I’m not making it a Repubiclan issue, and I do disagree with Obama on it. However, I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of the Repubiclans on this issue.
You’re getting our arguments wrong. Gao Bohan hasn’t clearly stated that separation of powers using the Constitution, but rather that 1973 law that Congress voted on to limit the President, (which I think that law has a good case of being unconstitutional). Even so, presidents haven’t let that law interfere with their executive function, and they haven’t been challenge much on it. Congress doesn’t get to decide what the balance of powers are (being one of them), only the Constitution delineates that.
You also said that 911 doesn’t change anything, I meant Congress passed another law that effectively annulled some of the limitations being placed on Presidents in the 1973 law. Not that it really matters, you’re right, 911 didn’t change anything, presidents have always exercised their executive function despite the 1973 law trying to stop them.
For the rest of your points, I defer to Tempo Gain who answered them sufficiently enough.
When you first asked me about what the parties represent, I thought you must be joking. But now I see there is a need to go back and address this point. If I have time, I’ll do that.
It seems you conflate the definitions of democracy and republic. Most countries we refer to as democracies are actually republics, which means we elect people to carry on our nation’s business, we entrust them with our vision, our philosophy, our own way of dealing with the world or country if we ourselves were to take the time out of our career and life to actually focus on policy. We expect our representatives to act on our behalf, to do as we would do in similar circumstances. That is why it’s incumbent on voters to educate themselves on current events and politics and the details of candidate’s positions.
We don’t vote directly on every single issue, except sometimes when a referendum is proffered. In the USA, we vote every two years for the House of Representatives, every member is up for vote every two years to reflect the ever-changing will of the people. (The Senate is every 6 years, because that represented the will of the States, but we amended that in the Constitution around 1913 or thereabouts to be popular vote again, which I hate.)
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
By tradition, no president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. But it’s the law! It’s one of the most important laws on the books, in my opinion. And yet it is widely misunderstood by the public and completely ignored by every president since its passage. And even though Obama has agreed to consult Congress on Syria, he still insists that he can bomb Syria without congressional approval.[/quote]
But you forget one thing. No law can negate the Constitution. If presidents don’t recognize the constitutionality of the resolution, then it means it’s bogus, if they are right.
You forget another principle. The Supreme Court doesn’t review every single law in the books and declare their opinions on them, so naturally they wouldn’t say anything about the 1973 unconstitutional law. We live under English common law system. That means there must be a real case, a real conflict between parties before any court can declare any law unconstitutional. There have been challenges against presidents, but those court cases have been thrown out usually on technicalities. If a case were to stand, I bet judges would easily find it unconstitutional – it’s a no-brainer.
The president bothers to report matters to Congress as a means of cooperation; it’s civil, it’s seeking advice, it’s humble. But I’m not of the opinion that the president is constitutionally bound to that. I hope Congress says no and the president listens because of good judgment, not because the constitution constrains him. But I’m willing to see him make a fool of himself as well.
No, that’s such a simplistic view of separation of powers. And there is no such thing as separation of war powers. You’re just trying to pull the wool over our eyes through sneaky rhetoric. Only Congress can declare war as representatives of the people – only they have “war powers.” Presidents employ our military for Congress’s war and for other non-war reasons, also as a representative of the people.
As for people quibbling about war, you’re the one who’s quibbling, to the point of redefining the word war. Words mean something. And when the Founders used the word war, they meant the definition that everyone takes for granted. Obama making strikes in Syria is obviously not going to war with Syria.
What? You’re for the strikes (what you call war, ha ha)? I don’t know of any other posters, except Chris, who are for it. Glad to know what side you take.
If Congress says no, they should close the purse. There should also be a government shutdown for Obama’s insistence on irresponsible spending. Do you agree with the balance of powers on that? Or if Congress says no to his flagrant spending and Obamacare, should it be no more?
