Political Forum  

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Political Opinions & Beliefs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 06:45 PM
C-D-P's Avatar
C-D-P C-D-P is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 1,731
usa
C-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 8,172
Send a message via ICQ to C-D-P Send a message via Yahoo to C-D-P
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed View Post
Well, I could post the entirety of the US Constitution to show nowhere do they say the President is allowed preentive doctrine. But that would be pointless.
Yes it would be, as the constitution is a living document.

Quote:
The Founders weren't 100% correct on everything.
No it is not.

[quote]The Constitution isn't perfect.[quote]

No it is not.

Quote:
But what we go is what it is and the Iraq War goes against it.
No it does not. Read the source. Or hell, just read the quotes I provided. They are but a fraction that gives the president authority to do with the military as he pleases if he believes that it is in the best interest of the nation.

Quote:
But yes, it is quite clear what they said in the Constitution.
So you are fine with the fact that they did not include women in the constitution?
Reply With Quote
  #192 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 06:47 PM
BigRed BigRed is online now
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,480
BigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 8,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post

No it does not. Read the source. Or hell, just read the quotes I provided. They are but a fraction that gives the president authority to do with the military as he pleases if he believes that it is in the best interest of the nation.

So you are fine with the fact that they did not include women in the constitution?
Nothing in the Constitution allows the Congress to pass the power for authorization of force on foreign countries to the President. Yes, the President is allowed to send troops as necessary with regards to imminent threats or self-defense as Commander in Chief. Nowhere though, is preeventive doctrine mentioned. Your source sucks essentially.

Like I said, the Constitution wasn't perfect.

Last edited by BigRed; 05-08-2008 at 06:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #193 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 06:49 PM
C-D-P's Avatar
C-D-P C-D-P is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 1,731
usa
C-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 8,172
Send a message via ICQ to C-D-P Send a message via Yahoo to C-D-P
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed View Post
Nothing in the Constitution allows the Congress to pass the power for authorization of force on foreign countries to the President. Yes, the President is allowed to send troops as necessary with regards to imminent threats or self-defense as Commander in Chief. Nowhere though, is preeventive doctrine mentioned. Your source sucks essentially.

Like I said, the Constitution wasn't perfect.
They didn't have to pass power to him, as I have already showed.
Reply With Quote
  #194 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 06:53 PM
BigRed BigRed is online now
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,480
BigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 8,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
They didn't have to pass power to him, as I have already showed.
WPR/JR mean nothing to me. Those aren't amendments to the Constitution and until they are, they mean nothing with regards to constitutionality.
Reply With Quote
  #195 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 06:54 PM
C-D-P's Avatar
C-D-P C-D-P is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 1,731
usa
C-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 8,172
Send a message via ICQ to C-D-P Send a message via Yahoo to C-D-P
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed View Post
WPR/JR mean nothing to me. Those aren't amendments to the Constitution and until they are, they mean nothing with regards to constitutionality.
You already said that the constitution was not perfect.
Reply With Quote
  #196 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 06:55 PM
BigRed BigRed is online now
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,480
BigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 8,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
You already said that the constitution was not perfect.
So the Constitution not being perfect negates something that goes against it?

I'm fine with throwing the Constitution out and replacing it with a new one, but for the time being, we have what we have.
Reply With Quote
  #197 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 07:06 PM
C-D-P's Avatar
C-D-P C-D-P is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 1,731
usa
C-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 8,172
Send a message via ICQ to C-D-P Send a message via Yahoo to C-D-P
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed View Post
So the Constitution not being perfect negates something that goes against it?

I'm fine with throwing the Constitution out and replacing it with a new one, but for the time being, we have what we have.
How does military action go against the Constitution? It specifically says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Meaning that he can tell them to do, whatever he wants. It is kind of like a squad leader telling his boys that they need to charge that machine gun nest. He can do that because he is their leader.

Please remember that this discussion has been fought for two hundred and some years. Your side has never won.
Reply With Quote
  #198 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 07:15 PM
BigRed BigRed is online now
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,480
BigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 8,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
How does military action go against the Constitution? It specifically says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Meaning that he can tell them to do, whatever he wants. It is kind of like a squad leader telling his boys that they need to charge that machine gun nest. He can do that because he is their leader.

Please remember that this discussion has been fought for two hundred and some years. Your side has never won.
Because we are a war country.

Nonetheless, being Commander in Chief doesn't allow the President to do "whatever he wants". It's called checks and balances and the reason the power to declare war is given to Congress.
Reply With Quote
  #199 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 07:24 PM
C-D-P's Avatar
C-D-P C-D-P is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 1,731
usa
C-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of lightC-D-P is a glorious beacon of light
Credits: 8,172
Send a message via ICQ to C-D-P Send a message via Yahoo to C-D-P
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed View Post
Because we are a war country.
No, our military is at war, our country is at the mall.

Quote:
Nonetheless, being Commander in Chief doesn't allow the President to do "whatever he wants". It's called checks and balances and the reason the power to declare war is given to Congress.
Actually it does. It allows him to do whatever he sees will defend the best interests of the nation and her people.

Last edited by C-D-P; 05-08-2008 at 07:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #200 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 07:26 PM
BigRed BigRed is online now
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,480
BigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the roughBigRed is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 8,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
No, our military is at war, our country is at the mall.
Doesn't negate the fact that we are a war country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P View Post
Actually it does. It allows him to do whatever he sees will defend the best interests of the nation and her people.
Even if that was in the Constitution (which "doing whatever he wants" surely isn't), I would disagree with that.

Too dictatorshipish for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks
Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Yahoo Furl Reddit

Thread Tools
Display Modes

 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What The Troops Really Think About Iraq Toby Political Opinions & Beliefs 38 04-09-2008 12:42 PM
Help our troops abu-afak Political Opinions & Beliefs 0 04-17-2007 08:51 PM
For all of you who like to say you support the troops DanM Veterans 4 01-07-2006 08:58 PM
Help the troops SedyAlpha Warfare / Military 0 05-22-2005 11:11 AM
My Time with the Troops JP5 Current Events 2 09-03-2004 06:16 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0 Release Candidate 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4