PDA

View Full Version : Umm...isn't this War in Iraq...Unconstitutional?



PUGS1688
09-10-2008, 12:37 PM
Doesn't War need to be declared? What happen to declaring war on enemies?

From my understanding of BASIC Middle School knowledge is that the President can't just go invading countries or go to war with anyone he likes, that's the whole purpose of checks and balances. Why has this never been brought up?

dbroncos78087
09-10-2008, 12:40 PM
It was declared when it started. After that the biggest power that the Congress has i believe is the funding, but of course Congress would look like morons if they took all the money away.

SmthBluCitrus
09-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Technically speaking, it's a continuation of the Gulf War in 1991. That's why the vote to go into Iraq was the "Iraq War Resolution."

The invasion was entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-10-2008, 12:41 PM
I believe very few wars in recent decades were declared wars. You can research us and let us know. :)

Sabres39
09-10-2008, 12:41 PM
I believe very few wars in recent decades were declared wars. You can research us and let us know. :)

We haven't declared war on someone since WWII.

dbroncos78087
09-10-2008, 12:42 PM
Technically speaking, it's a continuation of the Gulf War in 1991. That's why the vote to go into Iraq was the "Iraq War Resolution."

The invasion was entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.

That is probably true, you seem more versed in the Iraq War than i am. However, i will say that technically speaking man has been at war since the beginning of time. Its all just one big war.

In_Ned_I_Trust
09-10-2008, 12:43 PM
We never declared war in Korea. Seriously folk Bush has what 3-4 months left? are underlying Bush bashing threads like this necessary?

The president can send troops in without congress approval but cannot declare war.

SmthBluCitrus
09-10-2008, 12:46 PM
That is probably true, you seem more versed in the Iraq War than i am. However, i will say that technically speaking man has been at war since the beginning of time. Its all just one big war.

Fair enough.

Sabres39
09-10-2008, 12:47 PM
We never declared war in Korea. Seriously folk Bush has what 3-4 months left? are underlying Bush bashing threads like this necessary?

The president can send troops in without congress approval but cannot declare war.

So much for a system of checks and balances when they can just go right around it.

hoosiercubsfan
09-10-2008, 12:52 PM
So much for a system of checks and balances when they can just go right around it.

So your talking about judges legislating from the bench right? There are checks and balances but each in itself is not perfect.

ari1013
09-10-2008, 12:53 PM
Doesn't War need to be declared? What happen to declaring war on enemies?

From my understanding of BASIC Middle School knowledge is that the President can't just go invading countries or go to war with anyone he likes, that's the whole purpose of checks and balances. Why has this never been brought up?
You gotta lay off the Ron Paul pipe.

ari1013
09-10-2008, 12:53 PM
We never declared war in Korea. Seriously folk Bush has what 3-4 months left? are underlying Bush bashing threads like this necessary?

The president can send troops in without congress approval but cannot declare war.
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a Ron Paul talking point, not a Democratic one.

PUGS1688
09-10-2008, 12:59 PM
You gotta lay off the Ron Paul pipe.

Knew I would here this in this thread. Since he is one of the few people in Washington who appreciates and respects the constitution I guess everyone who else agrees with him is a follower.


We never declared war in Korea. Seriously folk Bush has what 3-4 months left? are underlying Bush bashing threads like this necessary?

The president can send troops in without congress approval but cannot declare war.

Does it matter how much time he has left anyway? It's not like this DEMOCRACY has any say in what happens to him anyway.


By the way, the last declared war against Japan.

SmthBluCitrus
09-10-2008, 12:59 PM
:sigh:

In_Ned_I_Trust
09-10-2008, 01:06 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a Ron Paul talking point, not a Democratic one.

Even worse.

gcoll
09-10-2008, 01:51 PM
No. It's not unconstitutional.


From my understanding of BASIC Middle School knowledge
That's your problem.

Constitutional Law, and international law typically requires more than a basic middle school understanding, to get a grasp of it.


that's the whole purpose of checks and balances. Why has this never been brought up?
Right. But there are checks and balances, and there were in this instance.

