Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I have always been a person who has railed against Liberal Justices because I've thought they "interpret" the Constitution to require things it doesn't actually say it requires, etc. Lately I've been hearing all this talk of Article II powers. Specifically, I've heard people say the War Powers Act might be Unconstitutional. Like the Constitution says Congress can't specify the circumstances under which a President can initiate military action.

So I just read Article II again to be sure. It does not say the President has the power to initiate military action. It says the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Ok. But nowhere as far as I can tell does it say the President has the power to say the armed forces shall be applied.

If there is one thing this country needs to do after all this current Trump stuff is over it is to put the President back in the box. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing in the actual language of Article II that makes the President this all powerful figure. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says that the President has the power, for instance, to order a drone attack on a military official of another country when no war has been declared.

What should happen is that, if Iran is a big enough problem, Congress should declare war on Iran. Then the President will be the commander in chief of the military while implementing the will of Congress.

Congress needs to grow a spine and take its rightful power back.

Yeah, we let the cat out of the bag with Jefferson and the whole First Barbary War. Congress stops short of declaring war and yet we have naval battles all over the Mediterranean. No excuse for them back then to not be able to ascertain what that Founders wanted, I mean, they could've just asked them. Or, you know, they probably did turn to their left or their right and did ask a Founder. We've been conducting military actions without explicit declarations of war since the country came into existence.

GannonFan wrote:Yeah, we let the cat out of the bag with Jefferson and the whole First Barbary War. Congress stops short of declaring war and yet we have naval battles all over the Mediterranean. No excuse for them back then to not be able to ascertain what that Founders wanted, I mean, they could've just asked them. Or, you know, they probably did turn to their left or their right and did ask a Founder. We've been conducting military actions without explicit declarations of war since the country came into existence.

/thread

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Yeah, we let the cat out of the bag with Jefferson and the whole First Barbary War. Congress stops short of declaring war and yet we have naval battles all over the Mediterranean. No excuse for them back then to not be able to ascertain what that Founders wanted, I mean, they could've just asked them. Or, you know, they probably did turn to their left or their right and did ask a Founder. We've been conducting military actions without explicit declarations of war since the country came into existence.

/thread

How early they deviated does not matter. If we are going to be governed by a Constitution we should stick to it or amend it. We should not find excuses to say it grants power it does not grant.

Regardless of how long ago it first happened this country needs to get rid of this idea of the President as a ruler. The President needs to be seen as what it is in the language of the Constitution. Congress should define the circumstances under which a President can act in the absence of a declaration of war. And I think that would be completely consistent with what the Constitution actually says. The idea that the Constitution has some kind of equivalency between the Executive and the Legislative when it comes to making decisions about the use of military force is nonsense. It is clearly the purview of Congress. At least that is the case if we are going to do what it actually says.

GannonFan wrote:Yeah, we let the cat out of the bag with Jefferson and the whole First Barbary War. Congress stops short of declaring war and yet we have naval battles all over the Mediterranean. No excuse for them back then to not be able to ascertain what that Founders wanted, I mean, they could've just asked them. Or, you know, they probably did turn to their left or their right and did ask a Founder. We've been conducting military actions without explicit declarations of war since the country came into existence.

Well, Perfesser Heck, the last U.S. declaration of war was...December 8, 1941.

I’ll just leave it at that.

I agree with AZGF: / thread

Why does "war" stop at military actions?
Shouldn't it also include economic sanctions and tariffs?

“The best diplomat is a fully activated phaser bank.”

Mr Scott, Star Trek Season 1 A Taste of Armageddon (1966)

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
/thread

How early they deviated does not matter. If we are going to be governed by a Constitution we should stick to it or amend it. We should not find excuses to say it grants power it does not grant.

Regardless of how long ago it first happened this country needs to get rid of this idea of the President as a ruler. The President needs to be seen as what it is in the language of the Constitution. Congress should define the circumstances under which a President can act in the absence of a declaration of war. And I think that would be completely consistent with what the Constitution actually says. The idea that the Constitution has some kind of equivalency between the Executive and the Legislative when it comes to making decisions about the use of military force is nonsense. It is clearly the purview of Congress. At least that is the case if we are going to do what it actually says.

