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.

 

Bill introduced. Acts of war without congress' approval impeachable high crime

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
No.

There is a very good reason for the President to have direct control of the military, while Congress (more specifically the House) controls the funding. It is called Checks and Balances.

At no time should the military be the in the control of a body of politicians that cannot manage to perform their most basic of functions... submitting a budget for approval on time. I could also go on about how Congress has already pawned off all their other duties (Federal Reserve, IRS, USPS, etc.)




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Won't pass. Look at the majority vote that existed for the NDAA; seven members dissented.

The Congress is completely and irredeemably corrupt.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Monsatan
 


No one said anything about declaring war. As President/commander in chief he is allowed to act in a time of emergency without consent of Congress, but only for a limited time.

As for the War Powers Act? So far as I know, no administration has recognized it as matter of law. It's Constitutionality is up for debate...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Right, they control the funding and the declaration of war, while the president and his generals control strategy. Self defense on our soil is not a war, so the president has power in that situation. The danger is when the majority of the populace is convinced the president (one man) can go to another country and start wars. Or they are content with th UN telling us we can go to war without congress' approval, even if they would've given it.

I do agree congress needs an overhaul, but only the people in it. Stripping them of their powers and transferring them to one man is far more dangerous than our current congress, even though they are corrupt at every level

The president can even go to war without approval, but after 60 days (and 30 day withdrawal time) the president must get approval if he wants to continue fighting. So he can get it approved retroactively, but in Libya, Obama didn't even try, just like Clinton in Kosovo. We aren't supposed to be fighting and dying for the UN. It's supposed to be for our freedoms

At least, that's how it's supposed to be


reply to post by seagull
 

My mistake, I thought you were inferring the pres could declare war
The war powers resolution is the reason they can act for a limited time before they must obtain approval. Since its not "recognized" then it only stresses further the need for a bill that gives consequences to not getting that approval.

What's not constitutional is getting our marching orders from a foreign entity in which we have no power to elect our representatives.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Monsatan because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2012 by Monsatan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It just seems like he can do whatever he wants and no one cares.

Some of the threads on here about the BC issues, unbelievable the support this guy has without a leg to stand on.

Like Bill Clinton, teflon...
edit on 8-3-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Wow - it is really sad that we have to have a bill introduced to restate the laws for the POTUS in more severe terms.

I have a vision - the bill will pass congress then sit in committee in the Dem Senate.

To be fair; the opposite would be true if the POTUS were of the other party.

Both sides have selective amnesia when they are in power.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Monsatan
 


No law can be retroactive as it would violate the Constitution on Ex Post Facto laws.

However, its a good start and I feel sends a clear message. Im all for the President exercising his Constitutiontal authority, as well as Congress. Deciding congress is not needed in the approval process is a non starter with me, regardless of which party it is in office.

Pannetta needs to go...
Holder needs to go...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
WAR..USA has not WON a War since WW II

www.youtube.com...

a different point of view

Gerald Celente - political atheist

www.trendsresearch.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


Panama, Grenada, Gulf war I, Gulf war II, Afghanistan, Korea.....

All strategic objectives achieved.

But by all means keep pushing the lie...
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


I know him well, I agree. I'm a political atheist as well.
I need to make a new slogan..." kinetic military action is war"
It's just the group of wars we lost again and again


reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You forgot about Vietnam...
Soon to be Syria, sudan, and Iran

edit on 8-3-2012 by Monsatan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Don't remember those being declared WARS

I served in vietnam and we never took land. We set up firebases and went hunting and then moved on.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
some nobody politician is about to have his 15 minutes...i can tell you that.

Congress would NEVER pass such a thing...Republicans will be in the White House and Democrats will control congress one day, you know this, right?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Don't remember those being declared WARS

I served in vietnam and we never took land. We set up firebases and went hunting and then moved on.


Please show me in the Constitution where it requires Congress to use the term "war" in order to authorize the use of military force?

As far as Vietnam goes did we not come to the requested aid of our ally, South Vietnam? It was the same setup as with S. Korea when N. korea decided to invade the south, we honored our treaty with them, as did the UN.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


Just a kinetic military action, the new war



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
WAR..USA has not WON a War since WW II


True - however, we have also not been involved in a war since then...

The US military does fine when run by the professionals in uniform and not by arm chair generals from the house and senate - that includes the CinC as well who usually know less about the execution of force than my 3 year old kid.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
some nobody politician is about to have his 15 minutes...i can tell you that.

Congress would NEVER pass such a thing...Republicans will be in the White House and Democrats will control congress one day, you know this, right?


Actually, I think this has more chance of passing into law than any regulation OF Government since the original war powers act was put into place. Following how Vietnam kind went from bad idea into active mistake to downright horror show....finally ending in, what even they could see when this was passed, would be defeat, it was a law whose time had come.

You're right that it may not pass this time and probably not before this war starts. However, I believe it's almost a certainty that if this war goes forward, something like this will pass afterward and by popular demand. That may be the only good thing to ever come from what may be about to happen.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Monsatan
 


kinetic military action is just a kind of verbal gymnastics to avoid calling a sustained bombing of a foreign country a “war”



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Starting a war for no good reason is already a war crime. Bush and crew cannot even go to certain countries in Europe because they will be arrested on site. We don't need another law - we need an INTERNATIONAL justice system that actually has authority to arrest those who commit war crimes. This is NOT a US issue - it's a world issue. In fact, I would prefer to see Congress pass a law that says "The US will cooperate fully with all international justice organizations in regards to war crimes." Then Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice etc could finally be put away. But no. We need our "sovereignty". Libya and Obama?? That is small potatoes compared to Bush's crap, seeing as Obama was basically pressured by the international community to go through with it and I don't see many major international players chomping at the bit to have him arrested...

As it is, though, I don't have anything against the sentiment of the law. I just think it would not really get at the real issue, which is that all nation-states live in relative anarchy and have no international governance which would prevent this type of illegal war crap.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
John Adams started the military action beyond the approval of Congress a long time ago. Pretty much since the birth of the nation this how it has worked.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join