DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**kaysions** · 08-29-2012, 10:31 PM

I keep hearing from Senators Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others that the President sometimes violates the Constitution in declaring wars abroad without the consent of Congress.

If that's the case, and Congress fails to enforce the Constitution, then why do these dissenting senators claiming the Constitution is being violated not take it to the Supreme Court to rule on the matter?

I'm sure they have a right, even if only as private citizens, to challenge charge the government in court with violating the Constitution. And if they are right, then I'd imagine the Court would agree with them, in which case the court could order the war dead in its tracks until it goes through Congress.

So, if these wars are indeed unconstitutional, then why have these Senators not taken the government to court?

I think there are a few things at play, some of them being:

1. Many in Congress privately like the president taking this power from them. The reason for this is that they do not want to be on record as voting for or against war.

2. Many don't really care so much that the office of the presidency is doing it so much as Obama is doing it. In other words, if their guy was in power they wouldn't be voicing objections. So what they are doing is objecting just to gain political points.

3. Some won't do it because they do not believe it has a chance of having the desired outcome. They don't believe not because their case has no merit but because they believe (and rightly so, imo) that the system is so corrupt that it is impossible to change it.

08-29-2012, 10:31 PM	#5
kaysions Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 317 Senior Member	I keep hearing from Senators Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others that the President sometimes violates the Constitution in declaring wars abroad without the consent of Congress. If that's the case, and Congress fails to enforce the Constitution, then why do these dissenting senators claiming the Constitution is being violated not take it to the Supreme Court to rule on the matter? I'm sure they have a right, even if only as private citizens, to challenge charge the government in court with violating the Constitution. And if they are right, then I'd imagine the Court would agree with them, in which case the court could order the war dead in its tracks until it goes through Congress. So, if these wars are indeed unconstitutional, then why have these Senators not taken the government to court? I think there are a few things at play, some of them being: 1. Many in Congress privately like the president taking this power from them. The reason for this is that they do not want to be on record as voting for or against war. 2. Many don't really care so much that the office of the presidency is doing it so much as Obama is doing it. In other words, if their guy was in power they wouldn't be voicing objections. So what they are doing is objecting just to gain political points. 3. Some won't do it because they do not believe it has a chance of having the desired outcome. They don't believe not because their case has no merit but because they believe (and rightly so, imo) that the system is so corrupt that it is impossible to change it.
	Quote