Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War powers acts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War powers acts

    I just heard that the Bill trying to limit Trump's war powers is toothless, just another bit of play-acting.
    Wihy?

    THe Congress has been ducking it's responsibility regarding Declarations of war since WW2, letting the president take all the decisions and responsibility for all "wars" that the US has been dragged into ever since.

    Wouldn't now be a good time to change that?
    If congress is serious, or even if they are not, wouldn't it be possible for the Senate to send a version back to them that would make this a little more real?

    How do you all feel about this?

    Now would seem to be a good time to get this done, and instead of so many quasi-wars we could either do it for real, or not at all.
    Maybe we would be able to finish one instead of the waste and stupidity that we are plagued with today.

  • #2
    It's just another game by Pelosi Democrats to make Trump look bad. It will backfire on them as it makes them look like that they support Terrorism, Radical Islam, and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
    “Breaking News,”

    “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
      It's just another game by Pelosi Democrats to make Trump look bad. It will backfire on them as it makes them look like that they support Terrorism, Radical Islam, and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
      Paul gave the answer when he heard similar type of criticism from Graham

      https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...mps-war-powers



      Graham fired the opening shot Wednesday when he said he thought Paul and Lee were “overreacting” with their criticism of the administration's stance on the war powers debate.

      “I'm going to let people know that at this moment in time to play this game with the War Powers Act ... whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy,” Graham told reporters.

      That prompted Paul, during a CNN interview, to argue that Graham hasn’t “even read the history of the Constitution.”

      "He insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism. I think that's a low, gutter type of response," Paul said.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #4
        In this case, Graham is correct. Congress did nothing when the Obama administration ordered close to 3,000 drone strikes on "terrorist" targets, including American citizens. Clinton did hundreds. Bush did them too.

        All-of-a-sudden, Trump does one drone strike on a known major terrorist and the Democrats in Congress go nuts. The MSM immediately goes hair on fire crazy too. The problem isn't so much Trump, as it is we now have the Progressive Left at the helm of the Democrat party and MSM. That's what's changed.

        Trump is far from the best president we've had, but he's also far from the worst... Except when you ask the Progressive Left...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
          It's just another game by Pelosi Democrats to make Trump look bad. It will backfire on them as it makes them look like that they support Terrorism, Radical Islam, and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
          Trump doesn't need anyone to 'make him look bad' he does enough on his own to do that.
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
            It's just another game by Pelosi Democrats to make Trump look bad. It will backfire on them as it makes them look like that they support Terrorism, Radical Islam, and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
            it not really a game. It laying down a marker for future issues. As you know everyone always points well congress in the pass allowed x or did y

            There was a pretty solid debate on war powers for Obama doing strikes in Libya

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              In this case, Graham is correct. Congress did nothing when the Obama administration ordered close to 3,000 drone strikes on "terrorist" targets, including American citizens. Clinton did hundreds. Bush did them too.

              All-of-a-sudden, Trump does one drone strike on a known major terrorist and the Democrats in Congress go nuts. The MSM immediately goes hair on fire crazy too. The problem isn't so much Trump, as it is we now have the Progressive Left at the helm of the Democrat party and MSM. That's what's changed.

              Trump is far from the best president we've had, but he's also far from the worst... Except when you ask the Progressive Left...
              Whoa now- Obama's drone strikes were Usually justified. Let's hear about the ones that weren't.....

              On the one hand, Barak Obama gets accused of "protecting and Capitulating to his Brother Muslims>"
              OTOTH.- H,- he overkilled them with - drones.....

              No proof ever presented for either...

              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by craven View Post

                it not really a game. It laying down a marker for future issues. As you know everyone always points well congress in the pass allowed x or did y

                There was a pretty solid debate on war powers for Obama doing strikes in Libya


                I disagree.
                The dems know that the WPA is already borderline unconstitutional. Any attempt to further limit the authority granted to the president under the constitution will fail and they likely know it.
                I think the current dem efforts are simply an attempt to appear to be doing something without really doing anything.

                Congress doesn't want to take this authority from the president, they just want to be able to use the WPA to grandstand when necessary. And presidents have used the WPA to make congress pick sides.
                The nation voted to give the president authority to make use of the military in a way consistent with the constitution.
                If the people don't like the way that authority is being used, then they get to change who the president is.
                Congress doesn't get a veto on a president's constitutional authority simply because they feel like it.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  it not really a game. It laying down a marker for future issues. As you know everyone always points well congress in the pass allowed x or did y

                  There was a pretty solid debate on war powers for Obama doing strikes in Libya
                  Yes, this is what I was talking about.

                  I think that the main issue here is simple; Is Congress willing to take back it's responsibility for declaring war as outlined in the Constitution, or not?

                  Looking to de-fang Trump is all well and good, but I want more. I want to see Congress stand up and take responsibility on a permanent basis. I want to see every single one of them do what they should do; limit our wars to what is needed to Defend Americans. Period.
                  No more adventures to enrich Haliburton, and no more BS about how important the Middle East is because it isn't, we are energy independent now!

                  However, with Pelosi in charge I have no confidence whatsoever that this can possibly happen, not until she is replaced with someone that has space in their brain for something other than "get Trump" and enjoying their privileges & power. Speaker of the House is too important a post for seniority alone to be the deciding vote.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                    I disagree.
                    The dems know that the WPA is already borderline unconstitutional. Any attempt to further limit the authority granted to the president under the constitution will fail and they likely know it.
                    I think the current dem efforts are simply an attempt to appear to be doing something without really doing anything.
                    That is the problem I have with this, too.

