Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Last week, more than 70 days after President Obama sent our military to attack Libya without a congressional declaration of war, the House of Representatives finally voted on two resolutions attempting to rein in the president. This debate was long overdue, as polls show Americans increasingly are frustrated by congressional inaction. According to a CNN poll last week, 55 percent of the American people believe that Congress, not the president, should have the final authority to decide whether the U.S. should continue its military mission in Libya. Yet for more than 70 days Congress has ignored its constitutional obligations and allowed the president to usurp its authority.

Finally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich was able to bring to the floor a resolution asserting that proper constitutional war power authority resides with Congress. His resolution simply stated that "Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than the date that is 15 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution."

Opponents of the withdrawal resolution said the 15 day deadline was too abrupt. But as I pointed out during debate, the president attacked Libya abruptly – he didn't even bother to consult Congress – so why can't he order an end to military action just as abruptly? When members of Congress took an oath of office to defend the Constitution, we did not pledge to defend it only gradually, a little bit at a time. On the contrary, we must defend it vigorously and completely from the moment we take that oath. I was pleased that 87 Republicans were able to put the Constitution first and support this resolution.

House Speaker John Boehner offered his own resolution on the same day, which declared that Congress would not support the insertion of US ground troops into Libya. Although this unfortunately was far from adequate to satisfy our constitutional obligations, it certainly was a step in the right direction and I am pleased that it passed in the House. Just days before Speaker Boehner's resolution, an amendment to the defense authorization act prohibited the president from using any funds in the bill to insert US troops into Libya. A separate amendment last week prohibiting any funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security from being used to attack Libya came within just a handful of votes from passing. All of these votes demonstrate that members of Congress increasingly understand that our foreign wars are deeply unpopular with their constituents. We are broke, and the American people know it. They expect Congress to focus on fixing America's economic problems, rather than rubber stamping yet another open-ended military intervention in Libya.

I believe these resolutions and amendments indicate that the tide is turning in the right direction. I am confident we will see Congress move toward ending our unconstitutional wars. The American people are demanding no less. The president's attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful. This policy must be reversed.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opt...-libya&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
I'd say that about 90% of everything our guberment does in unconstitutional and illegal.
Read the Constitutional and tell me where most of the programs and departments are specified.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
I'd say that about 90% of everything our guberment does in unconstitutional and illegal.
Read the Constitutional and tell me where most of the programs and departments are specified.
You do realize that the "constitutional" gives certain authority (powers) to pass laws that create departments and programs, as those who are authorized to do so see fit. Those powers spelled out in the constitution are given to those who are authorized by us, the voter, when we elect them. The constitution is not one set and fixed rule. It is intentionaly vague and flexible so that it can be adjusted to grow as the country grows and to change as times change. That is the beauty of our constitution and what makes it such an amazing document which shows some incredible wisdom from our forefathers.

The idea that all of these departments and programs are unconstitutional flies in the face of our Supreme Court and all of the Presidents who swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United states. Any President who believed that any department or program was indeed unconstitutional would be duty bound to sue to have that department or program deemd unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That means that right wing heros like Bush and Reagan would be complicit in the violation of the Constitution if it was indeed being violated, by these departments and programs.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
You do realize that the "constitutional" gives certain authority (powers) to pass laws that create departments and programs, as those who are authorized to do so see fit. Those powers spelled out in the constitution are given to those who are authorized by us, the voter, when we elect them. The constitution is not one set and fixed rule. It is intentionaly vague and flexible so that it can be adjusted to grow as the country grows and to change as times change. That is the beauty of our constitution and what makes it such an amazing document which shows some incredible wisdom from our forefathers.

The idea that all of these departments and programs are unconstitutional flies in the face of our Supreme Court and all of the Presidents who swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United states. Any President who believed that any department or program was indeed unconstitutional would be duty bound to sue to have that department or program deemd unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That means that right wing heros like Bush and Reagan would be complicit in the violation of the Constitution is it was indeed being violated, by these departments and programs.
:laughing: Vague? The constitution is very straight forward and written for the layman to understand. It gives the federal government 18 enumerated powers and leaves all other power to the states. It has a clear path for updating and changing as necessary, the constitutional amendment process.

