1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sandra Day O'Connor Stepping Down.

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Jul 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 5, 2005 #81 of 111
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Where does the Consitution say that war must be declared, in order to be waged?
     
  2. Jul 6, 2005 #82 of 111
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    In Section 8, Clause 11. But the Congress has abrogated that responsibility for some years now, quite unconstitutionally.
     
  3. Jul 6, 2005 #83 of 111
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Wrong. It says "Declare" war. What President has declared war on his own? Do you really understand the difference between declaring something, and doing something? Maybe you should use a dictionary.
     
  4. Jul 6, 2005 #84 of 111
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    First congrads on knowing what's in the Constitution, I suspect you constitute a minority of US citizens in that area. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war and Article II gives the President the power to wage war. It was obvious that the founding fathers wanted a weak, divided government to prevent the rise of tyranny. They are needed to work in unison in war - congress to declare it and the president to wage it. And congress gave quiet assention to the president during the past 60 years (probably to more democrat presidents than republican in that area) in allowing undeclared "psedo-wars", police actions, ... whatever. But I believe the War Powers Act (early 70s?) formallized the relationship, by granting the President limited powers to act for a short duration, after which Congress needs to grant consent. And to try and anticipate where you might have been headed with all this - Congress gave Bush that consent in the case of Iraq.
     
  5. Jul 6, 2005 #85 of 111
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Wrong. It says "Declare" war. What President has declared war on his own? Do you really understand the difference between declaring something, and doing something?

    Sorry Mike, but you are absolutely wrong there. The ability of the President to act and "do something" and go to war without Congressional approval is absolutely not constitutional, but is derived from legislative authority.

    This came to battle (pun intended) during the Civil War when Lincoln acted before Congress declared war on the South. In the court case, the Supreme Court stated that Congress had given the President the power to act in a 1795 bill allowing him to suppress insurrection. So take note, in one of the rare Supreme Court decisions related to the war powers, they stated it is by legislative act, not Constitutional power, that the President can act freely. Since then they have avoided any other cases asking that this be defined further.

    Congress has also since given the President even more powers to act without their prior approval.

    So Bogy's both right and wrong. Yes the Constitution places the President in charge of the military, but that doesn't equate giving him carte blanc power to use it as he wishes, or why even bother mentioning that Congress is the body that declares war?

    Its very clear that the founders didn't want the President to be able to act freely when it comes to war. They did however want the President to have the ability to act in defending against sudden attacks. Check the Federalist Papers for arguments on this.

    http://www.daveross.com/war.html#1412

    Where Bogy is wrong is that Congress has unconstitutionally given up their rights. Congress has the power to make its own rules on how they use their own constitutional powers, and thus it is within its power to give the President more leeway as Commander in Chief, which as pjmrt stated, they have done.

    Ultimately, the current law comes down to this:
     
  6. Jul 6, 2005 #86 of 111
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Has Bogy forgotten that the war in Iraq IS authorized by Congress?

     
  7. Jul 6, 2005 #87 of 111
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Did Bogy even MENTION the war in Iraq? I thought he was making a point about Congess' role in various conflicts.
     
  8. Jul 6, 2005 #88 of 111
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
     
  9. Jul 6, 2005 #89 of 111
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    What the SCOTUS (or SCROTUS, as I've begun to refer to them lately) needs is a good libertarian originalist. Janice Rogers Brown would be a fine choice. :)
     
  10. Jul 6, 2005 #90 of 111
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Actually TR was very definitely considereda liberal bakck in his day.
     
  11. Jul 6, 2005 #91 of 111
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Whatever your opinion on abortion, Roe v Wade was a fine example of legislating from the bench. It was horrible law, not because it legalized abortion, but because it invented a right which was never in the constitution, and by rights, should be left up to the states. It was invented out of whole cloth. It should be overturned because of the blatant abuse of the constitution. If you want abortion, convince your fellow man and get a law passed, or a state constitutional ammendment.
     
  12. Jul 6, 2005 #92 of 111
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Actually, the concept of judicial review is not in the constitution, but came about as a result of Marbury v Madison.
     
  13. Jul 6, 2005 #93 of 111
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    AMEN! There was an excellant PBS show on last month, which used the latest 3-d ultrasound to visualize the development of the baby. It was obvious that birth is just a minor step in the childs development that starts long before the birth event. Learning, behavior, ... all happen in the womb. Biologically, a clearly unique human being - not some anatomical mass of the mother's body. That's medical science - not philosophy. It seems very hard to defend anyone's "right" to abortion, to kill another person simply because of convience. The court has an obligation to overturn Roe v Wade, based on the error it made in "inventing" a right (as you mention), and the flawed arguments and ignorance of the justices making the ruling.
     
  14. Jul 6, 2005 #94 of 111
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Actually, the concept of judicial review is not in the constitution, but came about as a result of Marbury v Madison.

    I know that, and in the post I quoted the exact portion of the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court has authority over the Law.

    Marbury v Madison set the precedent, but it is the logical conclusion from reading the Constitution anyway. In my opinion the power was clearly there, and Marbury was just the first time it was used. Marbury didn't *give* the Supreme Court the power.
     
  15. Jul 6, 2005 #95 of 111
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Before Marbury v. Madison, the Constitution was disected and analyzed word by word. Find me anything written on judicial review before Marbury. ANYTHING, find it for me.
     
  16. Jul 6, 2005 #96 of 111
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    Actually various forms of judicial review were considdered at the constitutioanl convention. The most radical plan----ironically proposed by Virginia----would have let the judiciary review laws after passage but before they became effective. That sort of prior review was totally unacceptable to the New England delegates.

    Several of the original states had one form or another of judicial review. Eleven member sof the convention subsequently wrote about judicial review and among that sample 9 favored it. Some indicated that it was not expressly mentioned because they thought it implied by the rest of the docuement (the same was said about the Bill of Rights).

    To be certain judicial review was not expressly msntioned in the constitution. Also some Americans like Jefferson considered it abhorrent. But Marbury v Madison was not the first time the idea was raised. It was in fact debated at great length during the Virginia RAtification convention. Of course the delegate who spoke of it most forcefully was John Marshall who later wrote the MArbury v Madison decision.





    In any event it has been part of our suystem foir some time now. The courts have used it sparingly but it is most certainly part of our system now.
     
  17. Jul 6, 2005 #97 of 111
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3sca.htm

    SEN. SCHUMER CAUGHT ON CELLPHONE: 'WE ARE GOING TO WAR' OVER SUPREME COURT

     
  18. Jul 6, 2005 #98 of 111
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    Wow, someone, somewhere, overheard the Senator say these things. Journalistic integrity survives! :rolleyes:
     
  19. Jul 6, 2005 #99 of 111
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Do you think they will not fight over whoever the president selects?
     
  20. Jul 6, 2005 #100 of 111
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    You can say that and some liberals can ask "Do you honestly think that Bush will nominate anyone who is nota right wing ideologur/" Why don't we all just wait and see what the two sides do? I think it is just remotely possible that both the president and the senate want to fill the vacancy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page