Obama Requests AUMF for ISIS

Information - Only Tidbits is authorized to determine what is and isn't Constitutional.

Much like 2nd Amendment supporters?

Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - Only Tidbits is authorized to determine what is and isn't Constitutional.

Much like 2nd Amendment supporters?

Yes?

I have no idea what in God's good name you're talking about.

Gun Nuts (not all 2nd Amendment supporters just a specific subset) like to make the same claim you are making about me. That only their interpretation of the Constitution is the right one. This is not what I am claiming. If you were to read you would see I use words like "I think" which denotes an opinion.

Also my statements are based upon the literal meaning of the words and phrases used.

As for me, it is my opinion. You know, what this message board is for. Voicing ones opinions, hearing others. Debating.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - The Supreme Court set-up by the Constitution ruled it Constitutional... they didn't ask your opinion?

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has been wrong and is wrong on many occasions. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, Slavery, Separate but Equal......

I think they are wrong on this and in being wrong they are allowing Congress to abdicate their authority, their duty under the system of check & balances and are also part of creating an overpowered Executive branch.

It is Congress that grants the authority and funds it. Phone Post 3.0

I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure you see what i am getting at. Congress is willfully giving up their powers and responsibilities and deferring to the Executive.

How so? The Congress grants authority (Authority to Use Military Force) and the Congress passes the funding bills.

Explain to me how they aren't involved


By not declaring war. They are able to go to war without having to actually be accountable. It is a subtle distinction. Much like how Viet name was never declared.

i love how Obama didn't give a shit about this his whole term, but wants to make changes at the end

Half measures are what the US should be focusing on as whenever the US has gone all in lately it's ended in disaster (Iraq, Vietnam and arguably Afghanistan).

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
How so? The Congress grants authority (Authority to Use Military Force) and the Congress passes the funding bills.

Explain to me how they aren't involved


By not declaring war. They are able to go to war without having to actually be accountable. It is a subtle distinction. Much like how Viet name was never declared.
That's some Ron Paul Illogic there.

So you are looking for the word "war" or "declare" (even though I told you that's not required and post the justification and court case.)

We've constitutional replaced the terminology of war with Military Force and Congress has to initiate it. Phone Post 3.0

Words have power and meaning. Why do you think propaganda is so effective? The words that politicians say are chosen very carefully. Why do you think it was called "enhanced interrogation" and the news media followed right along? It was torture. You know it, I know it, but the majority of America are OK with it because of euphemistic words. "Declaring War" is a powerful statement and conjures certain feelings and images amongst the populace. By eliminating it and using an "Authorization To Use Military Force" the government is playing word games and just further hiding it is what they do.

attjack - How will our continued meddling in that region reap rewards for us in the future?

Kook!!

edit function sucks when quoting

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
How so? The Congress grants authority (Authority to Use Military Force) and the Congress passes the funding bills.

Explain to me how they aren't involved


By not declaring war. They are able to go to war without having to actually be accountable. It is a subtle distinction. Much like how Viet name was never declared.
That's some Ron Paul Illogic there.

So you are looking for the word "war" or "declare" (even though I told you that's not required and post the justification and court case.)

We've constitutional replaced the terminology of war with Military Force and Congress has to initiate it. Phone Post 3.0

Words have power and meaning. Why do you think propaganda is so effective? The words that politicians say are chosen very carefully. Why do you think it was called "enhanced interrogation" and the news media followed right along? It was torture. You know it, I know it, but the majority of America are OK with it because of euphemistic words. "Declaring War" is a powerful statement and conjures certain feelings and images amongst the populace. By eliminating it and using an "Authorization To Use Military Force" the government is playing word games and just further hiding it is what they do.
And once again I gave you the explanation, the justification, and the court case already.

You stated that our wars are unconstitutional... which they aren't. They do not violate the constitution and adhere to the constitutional provisions.

I'm not sure if you are trolling, stubborn, or serious at this point.