I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you, only that you're transparent as a motherfucker in that you only care about this now because of your massive case of TDS. It's been that way for literally 200+ years and in your lifetime you've never said a word. Until now.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: How early they deviated does not matter. If we are going to be governed by a Constitution we should stick to it or amend it. We should not find excuses to say it grants power it does not grant.

Regardless of how long ago it first happened this country needs to get rid of this idea of the President as a ruler. The President needs to be seen as what it is in the language of the Constitution. Congress should define the circumstances under which a President can act in the absence of a declaration of war. And I think that would be completely consistent with what the Constitution actually says. The idea that the Constitution has some kind of equivalency between the Executive and the Legislative when it comes to making decisions about the use of military force is nonsense. It is clearly the purview of Congress. At least that is the case if we are going to do what it actually says.

I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you, only that you're transparent as a motherfucker in that you only care about this now because of your massive case of TDS. It's been that way for literally 200+ years and in your lifetime you've never said a word. Until now.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: How early they deviated does not matter. If we are going to be governed by a Constitution we should stick to it or amend it. We should not find excuses to say it grants power it does not grant.

Regardless of how long ago it first happened this country needs to get rid of this idea of the President as a ruler. The President needs to be seen as what it is in the language of the Constitution. Congress should define the circumstances under which a President can act in the absence of a declaration of war. And I think that would be completely consistent with what the Constitution actually says. The idea that the Constitution has some kind of equivalency between the Executive and the Legislative when it comes to making decisions about the use of military force is nonsense. It is clearly the purview of Congress. At least that is the case if we are going to do what it actually says.

I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you, only that you're transparent as a motherfucker in that you only care about this now because of your massive case of TDS. It's been that way for literally 200+ years and in your lifetime you've never said a word. Until now.

So you’ve never changed your mind?

Figures...

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you, only that you're transparent as a motherfucker in that you only care about this now because of your massive case of TDS. It's been that way for literally 200+ years and in your lifetime you've never said a word. Until now.

So you’ve never changed your mind?

Figures...

You KNOW the only reason he gives two shits about this now is because of Trump. It’s the only reason he care about anything right now.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So you’ve never changed your mind?

Figures...

You KNOW the only reason he gives two shits about this now is because of Trump. It’s the only reason he care about anything right now.

No. I literally don’t know that. Furthermore, I respect people willing to admit when they’ve been wrong and are capable of changing their mind.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: How early they deviated does not matter. If we are going to be governed by a Constitution we should stick to it or amend it. We should not find excuses to say it grants power it does not grant.

Regardless of how long ago it first happened this country needs to get rid of this idea of the President as a ruler. The President needs to be seen as what it is in the language of the Constitution. Congress should define the circumstances under which a President can act in the absence of a declaration of war. And I think that would be completely consistent with what the Constitution actually says. The idea that the Constitution has some kind of equivalency between the Executive and the Legislative when it comes to making decisions about the use of military force is nonsense. It is clearly the purview of Congress. At least that is the case if we are going to do what it actually says.

I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you, only that you're transparent as a motherfucker in that you only care about this now because of your massive case of TDS. It's been that way for literally 200+ years and in your lifetime you've never said a word. Until now.

I've said plenty of words over my lifetime about the way this country has evolved to make the President as though his shit is made of gold and he's like a king. I've always been like that. Not only the war stuff. But stuff like closing off roads and such when a President goes somewhere. Disrupting a city as though the President is SO important that life just couldn't go on if something happened to that particular person. Like disrupting air traffic so Clinton could get a haircut. Or the Secret Service detaining a woman because she yelled an insult at Clinton while he was jogging.

I also believe in literal interpretation of the Constitution and to me, if you do that, the President isn't all that. Congress' role is to make the laws. Congress is the branch that decides on what national policy is. Congress makes the decisions on the basic direction of the country. Congress decides whether we get into a fight with another country. The President is just implementing the decisions Congress makes. Well, the President does take the lead on treaties but even then Congress has to sign off on them. And the President can veto legislation but Congress, as an institution, gets the final word. The President can do nothing without Congress. Congress, with sufficient consensus, can make a law whether the President likes it or not. And when it makes a law the President is obligated to follow and implement it. In other words: Institutionally, Congress is the boss. At least it's SUPPOSED to be.

