I am still waiting for you to back your origional claim. But until you do that. here we go again.

When they are deciding. It is what they are going to do. As they decided to do nothing. We were justified. They can not decide what we can or can not do. As stated in Article 51.

Try again there buddy.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

The UN Charter also states that it has no explicit powers to control the actions of member nations. It's merely and advisory board, if part of joining meant having to succumb to the will of the council there wouldn't be any members.

I don't see any reason to repeat things that we've already covered. Your going to have to come up with another angle because the 'illegal war' thing just isn't sticking. So I either get to believe your the most brilliant legal mind in our country, or that someone smarter has already tried to take this to court and failed, just like your doing here.

__________________

Sure SFB; No problem...

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


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.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"... Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; ..."

Again, I hope that despite your severe intellectual limitations that you'll be able to muster sufficient means to recognize that the authorization of the use of military force is by definition, A Declaration of War.

While it's not a ton of hope... as you've yet to demonstrate even this minimal means, I suppose there is always... Hope.

So, just to head your severely limited @$$ off... whn you fail and we both know ya probably will; meaning you reject that these two declaration authorizing the use of military force are not "Declarations of War" then you will need (and note this is the THIRD TIME you've been challenged to provide this...) to return with the language in the USC wherein it spells out the specific outlines by which the Congress must declare war, for it to be super-official...

Best of luck...

The above may be an opinion. Sure.

The fact that Congress passed the power to declare war to the President is not. The fact that the Iraq War is unconstitutional is not.

I don't care about the Joint Resolution either. That is just more legislation that is more nonsense. That passes power to the President that he doesn't have granted to him by the Constitution.

I also don't care about the War Powers Resolution either. It is again, more nonsense legislation that passes the power to the President unnecessarily and unconstitutionally.

YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS!

Your default concession is noted and summarily accepted.

You have failed to support your argument. You have made claims which have been repeatedly refuted and you continue to return to advance them as if they were uncontested.

If you continue to troll this thread, I'll lobby site staff to take measures to stop this absurd behavior.

Your elitism is not necessary.

Nonetheless, apparently a distinction is not being made between Congress declaring war and Congress passing the authorization to render force on foreign lands to the President. Apparently, the analogy I used was skipped over it because it doesn't help the argument of my opponents here.

Futhermore, in the Iraq Resolution it mentions nothing of the Constitution and only mentions the UN numerous times. Hmmm. Nonetheless, again, the power to Declare War is vested in the Legislative Branch. Not the Executive. Not the Judicial. And the balance of power can't be passed around. Again, revert back to my earlier analogy.

You haven't refuted anything sir.

You suggest that Congress has unconventionally declared war through the resolution.

I suggest otherwise.

Great speech by Ron Paul prior to the Iraq War. Notice his wisdom and foresight. The mark of a true leader. Nonetheless, I doubt it will be read by anyone other than myself.

FAIL!


ABSURD! You've chronically rejected refutation of this asinine position, refused to provide a valid basis in reasoning for these rejections as well as refused to provide supporting evidence for discredited positions.

I didn't suggest anything sis; I stated as INCONTESTABLE FACT that authorizing the use of military force against a sovereign nation is a declaration of WAR... providing IRREFUTABLE Documentation, which you simply reject out of hand, absent any discernable basis in valid reasoning while refusing to respond to a repeated and reasonable challenge for you to simply cite a constitutional source in support of your long discredited argument which hinges upon a constitutional basis. Thus...

You FAIL!

Please read the whole reference. You will find that it is well documented that the president can do whatever he wants with the military to protect the US. There are many examples that support this, not only from recent times. But from the fathers themselves. It was long ago stated (directly after it was written) that declaring war is not necessary for military action.

If you would have actually read my reference we would not be having this conversation right now.

For example. If you would have actually read it you would have read this part.

"Constitutional Text. The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)"

Now if you are willing to simply say that it does not meet with your interpretation of the constitution, then that is fine. But that does not make it illegal.

And as such, you would never be able to argue that it was illegal.

Please try again.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.