Since words do have power, I can't wait for you to go up to war veterans and explain to them they aren't war veterans since the document didn't have "WAR" stamped at the top. Phone Post 3.0

You realize I was in the first Gulf "war" do you no?. They are "combat" veterans, but not "war" veterans. War was never declared. The are veterans of a use of military force, not a "war".

I am debating from a literal reading of the Constitution and of the meanings of its words. Not from some politicians or lawyers euphemistic meaning/word games.

"I believe Congress should ask why a president would need greater authority for military force that he apparently doesn't intend to use to defeat an enemy he won't name and whose threat he believes is overstated."

-Lou Dobbs

The president has just been assassinated.

In a nutshell jzspanky, declaring war is limiting and an AUMF is not. that is the reason that Congress and President do not want to "declare war" on ISIS. It would limit them and the profits of the military industrial complex.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits - In a nutshell jzspanky, declaring war is limiting and an AUMF is not. that is the reason that Congress and President do not want to "declare war" on ISIS. It would limit them and the profits of the military industrial complex.
False. Phone Post 3.0

True

2001 AUMF

[107th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ040.107]


[[Page 115 STAT. 224]]

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.

<all>


Declaration of War vs Germany

The War Resolution

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

Kirik fix your site

Seems I'm not the ponly ne who thinks like I do.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/12/obamas-forever-war-starts-now-aumf-isis-islamic-state/

Seems like I'm not the only one who thinks like I do.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/12/obamas-forever-war-starts-now-aumf-isis-islamic-state/

False. A declaration of war and an AUMF are the same and need to be defined and have scope (hence the current debate).

Your argument has gone from we haven't gone to war since WWII because there was not declarations, to AUMF declarations are unconstitutional, to the difference is limitations...

We changed/defined the procedure we use to go to war... congress passes an AUMF and funds the war.

Like I said, I'm not sure if you are serious, just enjoy moving goal posts, trolling, or stubborn


Once again, the ONLY way to change the Constitution is with an AMENDMENT.

We are not at war. We are engaged in a perpetual conflict for the sake of profiteering and in preparation for a total police surveillance state. The only people moving the goal posts are the federal government, lawyers and people like you willing to accept bullshit just because it is deemed "legal".

ONLY a declaration of war is war. An Authorization To Use Military Force is just that, the use of military force. Not war. You can keep trying to claim otherwise but you are wrong.

We are not at war nor have we been since WW2. We have been involved in "conflicts" and "police actions" but we have not been at "war".

jzspanky - Your logic is mistaken, but you don't like to hear that. The constitution does say that congress declares wars... but it doesn't say how. It's been determined that if Congress grants the president the authority to go to war and funds it, that's a declaration.

I think you want them to scream into a microphone "I declare war" which is both childish and unnecessary. Phone Post 3.0

http://antrimdems.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/803photo.jpg

jzspanky - Your logic is mistaken, but you don't like to hear that. The constitution does say that congress declares wars... but it doesn't say how. It's been determined that if Congress grants the president the authority to go to war and funds it, that's a declaration.

I think you want them to scream into a microphone "I declare war" which is both childish and unnecessary. Phone Post 3.0

My logic is based upon over 200 years of precedence and history. The President asks Congress for a declaration of war. Congress either agrees or they don't. All this bullshit with AUMF's started with Truman in the 50's. By not declaring war, Congress and the President are both shielded and can pass as many laws or acts to extend, expand or cover their illegal activities.

jzspanky - 
attjack -
jzspanky - Your logic is mistaken, but you don't like to hear that. The constitution does say that congress declares wars... but it doesn't say how. It's been determined that if Congress grants the president the authority to go to war and funds it, that's a declaration.

I think you want them to scream into a microphone "I declare war" which is both childish and unnecessary. Phone Post 3.0

http://antrimdems.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/803photo.jpg
I think that pretty much sums up my point. Is a news paper headline needed to "declare" war?

We've decided in conjunction with our constitution, that congress declares war by funding it and authorizing Military Force. Phone Post 3.0

Still not war. No declaration, no war.