Originally Posted By woody You guys got it wrong. The President is claiming the authority under the Constitution.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "You guys got it wrong. The President is claiming the authority under the Constitution." Exactly where would that be in the Constitution?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Alito, on the other hand, bragged about membership in this group whose main purpose was to keep Princeton as white and male as possible on his job application to the Reagan administration, and now "forgets" all about even belonging.> You're misrepresenting Alito's resume, as well as the group he was once a member of.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This president has never understood that it is his job to execute the laws that Congress passes.> He understands that his job is to uphold and protect the Constitution. The Constitution trumps any law Congress may pass.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, can the President choose to ignore the Constitution and the LAWS that limit his time in office? Can he then ignore the part about titles of nobility and insist on being addressed as His Imperial Majesty and declaring himself Emperor and Dictator for Life (like Caesar)?> Of course not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Exactly where would that be in the Constitution?> Article II - "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." From <a href="http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/forum/index.php?ntid=68865&ntpid=4" target="_blank">http://www.madison.com/wsj/hom e/forum/index.php?ntid=68865&ntpid=4</a> - In 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review noted that every federal court of appeals that has addressed the issue agreed the president has independent constitutional power to authorize warrantless foreign intelligence wiretaps, declaring: "We take for granted that the presi dent does have that authority," and "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." See also <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110007734</a>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer ><Exactly where would that be in the Constitution?> Article II - "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."<< That means he executes the laws that the legislature creates. It doesn't mean he gets to create laws for himself.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>He understands that his job is to uphold and protect the Constitution. The Constitution trumps any law Congress may pass. << And the 4th Amendment trumps the president's self-declared right to have warrantless searches.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Great job by you too Tom as I do have some knowledge in this area by getting a B.A. in poly sci. LSS------long story short-----You're both right and you both know that it's a matter of interpretation. There has always been an ebb and flow of power going between the 3 branches and there always have been accusations of the President trying to usurp power from both the Legislature and the Judicial, most notably during the Nixon years. But there has never been an egregious usurping of power and that is the most important thing. Let me open up a can of worms on the "interpretation" front by giving my humble opinion that the Constitution does NOT give us the right to bear arms. It's absurd to think that all citizens should be lumped as "militia" Againd, just MY interpretation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That means he executes the laws that the legislature creates. It doesn't mean he gets to create laws for himself.> He's not creating any laws. He's using his powers as head of the executive branch and commander-in-chief of the military to protect the Constitution and the citizens of the US.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh According to Jamie Goerilick, yes, they do. I believe John Jay concurred with her as well, as did FDR and Abraham Lincoln.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If we were in a state of declared war or armed insurrection, I would agree with your comparison to FDR or Lincoln.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tom- Terrorism is worse than either armed insurrection or declared war as it is so insidious much akin to 12/7/41!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If we were in a state of declared war or armed insurrection, I would agree with your comparison to FDR or Lincoln.> "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava lon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm</a>
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Try as you might Doug, it's an authorization of force, NOT a declaration of war.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer A declaration of war looks like this: "JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same. Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States." Note that the word "War" is actually used.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Where in the Constitution does it define what a declaration of war is?
