DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Gaddafi's daughter sues over deadly Nato air strike

**Trissinas** · 08-06-2011, 07:57 PM

That relates to the power to declare war. You said: "Minus the War Powers Act the President can't carry out any acts of war, for any period of time, w/o Congressional approval." Mr. Obama has not declared war; that would be in contravention of the Constitution. He's ordered the military to engage in combat, which is within his purview as Commander in Chief, and anticipated by the War Powers Resolution.

Do you also think it was "illegal" when Thomas Jefferson ordered combat actions in Libya?

Only someone who is trying to be a shiesty lawyer and get around the law would say that carrying out acts of war as a country is not tantamount to declaring war. You're also confusing what being Commander in Chief means. It does not mean he has the right to declare war or carry out acts of war. It means that when we declare war he is the one that is responsible for how it is prosecuted.

You're now saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Please clarify.

You didn't quote any language from the War Powers Act, much less any language authorizing the President to conduct war in contravention of the Constitution. There is no such thing as the War Powers Act. There is the War Powers resolution and it is categorically unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states that the ability to declare war is solely with the Congress. Congress cannot just make up a rule that lets the president prosecute a war on his own w/o actually making an amendment to the Constitution. You see, we live under the rule of law. If you don't like the law you need to change it in the proper way, not just turn a blind eye towards it because it's convenient.

Your argument depends on the logical fallacy. Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by statute, giving the President powers he doesn't otherwise have. Do you acknowledge that? Yes, if they want to pass something that is not allowed by the Constitution then they actually have to pass an amendment. Therefore, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

You claim to have developed this belief that the action in Libya is illegal based on some argument that has merit but you've yet to share it with anyone. I did share it with you, it's called the Constitution.

08-06-2011, 07:57 PM	#26
Trissinas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 521 Senior Member	That relates to the power to declare war. You said: "Minus the War Powers Act the President can't carry out any acts of war, for any period of time, w/o Congressional approval." Mr. Obama has not declared war; that would be in contravention of the Constitution. He's ordered the military to engage in combat, which is within his purview as Commander in Chief, and anticipated by the War Powers Resolution. Do you also think it was "illegal" when Thomas Jefferson ordered combat actions in Libya? Only someone who is trying to be a shiesty lawyer and get around the law would say that carrying out acts of war as a country is not tantamount to declaring war. You're also confusing what being Commander in Chief means. It does not mean he has the right to declare war or carry out acts of war. It means that when we declare war he is the one that is responsible for how it is prosecuted. You're now saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Please clarify. You didn't quote any language from the War Powers Act, much less any language authorizing the President to conduct war in contravention of the Constitution. There is no such thing as the War Powers Act. There is the War Powers resolution and it is categorically unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states that the ability to declare war is solely with the Congress. Congress cannot just make up a rule that lets the president prosecute a war on his own w/o actually making an amendment to the Constitution. You see, we live under the rule of law. If you don't like the law you need to change it in the proper way, not just turn a blind eye towards it because it's convenient. Your argument depends on the logical fallacy. Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by statute, giving the President powers he doesn't otherwise have. Do you acknowledge that? Yes, if they want to pass something that is not allowed by the Constitution then they actually have to pass an amendment. Therefore, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. You claim to have developed this belief that the action in Libya is illegal based on some argument that has merit but you've yet to share it with anyone. I did share it with you, it's called the Constitution.
	Quote