boers in a world of Apartheid. We remove our boot from the world's neck, guess who's gonna be destroyed? It's realistic, not neocon. I don't want American empiralism, I want American domination on the highest levels. Let countries take care of their own internal issues, but by God their governments fearing the reaper which the US has been over the past 70 years is far, far more desirable to me than them redirecting their internal problems into strikes against the US (as we saw on 9.11).

I supported hitting Iraq and I supported leveling Iraq. I did not support troops in Iraq nor reconstruction nor turning it into a business for military contractors. We should have hit Iraq until it lay in total ruins, sucked out every drop of oil, gold, and antiquities, and then left like shadows in the night never to return, period. I understand why that didn't happen, but I don't agree with it not happening.

I don't support "incursions" into North Korea or Iran, I support shelling them until they're too broken to ever consider issuing another threat to my country. Never an American boot should touch those soils unless it is to accept the heads of Kim Jong Il and the Ayatollah on pikes from their defeated civilian population who finally realized what the US wanted and gave it to us.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
and blow up some babies and woo hoo get er done!


This deserves it's own response, friend.
argumentum ad passiones alive and well in this week's episode of "How many Logical Fallacies Can We Cram Into Threads This Week?"



originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Trump, as we have seen this weekend, had a majority of support of his actions, placing him in what Justice Jackson would have considered a legitimate, solid position.


Argumentum ad populum



Except for the fact that it is the Constitutional heirarchy as laid down in the letter of the law... If a majority of Congress agrees with the POTUS and the SCOTUS fails to hear a case against the Constitutionality of the decision, it is considered to be Constitutional and perfectly legal. That's not a populist argument, it's simply factual per our laws.

Can you show me the dying babies clause in the Constitution somewhere to justify your use of the emotional argument fallacy? Hmm?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

...and yet here I sit, not a neocon. I'm in favor of the US government hitting anyone outside America's borders as much as it desires because it keeps them occupied and off the asses of the American people, period.


That's the precise logic the Neocon's follow, which keeps creating "enemies" in its wake.

Neocon policy is kind of like that old saying about lawyers: 'Lawyers are the only thing that we wouldnt need if they didnt exist'.


No I don't care about the casualties in far off lands, no I don't care about feels and gnashing of teeth, and no I don't care about the expense purely because we're going to spend that money on weapons regardless of who we have in office. The US is essentially the South African Boers in a world of Apartheid. We remove our boot from the world's neck, guess who's gonna be destroyed? It's realistic, not neocon. I don't want American empiralism, I want American domination on the highest levels. Let countries take care of their own internal issues, but by God their governments fearing the reaper which the US has been over the past 70 years is far, far more desirable to me than them redirecting their internal problems into strikes against the US (as we saw on 9.11).

I supported hitting Iraq and I supported leveling Iraq. I did not support troops in Iraq nor reconstruction nor turning it into a business for military contractors. We should have hit Iraq until it lay in total ruins, sucked out every drop of oil, gold, and antiquities, and then left like shadows in the night never to return, period. I understand why that didn't happen, but I don't agree with it not happening.

I don't support "incursions" into North Korea or Iran, I support shelling them until they're too broken to ever consider issuing another threat to my country. Never an American boot should touch those soils unless it is to accept the heads of Kim Jong Il and the Ayatollah on pikes from their defeated civilian population who finally realized what the US wanted and gave it to us.


So slaughtering MILLIONS of people, completely devastating raping and pillaging an entire nation is totally super cool in your book.

But in the case of Iraq, what's your just cause to have done it exactly?

Out of curiosity, have you enlisted yet?

How would "we" have raped Iraq for all those precious resources without boots on the ground?

And how would they have gotten Saddam without stepping on Iraqi soil?

Saddam who was a Neocon creation (gone wrong as all their stuff does) to begin with.


edit on 16-4-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And yet SlapMonkey pulled up all kinds of citations to cut yours down to size, yet here you are arguing with me, in a rusty state on this stuff, talking about arguing from emotions, while you're doing the same damn thing while dodging his stronger albeit more mild mannered arguments and citations.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So slaughtering MILLIONS of people, completely devastating raping and pillaging an entire nation is totally super cool in your book.


My bloodline is Viking, Norman, German, and Slavic, what do you think?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Slapmonkey posted opinion pieces, I posted actual citations to the Constitution and a SCOTUS ruling related to the importance of agreement between Congress and the Executive branch... He or she also hasn't replied since my last reply to him or her. Also, he or she wasn't the person who started this entire thread on an incorrect statement. You, however, have replied and were the OP.




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   
It has likely been mentioned but it is in section 2 of the constitution and the wording basically he can unilaterally take action in order to protect american interest.

However that leeds to interpretation of what our interest are in Syria.

IMO We have none but in others they have decided otherwise time and time again.

It is clear that this point we need an accountability clause addition in order for congress to judge such actions even if after the fact as to possibly tighten up the interpretation of said laws.

How about a three strike and you are out rule to go with that accountability clause.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


And the UN Charter says exactly that which I quoted.

And much more.

Article 41 provides for non-military intervention.

