It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:57 PM
This bill is a joke

If Obama wants a war for Israel and ask for the congress permission
It will obviously be granted

Congress in their decision has never prooven me wrong
3/4 are zionist supporters firstly
and secondly most of them are corrupted to their olds bones they have
money can buy anythings in Washington even senators

if Netanyahu say he is attacking Iran
Aipac will order Obama to say lets go
and Aipac will order the congress so they can say to Obama lets go
edit on 3/9/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by Monsatan

Thanks for your post! I do like the sound of this bill. Now if only, it were passed.. Doubtful. But I am hopeful! I will no doubt, pass this along!!

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
The Constitution is one of the greatest governing edicts ever drafted. I really don’t know why our government officials don't follow it (although I have some theories).

As for the Bill, I love the underlying idea behind this legislation (i.e., put a proper check on Executive powers) since I love the Constitution, but why do we need a Bill to follow or enforce the Constitution? Just follow the Constitution, and when it's not followed enforce it. I don’t care whether you belong to a certain political party or are independent … it’s really that simple.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
Can this be retro-activated? Because I would love to see the Bush administration behind bars.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
I always thought the president could order troops into combat, but only for 90 days, and then needed to get congress' approval.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by Skewed

I agree its a bullcrap bill. But, at least the bill if passed leaves no room for a President to twist the constitution depending on its desires.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 04:02 PM
Would that it could be retroactive! ! and it is no joke! ever since Congress caved in on the War Powers Act back in the 60s, The Executive Branch has supported consistent further erosion of Congressional powers under the constitution (and, of course, that act wasn't able to even able to touch covert actions). The NSA really blew Congressional war War Powers out of the water in 1947 and it's been all downhill from there. It's now just way too easy for presidents take us to war over any claim of a "compelling national interest". Let's pass it, but also mean it!

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by Evil_Santa

"I always thought the president could order troops into combat, but only for 90 days, and then needed to get congress' approval." - Evil Santa

This is true pursuant to the War Powers Resolution enacted in 1973, however, the specifics and scope of the powers are supposed to be limited. The legislation specifically states in its purpose section that "the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." We all know this limitation has not been followed.

Moreover, many scholars believe this isn't even Constitutional since the legislation is attempting to carve out that which the Constitution already addresses. In fact, they are likely correct, as presidents have historically broadened their powers under the guise of this legislation.

Sounds a bit familiar ... where have I hear of a Bill that is trying to legislate that which the Constitution already dictates ... but I digress. Like I said before ... love the idea, but what should be happening is our leaders should be following and enforcing the Constitution.
edit on 9-3-2012 by APad08 because: Want to add prior quote by poster.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by sith9157

As you now can clearly see it is not only a Bush thing, welcome to Mr Obama's NWO

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Skewed
This is all bullcrap. We do not need a law to do this, it is an utter waste of time and money. We already have the infrastructure in place to handle things like this, it is called The Constitution. Enforce it damnit!!!!
edit on 8-3-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)


When the law is already written into the Constutition Congress just have to act on the standing law ..... not make up new laws which are duplicate of what now exists.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:54 PM
I think their heart is in the right place here, but a new law to enforce upholding the Constitution is not needed. Congress has the authority to tell the president "no, we're not going to war". They just need to enforce Article 1, Section 8. If they'd do that, there wouldn't be a problem and Biden would be our president right now. Umm...yay?


posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Monsatan

Putting aside the fact that it is utterly unconstitutional, terribly interesting this wasn't passed during the Bush/Cheney Admin.

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:55 PM
Only on ATS could this be an excuse for a rant about Zionists and an excuse to somehow play the Bush Card. Amazing. Some of those obsessed with Zionists scare me.

On topic-

Good. I'm opening my email list now. Thanks for the post.
edit on 3/9/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in