                    I tuned-out impeachment because it is the same kind of thing, a "Dog & Pony show" as the old-timers put it.

                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                    Congress doesn't want to take this authority from the president, they just want to be able to use the WPA to grandstand when necessary. And presidents have used the WPA to make congress pick sides.
                    The nation voted to give the president authority to make use of the military in a way consistent with the constitution.
                    If the people don't like the way that authority is being used, then they get to change who the president is.
                    Congress doesn't get a veto on a president's constitutional authority simply because they feel like it.
                    The WPA and the Constitution are two very different things, what power does the President have according to the Constitution to declare war?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Phaing View Post

                      That is the problem I have with this, too.

                      I tuned-out impeachment because it is the same kind of thing, a "Dog & Pony show" as the old-timers put it.



                      The WPA and the Constitution are two very different things, what power does the President have according to the Constitution to declare war?


                      The president does not have the power to declare war.
                      But he does have authority to order US troops into hostilities.

                      Congress is trying to limit the president's authority to do that and take it for themselves. That effort is doomed to failure because trying to take the president's authority is unconstitutional on its face.

                      Congress has the authority to cut off funding for hostilities the president involves us in, but that won't ever happen.
                      No one has tested the WPA in court, but I think that is because presidents like being able to use it, more than congress likes being forced to take a position.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Phaing View Post

                        Yes, this is what I was talking about.

                        I think that the main issue here is simple; Is Congress willing to take back it's responsibility for declaring war as outlined in the Constitution, or not?

                        Looking to de-fang Trump is all well and good, but I want more. I want to see Congress stand up and take responsibility on a permanent basis. I want to see every single one of them do what they should do; limit our wars to what is needed to Defend Americans. Period.
                        No more adventures to enrich Haliburton, and no more BS about how important the Middle East is because it isn't, we are energy independent now!

                        However, with Pelosi in charge I have no confidence whatsoever that this can possibly happen, not until she is replaced with someone that has space in their brain for something other than "get Trump" and enjoying their privileges & power. Speaker of the House is too important a post for seniority alone to be the deciding vote.



                        Congress has this authority already.
                        It can simply withhold the money to pay for fighting it doesn't approve of. But doing that requires they take a position that the voters might not like and it puts our troops in harms way. If the troops are cut off from supplies they will die.

                        I don't think we will ever formally declare war again. And given how modern warfare is waged, we can no longer debate wars as we once did.
                        We could take our time deciding on war with Iraq, but I doubt that China or Russia will go along with that. And we might not have that luxury with Iran either.

                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm not too sure abou this. The problem is when you have targest like Bin Laden and Soleimani. Is the president supposed to publicize his intetions, then put it up for Congressional Debate? Even one day of this is enough to tip off the target. Would the killings of Bin Laden and Soleimani happened if the president went to Congress first?

                          There need to be definitions involved. For example, the president could be allowed to take out designated "terrorists" without the consent of Congress. Or perhaps we can have a terror grading system, where Bin Laden, Al-Baghdadi, and Soleimani could be classed as "Class Red terrorists," who the president can take out without Congressional assent.

                          As for full blown wars, Congress should definitely declare them. The exception would be an imminent threat, for example Russia invading the American mainland. But by the time Russia assembled its forces and set sail, Congress might have time to meet and declare war.

                          Twenty-first century conflcit is just more complicated than what our Founders experienced. If you look at Iran, the people are protesting over the whole ordeal that just happened. They're livid over the airliner being shot down and want government leaders to resign. Granted there's probably some hardliners in the country, it still proves a point: taking out corrupt leaders and sparing the people is a great way to win conflicts.
                          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by American87 View Post
                            I'm not too sure abou this. The problem is when you have targest like Bin Laden and Soleimani. Is the president supposed to publicize his intetions, then put it up for Congressional Debate? Even one day of this is enough to tip off the target. Would the killings of Bin Laden and Soleimani happened if the president went to Congress first?

                            There need to be definitions involved. For example, the president could be allowed to take out designated "terrorists" without the consent of Congress. Or perhaps we can have a terror grading system, where Bin Laden, Al-Baghdadi, and Soleimani could be classed as "Class Red terrorists," who the president can take out without Congressional assent.

                            As for full blown wars, Congress should definitely declare them. The exception would be an imminent threat, for example Russia invading the American mainland. But by the time Russia assembled its forces and set sail, Congress might have time to meet and declare war.

                            Twenty-first century conflcit is just more complicated than what our Founders experienced. If you look at Iran, the people are protesting over the whole ordeal that just happened. They're livid over the airliner being shot down and want government leaders to resign. Granted there's probably some hardliners in the country, it still proves a point: taking out corrupt leaders and sparing the people is a great way to win conflicts.
                            Would you express such thoughts if Qaddafi was the target and Obama the president?

                            I assume that if during the closed door briefing with the senators Trump's officials could give good evidence for the "imminent threat" that forced Trump to take out Soleimani, Paul would not have a problem with the fact that the air strike was launched without a Congressional approval.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              Whoa now- Obama's drone strikes were Usually justified. Let's hear about the ones that weren't.....

                              On the one hand, Barak Obama gets accused of "protecting and Capitulating to his Brother Muslims>"
                              OTOTH.- H,- he overkilled them with - drones.....

                              No proof ever presented for either...
                              So are Trump's

                              https://www.newsweek.com/strikes-dur...vilians-545080

                              I'm not accusing Obama of anything here, but rather pointing out that suddenly the Democrats have their panties in a twist over Trump blasting some terrorist leader with a drone strike.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X