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.


Article 42 provides for military intervention.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Article 48 and Article 49 provide for the members' participation in any decisions made by the UN Security Council:

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.


The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.


Article 42 is specifically referenced in the United Nations Participation Act, to wit:

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.


In simpler language, the President is specifically not required to obtain Congressional approval to undertake military actions in accordance with Security Council resolutions, except that the President may not take military actions on special agreements he has entered into which have not been approved by the Congress. The resolutions are not special agreements. they are normal operation under Articles 42, 48, and 49.

That's what the thing says.

That's the law.

Live with it, or petition Congress to get us out of the UN. I would prefer the latter.


Now, as to whether or not the President must obtain Congressional approval for any military action, that is ludicrous. If North Korea launches a nuke at the West Coast tomorrow, I suppose you would expect the military to stand silent until Congress debates whether or not we should respond, how hard we should respond, the timetable to respond, and the cost of the response. Oh, and certainly we should also wait for any federal judges to hand down the mandatory injunctions on military response until they can hear the case in three months.

Right?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So slaughtering MILLIONS of people, completely devastating raping and pillaging an entire nation is totally super cool in your book.


My bloodline is Viking, Norman, German, and Slavic, what do you think?


So being a bloodthirsty psychopathic savage / tyrant is a genetically inherited trait?

That's about the most racist thing a person could ever say.

Really though its just a rationalization where historical concepts are used to justify full fledged appeal to backwards barbaric tendencies. Primitive.

Its time to get off the party propaganda and culturally evolve, my son.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I care deeply... eh, on the other hand no, no I really don't, which was why I provided a Flippant reply to your comment. I am whatever you say I am, I'm well past sitting and arguing any of that noise... say, we're you able to find any evidence of those civilian (specifically baby) Syrian deaths you tried to use as an emotional fulcrum in this conversation?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

193 nations in the UN, so how come its generally only the US using it as an excuse to do every attack?

If nations are "supposed" to attack because of UN decision then how come its mainly only the US that ever does it?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



Friggin congress doesn't do their job.




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: carewemust

Horse crap. Civilians, non-combatants will have died in these air strikes, because they always do and you know what happens then? Some orphaned lad, or some father of murdered children, some daughter of murdered parents, is left in the dust, with only one question on their young impressionable minds, the same questions that would be on my mind in the same situation. Who launched that assault, and how do I go about killing them?

And despite the fact that this is a human reaction to being wronged, a reaction that is the exact same for every war orphaned child without access to mental healthcare facilities, or a peaceful place to rest, despite every father and mother who loses a child to malicious and violent acts, all over the world, having the depth of grief necessary to cause them to take up what arms they may have available against whatever harmed their children, its only when WE in the West cause this harm to others, that we claim that those we are bombing are "animals" or that their culture is toxic.

Airstrikes create terrorism. Unwelcome and unwanted military occupation creates terrorism. A government unchecked and unaccountable to its people, employing and funding terror groups in other nations, thereby to destabilise those regions for the purpose of allowing their rich friends to snap up otherwise untouchable resources, or raise the prices of commodities like oil for example, specifically and by definition creates terrorism. No solution to the terror issue or to Assad himself, comes from bombing the living hell out of a region and calling it diplomacy. No solution to any of the worlds problems comes from blowing up heaps of people, all in order to tag a few units of a weakened military force, already fighting several fronts within its own nation, against proxy armies controlled by the west. All the actions committed by Trump have achieved, is the creation of more terrorism and an escalation of a desperately delicate series of international tensions.

You can argue till you are blue in the face, but once again we are in a situation where you are welcome to your own opinion, but you are not welcome to your own reality. You and I live in the same one, and the only thing your opinion has to show for itself, is how poorly you have understood the reality before you, not what the reality is, what it looks like, or what it means for the future.


Holy freaking appeal to emotions, Batman! Do we have a body count from the two Trump strikes? You can't say they have, "because they always do".

As for the rest of that emotional boo-hooing dribble, terrorism already exists there. That's the reality. Someone else already committed us to Syria, remember? So now we're involved in the mess, when most of us don't want to be. But lord knows had he done nothing, you and the rest of your ilk would've jumped up and down crying "hey look, he's under Putin's thumb!". Minor strikes > Occupation and red lines.

I can see it now though;

"The US pulls out of Syria"

"Tensions between Assad and Rebels escalates"

Nobodies sitting at their computers: "Why did the US leave? This is horrible! Someone should do something, like invade and depose Assad!"

Me: ....



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: namehere

Yes, POTUS does. All that you cited is where the constitution gives the power of control of the military during approved actions to the President. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers at the time of drafting the constitution, you would understand that reality.

Power to direct the military is not synonymous with the power to declare war.

There are scholarly articles and well-written discussions on the topic that show as much, a couple of which I noted in a previous comment.




War was not declared on syria. The POTUS can send military anywhere he wants without a declaration of war.

Korea, Grenada? Viet Nam?

I remember Libya and everyone was saying obama had 90 days until congress had to yay or nay.

So what changed?

Trump is doing it?

F you idiots.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join