In any case, note that I said we need to do something AFTER all this Trump stuff is over. I said that specifically because I think that if we are going to do it we need to do it when we are just talking about the principle instead of about a particular person. Now, I do think Trump has illustrated the need to do it. If ever people should be able to see the problem with allowing a President as much power as we've allowed the position it is now.

And BTW I criticized Obama and objected to his exercise of power a LOT.

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you, only that you're transparent as a motherfucker in that you only care about this now because of your massive case of TDS. It's been that way for literally 200+ years and in your lifetime you've never said a word. Until now.

I've said plenty of words over my lifetime about the way this country has evolved to make the President as though his shit is made of gold and he's like a king. I've always been like that. Not only the war stuff. But stuff like closing off roads and such when a President goes somewhere. Disrupting a city as though the President is SO important that life just couldn't go on if something happened to that particular person. Like disrupting air traffic so Clinton could get a haircut. Or the Secret Service detaining a woman because she yelled an insult at Clinton while he was jogging.

I also believe in literal interpretation of the Constitution and to me, if you do that, the President isn't all that. Congress' role is to make the laws. Congress is the branch that decides on what national policy is. Congress makes the decisions on the basic direction of the country. Congress decides whether we get into a fight with another country. The President is just implementing the decisions Congress makes. Well, the President does take the lead on treaties but even then Congress has to sign off on them. And the President can veto legislation but Congress, as an institution, gets the final word. The President can do nothing without Congress. Congress, with sufficient consensus, can make a law whether the President likes it or not. And when it makes a law the President is obligated to follow and implement it. In other words: Institutionally, Congress is the boss. At least it's SUPPOSED to be.

In any case, note that I said we need to do something AFTER all this Trump stuff is over. I said that specifically because I think that if we are going to do it we need to do it when we are just talking about the principle instead of about a particular person. Now, I do think Trump has illustrated the need to do it. If ever people should be able to see the problem with allowing a President as much power as we've allowed the position it is now.

Literally NONE of those examples have to do with presidential powers vs congressional powers. The rest of that crap are literally just inconveniences.

Another TDS incited Orange Man Bad thread by JSO.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Literally NONE of those examples have to do with presidential powers vs congressional powers. The rest of that crap are literally just inconveniences.

I've made numerous comments over the years about how I don't like the fact that we've gone into this thing where we go to war and call it something else in order to allow Congress to shirk its responsibility.

Also, I opposed the way the Iran deal was done because Congress should have said it had to ratify a treaty but did some kind of weird thing where they didn't do that and it happened. I'm pretty sure I posted that on this board.

BTW, I was looking through old posts and came across something you might find familiar in tone. It's from a thread started by Dback in 2012 about how the US was about to become the world's top oil producer under Obama. He said the report busted a "conk" talking point. The thread is at https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 10&t=32721.

Here's a quote from my post in that thread:

The "talking point" is not busted because everybody who pays attention at all knows that the increase in production has absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama has done and that, in fact, is not as great as it would be if we had a more oil exploration and production friendly President.

JohnStOnge wrote:I have always been a person who has railed against Liberal Justices because I've thought they "interpret" the Constitution to require things it doesn't actually say it requires, etc. Lately I've been hearing all this talk of Article II powers. Specifically, I've heard people say the War Powers Act might be Unconstitutional. Like the Constitution says Congress can't specify the circumstances under which a President can initiate military action.

So I just read Article II again to be sure. It does not say the President has the power to initiate military action. It says the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Ok. But nowhere as far as I can tell does it say the President has the power to say the armed forces shall be applied.

If there is one thing this country needs to do after all this current Trump stuff is over it is to put the President back in the box. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing in the actual language of Article II that makes the President this all powerful figure. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says that the President has the power, for instance, to order a drone attack on a military official of another country when no war has been declared.

What should happen is that, if Iran is a big enough problem, Congress should declare war on Iran. Then the President will be the commander in chief of the military while implementing the will of Congress.