Congress allowed Bush to use force. Congress still funds the war.


Since he is one of the few people in Washington who appreciates and respects the constitution I guess everyone who else agrees with him is a follower.
How does he "appreciate and respect the constitution" more than others?


Does it matter how much time he has left anyway? It's not like this DEMOCRACY has any say in what happens to him anyway.
I don't understand what you mean.


By the way, the last declared war against Japan.
We declared war on drugs in the 80's, I think.

The drugs won.

BG7
09-10-2008, 04:45 PM
The president can mobilize military action, but eventually, Congress has to approve the war. Not necessarily declare war (since I believe this is just called a military police action, or some crap like that), and they obviously approve the war because they keep on funding it. Also, in the Iraq War Resolution, congress delegated the power to go to war to the President.

They should probably make an amendment to the constitution saying congress cannot delegate the power to declare war to the president.

Eastside Scott
09-10-2008, 05:19 PM
Here in my town, Crazy Al declared war on high used car prices just last week. I think anyone can do it.

Seriously though, I have to agree with others who have basically said "that dog won't hunt". Lots of people hate Bush, I get it. Lots of people don't, the first group needs to get that. At some point you have to decide that personal hatred for someone does not make every thing they do either borderline, or way over borderline illegal. I would hope that people can honestly say "Here is what I dislike about W, but I have to say that I am OK with this, and this, and this...". Unfortunately most cannot do that. Same way with Clinton haters. If one cannot accept the idea that Clinton and W both had good and bad moments as President, and that the country was not decimated by either one, one needs to be a little more open minded.

ari1013
09-10-2008, 06:32 PM
Here in my town, Crazy Al declared war on high used car prices just last week. I think anyone can do it.

Seriously though, I have to agree with others who have basically said "that dog won't hunt". Lots of people hate Bush, I get it. Lots of people don't, the first group needs to get that. At some point you have to decide that personal hatred for someone does not make every thing they do either borderline, or way over borderline illegal. I would hope that people can honestly say "Here is what I dislike about W, but I have to say that I am OK with this, and this, and this...". Unfortunately most cannot do that. Same way with Clinton haters. If one cannot accept the idea that Clinton and W both had good and bad moments as President, and that the country was not decimated by either one, one needs to be a little more open minded.
I'll admit that Bush hasn't been a complete disaster but by no means does he stack to up Clinton's record.

Bush's big defining positive was his speech after September 11. Other than that he really hasn't done anything positive for domestic policy aside from approving Congress's stimulus package this year.

I mean, how do you run up $4 trillion in debt (a sold percentage of it on domestic projects) and not find a way to fix up our national infrastructure? Where did that money go?

Uncle Funster
09-10-2008, 07:59 PM
The last "constitutional" war was WWII.

arkanian215
09-11-2008, 03:48 PM
Doesn't War need to be declared? What happen to declaring war on enemies?

From my understanding of BASIC Middle School knowledge is that the President can't just go invading countries or go to war with anyone he likes, that's the whole purpose of checks and balances. Why has this never been brought up?

we can do whatever we want to them and no one will give a ****. our troops could loot and plunder iraq and call it free and no one would care. why? because theyre not white.
we call them terrorists and bombers. theyre a violent group driven by a "false" doctrine. oh we're definitely the opposite. we rescue people and peacefully bring freedom to iraq.
good thing the evangelicals dont have bombs yet.

hoosiercubsfan
09-11-2008, 03:54 PM
we can do whatever we want to them and no one will give a ****. our troops could loot and plunder iraq and call it free and no one would care. why? because theyre not white.
we call them terrorists and bombers. theyre a violent group driven by a "false" doctrine. oh we're definitely the opposite. we rescue people and peacefully bring freedom to iraq.
good thing the evangelicals dont have bombs yet.

Wow time to go crawl back under the rock you climbed out from under. What a bunch of drivel. And next your going to tell me that there is no way Obama will be elected because he is black. Or Palin will be elected VP because she is a woman. :yawn:

LAKERMANIA
09-12-2008, 02:56 AM
The War was not declared.. And technically, this war IS constitutional.. to an extent..

