Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14948)	6/18/2002 12:03:41 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 21057

Do you know where that is in the US Code? Yes. jttmab

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14948)	6/18/2002 12:13:10 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Why not? There was one vote in the House (by Rep. Barbara Lee) against military action. I wonder why she hasn't brought legal action. I would think she would have no problem coming up with contributions to pay for it. I really can't answer that. I would think that there would be members that would have challenged, but none have. It might be fun to raise it with your Senator[s] or Representative just to see what dance they might give. You would have to admit that it's 'convenient' for Congress, no debate, pass off your responsibility to someone that's willing to take it. If things 'go bad', Congress can always jump up and say, 'we never declared war'. I believe there's a parallel argument for term limits. The Framers didn't intend there to be term limits; they specifically changed the words from the Articles of Confederation which had term limits. IMO, the electorate that desires term limits is abrograting their voter responsibilities. jttmab

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14948)	6/18/2002 12:18:44 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Sorry. I just couldn't pass up that smart a-- 'yes' answer. There's historic precedence to maintain. <s> Section 2c,[3] gives the Pres a little flexibility. The War Powers Act of 1973 Public Law 93-148 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 November 7, 1973 Joint Resolution Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President. Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution". PURPOSE AND POLICY SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. SEC. 2. (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. ......... cs.indiana.edu jttmab