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.

 

Ron Paul Agitates Jim Baker 3-5-09

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   


The war powers resolution said that the President can go to war without a declaration of war or consent from congress for up to 60 days (congress must be notified in 48 hours), but the troops cannot stay without a congressional approval after that point. (Nevermind the fact that the original war powers act is unconstitutional and the power to declare war is that of the Congress alone.)

So this committee is coming up with a new law to replace the War Powers Act and the idea they came up with is that the president and a congressional joint committee meet and discuss whether or not to continue the war.

So under the proposed law:

President wants to go to war.
If war lasts more than a week, President consults with joint Congressional committee.
Committee says war is ok and the President is allowed to continue the war! No vote from congress, just the committee makes this vote.
After 30 days the congress must either declare war or authorize the war. If neither are done then there must be a vote of approval.
For congress to stop the war they must vote down the vote of approval, then there will be a separate vote of disapproval.
The vote of disapproval passes congress and senate.
President vetos the vote of disapproval.
Veto must be overriden, which requires 2/3 of the congress!
Then according to the committee's report (of which Jim Baker is a co-chair) the president can still ignore the vote of disapproval because it is NON BINDING !
Source:
www.node...


Additional Links:

millercenter.org...

thehill.com...

www.slate.com...

www.usatoday.com...




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
From this this old soldiers point of view [old school]
The President of the US of A is the commander and chief and has the right to declare war and deploy troops this argument has gone on for so many decades! Sheesh.




[edit on 6-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
From this this old soldiers point of view [old school]
The President of the US of A is the commander and chief and has the right to declare war and deploy troops this argument has gone on for so many decades! Sheesh.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by SLAYER69]


Translated: YEAHHHHHHH TOTALITARIANISMMMMMMMM

You could live in that world but not everyone else wants to



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I changed the video
You can say that but...
That's what this country was founded on and now everybody and their brother thinks they can do better than our founding fathers, well in that case lets just throw the constitution right out the window.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
If you can't convince the majority of Congress war is necessary, we have no business going.

I think the President should have the power to use troops as he feels fit on a small scale. But large scale 'boots on the ground' operations definitely ought to have Congressional oversight unless the President can identify an 'urgent' threat (anotherwords, attack is imminent, not next month, but today). If the President abuses this power, he should be held accountable.

Every power the President has is derived from Congress, and with every concession they make, they give him more. While, a powerful executive is necessary, it is also dangerous. The most disturbing part of this video was when Baker essentially said that the President can do whatever he wants-- at least this way we can talk to him about it? Really? Perhaps, Mr. Baker needs a refresher on the Constitution. Congress holds the ultimate decision in every scenario considering they have a 2/3 majority vote the way they want to go. Sounds fair to me.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This says, as an issue of war for the USA, one man decides.
I don't think our founding fathers would be okay with this whatsoever.
If this isn't a sign of dictatorship to someone, they are blind, period!

[edit on 6-3-2009 by unityemissions]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
No stars for me tonight.
OK
This makes no sense at all on the one hand the President has the "Football" never leaving his side just in case the SHTF and he at a moments notice can push the button and destroy mankind and on the other cannot declare a conventional war?

Where is that written exactly? show me that!

I like Ron and he states in his opening statement that the change was written during all the anti war movements of the early 70s.

They didn't like the way it was so they amended it





[edit on 6-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
President can launch nukes wherever he wants whenever he wants-- he is the Commander-and-Chief. But like any commander, if he acts unlawfully (against the Constitution, breaking treaties, or otherwise murdering an innocent people, etc) he will be held accountable for his actions. And honestly, the football isn't for unmitigated use of all nukes, its for use of any. The idea is that during the Cold War, at any time, the Soviets could have launched an attack, and US would have had to respond in full force immediately-- and waiting for Congress would be pure stupidity--we were already in a defacto state of war with the Soviets. Today, however, I seriously doubt the 'big red button' approach still exists if it really ever did. No one wants nuclear war-- its the last option, if it even is one.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ragman
 


Good point but in that case if this gets changed and that scenario plays out we would not be able to do anything until we get some sort of approval from congress by that time it's lights out sianara



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
A president just doesn't up and declare an action. He receives information from various agencies and conducts an opinion of his options with the cabinet (all of whom are congressionally approved advisors) and with the joint chiefs. Yes, he has the football. Yes, he can call a strike without permission from Congress. But those orders go through a chain of command that can question those orders.

So the Eiffel Tower can not get a thermal nuclear spot weld job just because the sitting president is tired of the French disrespecting the American people. Although many of the soldiers that actually turn the keys might be all for it on that reason alone.

Only the president can sign a treaty, on the caveat that the Senate has to approve it. He can send representatives from his cabinet to pave the way for a treaty and even discuss terms. But it most certainly is not a function of The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi to be doing such. And may have done it under W as well as Obama.

One power that the president does have, that as far as I know has never been used, is to adjourn Congress until such time he feels is proper. The closest was when Clinton shutdown the Federal Government over the budget for a short period twice.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Congress has the power to declare war that's what's in the Constitution and as Dr.Paul said we would a lot better off if we stuck to that of course getting rid of that little provision would be a dream come true for the Military/Industrial Complex but thank the gods that we have people like Ron Paul around to stop them from bringing about a military junta in the US.




top topics



 
2

log in

join