posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:34 PM
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.
8-3-2012 by Monsatan because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2012 by Monsatan because: (no reason given)