Nothing vague and very few departments and programs pass the constitutional test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
You do realize that the "constitutional" gives certain authority (powers) to pass laws that create departments and programs, as those who are authorized to do so see fit. Those powers spelled out in the constitution are given to those who are authorized by us, the voter, when we elect them. The constitution is not one set and fixed rule. It is intentionaly vague and flexible so that it can be adjusted to grow as the country grows and to change as times change. That is the beauty of our constitution and what makes it such an amazing document which shows some incredible wisdom from our forefathers.

The idea that all of these departments and programs are unconstitutional flies in the face of our Supreme Court and all of the Presidents who swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United states. Any President who believed that any department or program was indeed unconstitutional would be duty bound to sue to have that department or program deemd unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That means that right wing heros like Bush and Reagan would be complicit in the violation of the Constitution if it was indeed being violated, by these departments and programs.
You sound like a person who champions case law too. The Constituion and laws Do NOT Need Interpitation, they just need to be followed (and enforced). Interpitation "Bends" the rules to fit an agenda, left or right :thud:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
You do realize that the "constitutional" gives certain authority (powers) to pass laws that create departments and programs, as those who are authorized to do so see fit. Those powers spelled out in the constitution are given to those who are authorized by us, the voter, when we elect them. The constitution is not one set and fixed rule. It is intentionaly vague and flexible so that it can be adjusted to grow as the country grows and to change as times change. That is the beauty of our constitution and what makes it such an amazing document which shows some incredible wisdom from our forefathers.

The idea that all of these departments and programs are unconstitutional flies in the face of our Supreme Court and all of the Presidents who swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United states. Any President who believed that any department or program was indeed unconstitutional would be duty bound to sue to have that department or program deemd unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That means that right wing heros like Bush and Reagan would be complicit in the violation of the Constitution if it was indeed being violated, by these departments and programs.
The biggest problem with unwarranted federal intrusion in our lives came when the Supreme Court first ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause could be used to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, because modern technology makes virtually every aspect of our lives be involved in interstate commerce. It basically is a get-out-of-jail-free card for congress to usurp powers that should have been reserved to the states.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
:laughing: Vague? The constitution is very straight forward and written for the layman to understand. It gives the federal government 18 enumerated powers and leaves all other power to the states. It has a clear path for updating and changing as necessary, the constitutional amendment process.

Nothing vague and very few departments and programs pass the constitutional test.
Here is the 18th power enumerated in the constitution.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Please explain to me how this power does not authorize our government to make any law that it finds necessary to run this country, as long as those passing the laws are dully authorized by us through thier election.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
The biggest problem with unwarranted federal intrusion in our lives came when the Supreme Court first ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause could be used to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, because modern technology makes virtually every aspect of our lives be involved in interstate commerce. It basically is a get-out-of-jail-free card for congress to usurp powers that should have been reserved to the states.
We are suposed to be a United Country. If we are to be united we must have certain uniform laws and rights in all states or we would not actualy be united. We would then have to show passports and imigrate from state to state reather than simply move freely. That is that problem with the anti federal idea. We are a much stronger and I believe better country united than if we were a bunch of independent states.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Here is the 18th power enumerated in the constitution.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Please explain to me how this power does not authorize our government to make any law that it finds necessary to run this country, as long as those passing the laws are dully authorized by us through thier election.
Forcing us to buy healthcare insurance hardly qualifies as a necessity to run the country. Forcing federal mandates on our schools hardly qualifies as a necessity to run the country. Extracting money from one group of people to redistribute to another group of people hardly qualifies as a necessity to run the country.

In other words, if it isn't specified in the 18 enumerated powers, they don't have constitutional authority.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
We are suposed to be a United Country. If we are to be united we must have certain uniform laws and rights in all states or we would not actualy be united. We would then have to show passports and imigrate from state to state reather than simply move freely. That is that problem with the anti federal idea. We are a much stronger and I believe better country united than if we were a bunch of independent states.
Actually, there are 50 sovereign states, who allocate 18 powers to a central federal government. Who in turn have become dictatorial and tyrannical.

1 size does not fit all. The founders knew this and sought to limit the power of the central federal government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
We are suposed to be a United Country. If we are to be united we must have certain uniform laws and rights in all states or we would not actualy be united. We would then have to show passports and imigrate from state to state reather than simply move freely. That is that problem with the anti federal idea. We are a much stronger and I believe better country united than if we were a bunch of independent states.
:down:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Actually, there are 50 sovereign states, who allocate 18 powers to a central federal government. Who in turn have become dictatorial and tyrannical.

1 size does not fit all. The founders knew this and sought to limit the power of the central federal government.
:agree:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top