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … Hague.html
Here is an example of just how thick some politicians are and hes the UK foreign secretary, just what does he not get? Parliament voted no that means no doesn’t it???
If Bush III is going to have any chance of mobilizing the Israeli Foreign Legion to take Assad down a notch he’s going to have to continue to keep his secret evidence secret and just hope there are still enough Americans left who are willing to be fooled twice:
[quote]Democratic congressional aides said Obama’s planned speech to the nation on Tuesday and briefings that top members of Obama’s national security team will give to the entire House on Monday would prove pivotal in the thinking of many lawmakers.
But Republican Representative Justin Amash, who opposes U.S. intervention in Syria, suggested classified briefings would make no difference. “If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against Syria action,” he tweeted.[/quote]-- Reuters
Fortunately though help is on the way:
[quote]The influential pro-Israel group AIPAC said it planned a major lobbying effort next week to try to round up support for military action, with about 250 activists in Washington to meet senators and representatives.[/quote]-- Reuters
[quote=“Winston Smith”]If Bush III is going to have any chance of mobilizing the Israeli Foreign Legion to take Assad down a notch he’s going to have to continue to keep his secret evidence secret and just hope there are still enough Americans left who are willing to be fooled twice:
[quote]Democratic congressional aides said Obama’s planned speech to the nation on Tuesday and briefings that top members of Obama’s national security team will give to the entire House on Monday would prove pivotal in the thinking of many lawmakers.
But Republican Representative Justin Amash, who opposes U.S. intervention in Syria, suggested classified briefings would make no difference. “If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against Syria action,” he tweeted.[/quote]-- Reuters
Fortunately though help is on the way:
Come now Winston, you are not very astute are you??
Most Americans I have met are perfectly capable of being fooled three or four times.
Here’s an interesting perspective. If true, this is about Obama’s credibility than America’s:
Obama and Israel (and Aipac), Together at Last
[ul][color=#000080]Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would prefer that Obama enforce his red line on chemical weapons use, because he would like to see proof that Obama believes in the red lines he draws. From Netanyahu’s perspective, Israel isn’t unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.
Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syria’s primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obama’s red lines are, in fact, very red. As Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me last night, the formula is simple:
“If the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.”
[/color][/ul]
Translation: The Israelis were icing the champagne already, and are pretty miffed they may not get to drink it. So lets give a little nudge to Obama to get him to come to the party.
You can’t extrapolate much from this. First, the Iranians already know they can continue work on their nuclear program quietly, and no one is going to do anything. If they cross some kind of red line, the gloves will be back off again like that. Second, the controlling issue here is the evidence. Even the American public isn’t going to buy this stuff out of hand any more. That’s an issue of America’s credibility, not Obama’s. We all know who paved that road. Personally, I think that if the evidence were that good here, things would probably be happening already. Maybe the Iranians know they can get away with something if there’s not strong enough evidence of it. I think they knew that already though 
I’m not making it a Repubiclan issue, and I do disagree with Obama on it. However, I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of the Repubiclans on this issue.[/quote]
Pointing out hypocrisy can be fun! Let’s look at hypocrisy on the Dem side:
- Sheryl Crow
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
— Sheryl Crow
- Bruce Springsteen
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.”
— Bruce Springsteen
- Martin Sheen
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“But I am equally against the death penalty or war — anywhere people are sacrificed for some end justifying a means.”
— Martin Sheen
- Ed Asner
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“I also think that there is a strong streak of racism, and whenever we engage in foreign adventures. Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color.”
— Ed Asner
Funny! 
You can laugh at the rest at the linked site!
Wow. Hell hath frozen over. 
[quote=“Tigerman”]
. . . Pointing out hypocrisy can be fun! Let’s look at hypocrisy on the Dem . . .[/quote]
I’m still wondering what happened to President Martin Luther Gandhi. My best guess is that Neocons piped Kool Aid gas into the Oval Office and out came President George Bush III.