Congress needs to grow a spine and take its rightful power back.

Welcome to the party, JSO

How long did it take you to figure this out?

Now go figure out who has standing to sue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CAA Flagship wrote:Why does "war" stop at military actions?
Shouldn't it also include economic sanctions and tariffs?

Sanctions against Iran = warfare

Sanctions against Israel = not warfare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I have always been a person who has railed against Liberal Justices because I've thought they "interpret" the Constitution to require things it doesn't actually say it requires, etc. Lately I've been hearing all this talk of Article II powers. Specifically, I've heard people say the War Powers Act might be Unconstitutional. Like the Constitution says Congress can't specify the circumstances under which a President can initiate military action.

So I just read Article II again to be sure. It does not say the President has the power to initiate military action. It says the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Ok. But nowhere as far as I can tell does it say the President has the power to say the armed forces shall be applied.

If there is one thing this country needs to do after all this current Trump stuff is over it is to put the President back in the box. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing in the actual language of Article II that makes the President this all powerful figure. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says that the President has the power, for instance, to order a drone attack on a military official of another country when no war has been declared.

What should happen is that, if Iran is a big enough problem, Congress should declare war on Iran. Then the President will be the commander in chief of the military while implementing the will of Congress.

Congress needs to grow a spine and take its rightful power back.

Welcome to the party, JSO

How long did it take you to figure this out?

Now go figure out who has standing to sue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured it out decades ago. And no lawsuit is necessary. What's needed is for Congress to do what it needs to do. It needs to start looking at itself as an institution instead of having somewhere around half the members saying "The President is in my Party right now so I'm not going to do it."

JohnStOnge wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Welcome to the party, JSO

How long did it take you to figure this out?

Now go figure out who has standing to sue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured it out decades ago. And no lawsuit is necessary. What's needed is for Congress to do what it needs to do. It needs to start looking at itself as an institution instead of having somewhere around half the members saying "The President is in my Party right now so I'm not going to do it."

I already explained this in another thread, John. You may have missed while you were figuring out new ways to place blame on Donald Trump for the Butterfly Effect

Congress doesn’t want the warmaking or foreign policy power back. Both of those venues are where votes matter and mistakes cannot be taken back.

The minute a Democrat is back in the Oval Office the Republicans will once again be fiscal hawks and non interventionists, and the Democrats will of course change their polar alignment to status quo ante as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CAA Flagship wrote:Why does "war" stop at military actions?
Shouldn't it also include economic sanctions and tariffs?

No.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Why does "war" stop at military actions?
Shouldn't it also include economic sanctions and tariffs?

No.

You better check with your avatar, Angelicus Occasional Cortez on the one

She’s brilliant dontchaknow

Sanctions = warfare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
No.

You better check with your avatar, Angelicus Occasional Cortez on the one

She’s brilliant dontchaknow

Sanctions = warfare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flaggy said “war”.

War is armed conflict.

Oh...and

*that

JohnStOnge wrote:I have always been a person who has railed against Liberal Justices because I've thought they "interpret" the Constitution to require things it doesn't actually say it requires, etc. Lately I've been hearing all this talk of Article II powers. Specifically, I've heard people say the War Powers Act might be Unconstitutional. Like the Constitution says Congress can't specify the circumstances under which a President can initiate military action.

So I just read Article II again to be sure. It does not say the President has the power to initiate military action. It says the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Ok. But nowhere as far as I can tell does it say the President has the power to say the armed forces shall be applied.

If there is one thing this country needs to do after all this current Trump stuff is over it is to put the President back in the box. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing in the actual language of Article II that makes the President this all powerful figure. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says that the President has the power, for instance, to order a drone attack on a military official of another country when no war has been declared.

What should happen is that, if Iran is a big enough problem, Congress should declare war on Iran. Then the President will be the commander in chief of the military while implementing the will of Congress.

Congress needs to grow a spine and take its rightful power back.

Oh, now it finally matters to you? After 500+ Obama drones and over 3,500 (300+ innocent civilians) killed by them?

Your TDS is precious. Don't ever change.