Congress has the power to declare war, however, the President since he is "Commander in Chief", has the power to strike with military force with a certain number of days, then go back.. But the problem is, once the president strikes, the entire country gets involved, and war starts regardless of what Congress says

It has been done since Korea.. It is a huge loophole in the constitution

db75
09-12-2008, 03:54 AM
Wow time to go crawl back under the rock you climbed out from under. What a bunch of drivel. And next your going to tell me that there is no way Obama will be elected because he is black. Or Palin will be elected VP because she is a woman. :yawn:

What's wrong about what he said (except maybe the evangelical thing)?

We've cost the US thousands of lives through fighting in Iraq (which is loosely at best connected to the reason we headed into the Middle East), not to mention the thousands of innocent civilians who had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks in the states. Yes, we lost what, 3000 civilians in the attacks on 9/11? Since then, we've lost something along the lines of 4500 soldiers through fighting in Iraq. Additionally, we've slaughtered (and yes, I say slaughtered be cause many of the deaths we've handed Iraq are unnecessary) thousands of Iraqis. I cannot find an accurate civilian body count, but some estimates place deaths in correlation to the conflict in Iraq at upwards of 600,000.

We've become such a caricature of the image of the United States, and nobody seems to care. We think that we are the ultimate world power and anything that we do is the best and only way to handle things. Because of this war, we've pissed off an entire section of the world (not that they weren't mad at us before because of some of our policies), and we've crippled our economy because of our efforts. The war is costing something along the lines of $750 millon PER DAY. We've already pumped upwards of $1.5 trillion into our fighting, and as long as we're killing the 'towel heads,' nobody cares (for the record, I'm not trying to offend saying the above, but that's the viewpoint many Americans have given how ignorant we are to the dealings of the world).

At what point do we completely destroy our nation because we have developed such an ego that we feel we can and should do whatever we want? At what point do we see severe retaliation for what harm we have caused other areas of the world? At what point are we no longer a 'world policing power'? At what point are we no longer peacemakers and are more akin to those whose hatred for another people led to their demise? At what point do we stand elbow to elbow with some of the most hated nations in world history?

hoosiercubsfan
09-12-2008, 08:05 AM
What's wrong about what he said (except maybe the evangelical thing)?

OK here is the deal. I am totally fine with your post you bring fact to back up your assertions. My point of this post.

we can do whatever we want to them and no one will give a ****. our troops could loot and plunder Iraq and call it free and no one would care. why? because they're not white.
we call them terrorists and bombers. they're a violent group driven by a "false" doctrine. oh we're definitely the opposite. we rescue people and peacefully bring freedom to Iraq.
good thing the evangelicals don't have bombs yet
Is that it is blatantly racist. To insinuate that we could loot and plunder Iraq just because we are white and the Iraqi's are not is asinine at best. And the people that attacked us and continue to attack us are terrorists and bombers. The fact of the matter is that we are already there and have been able to give back sections of their country and have the ability in the near future to give Baghdad back itself is quite an accomplishment. At this point who cares if you are for or against the war we are there now and need to finish the job so we can come home. And the final part about the evangelicals is just icing on the cake. So as soon as the evangelicals get bombs they are going to turn into terrorists and bombers? Come on now are you serious?

db75
09-12-2008, 11:22 AM
OK here is the deal. I am totally fine with your post you bring fact to back up your assertions. My point of this post.

Is that it is blatantly racist. To insinuate that we could loot and plunder Iraq just because we are white and the Iraqi's are not is asinine at best. And the people that attacked us and continue to attack us are terrorists and bombers. The fact of the matter is that we are already there and have been able to give back sections of their country and have the ability in the near future to give Baghdad back itself is quite an accomplishment. At this point who cares if you are for or against the war we are there now and need to finish the job so we can come home. And the final part about the evangelicals is just icing on the cake. So as soon as the evangelicals get bombs they are going to turn into terrorists and bombers? Come on now are you serious?

Fair enough.