I’m not making it a Repubiclan issue, and I do disagree with Obama on it. However, I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of the Repubiclans on this issue.[/quote]
Pointing out hypocrisy can be fun! Let’s look at hypocrisy on the Dem side:
- Sheryl Crow
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
— Sheryl Crow
- Bruce Springsteen
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.”
— Bruce Springsteen
- Martin Sheen
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“But I am equally against the death penalty or war — anywhere people are sacrificed for some end justifying a means.”
— Martin Sheen
- Ed Asner
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“I also think that there is a strong streak of racism, and whenever we engage in foreign adventures. Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color.”
— Ed Asner
Funny! You can laugh at the rest at the linked site![/quote]
Difficult for them to make statements with both feet in their mouths… :no-no:
The real irony here is that Barack Hussein is about to violate the UN Charter by attacking another member state for “slant drilling” with chemical weapons.
Well, she is appearing on Colbert this week, so…
And here’s a tweet from her just six days ago.
Not that I’m a fan er nuthin’. But she hasn’t been as silent as you’d have us believe. I imagine some digging into The Boss and Lou Grant would also turn up some opinions. But ya, lots to laugh about there. 
A real gas!!! 
And that goes for both of you Chris.
[quote=“Pop Fly”]Well, she is appearing on Colbert this week, so…
And here’s a tweet from Sheryl Crow] just six days ago.[/quote]
Not much of a statement by Crow in that!
Its all relative, ain’t it? She’s been very quiet, comparatively. Hasn’t she?
Why should we have to dig? They were quite vocal previously. Nu?
But it doesn’t. I haven’t made any comments regarding the recent Obomba plan re Syria. Have I?
Well, if I am reading your statement correctly, it’s just catching up with your ossified politics.
[quote=“Pop Fly”][quote=“Tigerman”]
- Sheryl Crow
LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
“I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
— Sheryl Crow
[/quote]
Well, she is appearing on Colbert this week, so…
And here’s a tweet from her just six days ago.
Not that I’m a fan er nuthin’. But she hasn’t been as silent as you’d have us believe. I imagine some digging into The Boss and Lou Grant would also turn up some opinions. But ya, lots to laugh about there. A real gas!!!
And that goes for both of you Chris.[/quote]
I remember when Sheryl Crowe had a brilliant idea to combat global warming, change the world, and make us instantly green. She suggested we only use one square of toilet paper each time (“except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.”)
She was being laughed at left and right. Rosie O’Donnel remarked: “Have you seen my ass?”
I watched all the comments on that one, they were so funny:
“With one square of toilet paper, we’d be making even bigger carbon footprints – in our pants.”
She also suggested we use sleeves to wipe our mouth instead of wasting paper on napkins.
I think the primary driving force behind the intervention is the economy. The US war industry is what mainly keeps their economy going since the 30’s. If they “lose”, well, at least they spent ammo and they justify purchasing more and newer equipment (which keeps contractors happy). If they “win”, well, they do the same, plus they’ve earned a client who is ludicrously indebted to them.
Lucky for us, Japan can’t do that because their constitution (with McArthur seal of approval) forbids it. If they could, I’m sure they’d be involved in every single conflict in Asia.
There are some that stand to gain from any conflict and for years they have profited but now things are changing, the good times for them are coming to an end. Public opinion has changed so much that politicians now worry about taking the wrong stance in the eyes of their constituents for fear of being voted out and the financial consequences of losing office. For me a lot of politicians get carried away once they are elected in government and lose touch with reality, they let the power go to their heads and its us ordinary people that suffer the consequences. They have absolutely no idea what real life is really like because they’ve had it far too good for far too long. People can see right through them now and wont stand for any more lies, some politicians are waking up to that fact but there are many who are still living in their bubbles. This latest conflict is just another example of certain politicians fabricating and manipulating evidence to make something look like something else but in general it has fallen on deaf ears. I hope the American congress do what the American people want and vote no.