Article II

[93henfan]

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.

He fucking criticised Obama too.....what are you.....a parrot?

Fuck you.

Isn't that your line, you sensitive fanook?

[JohnStOnge]

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

Note that I did not criticize the recent raid that killed Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi. What I'm talking about is the argument that's been manifested over the past few days about whether or not the Congress can make the rules for when the President can use military action, require the President to get Congressional approval, etc.

As I said in the opening post, when this Trump thing is over so that it's not about a particular personality but instead about a principle, this country needs to do something to get rid of this Imperial Presidency thing.

I have not even criticized the strike on Suleimani. I HAVE expressed doubts about whether it was a smart thing to do because previous Presidents of both parties could have knocked the guy off and opted not to; judging that it would cause more problems than it would solve.

My view of the Constitution in terms of what it actually says is that there is a separation of powers between the three branches but not a balance of powers. The three branches are not co-equal. Congress is the most powerful branch, the Executive is next, and the Judiciary is weakest. At least that is the design (as we know, the Judiciary has become extremely powerful).

My belief that we have allowed too much power to both the Executive Branch and the Judiciary is decades old and I have written posts consistent with that outlook many times. Also my belief that we treat the person in the Presidency as more important than they actually are. We act like the President is royalty when I think the person in that position should be viewed as somebody who has the job of being the chief executive of the execuitve branch who has no more rights or privledges than anybody else.

Like the thing about not being able to criminally pursue a President while they are in office is complete crap. That's a horrible outlook. If Joe Smoe will be prosecuted if he is caught breaking a law the President should be procecuted if they are caught breaking the same law. We shouldn't have this situation where this ONE person gets exempted because they happen to have that job.

[SDHornet]

Another TDS incited Orange Man Bad thread by JSO.

You guys need some new material.

Not really...since I'm not incorrect.

[Ibanez]

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.

It's weird that the founders didn't put anything about drone strikes in the Constitution. You would have thought that such great thinkers such as Hamilton would have taken that into consideration.

Article II does not expressly say what the CiC can do. Washington called up troops to stamp down the Whisky Rebellion. Presidents have launched military actions w/o Congressional approval throughout our history. There is precedent. Congress, at times, has given POTUS a wide berth and powers while others have tried to rein in those powers.

I don't believe a strict interpretation is practical, considering how many generations and centuries removed we are from the drafting of the laws.

[kalm]

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.

It's weird that the founders didn't put anything about drone strikes in the Constitution. You would have thought that such great thinkers such as Hamilton would have taken that into consideration.

Article II does not expressly say what the CiC can do. Washington called up troops to stamp down the Whisky Rebellion. Presidents have launched military actions w/o Congressional approval throughout our history. There is precedent. Congress, at times, has given POTUS a wide berth and powers while others have tried to rein in those powers.

I don't believe a strict interpretation is practical, considering how many generations and centuries removed we are from the drafting of the laws.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there...Mr. Living Document!

[AZGrizFan]

It's weird that the founders didn't put anything about drone strikes in the Constitution. You would have thought that such great thinkers such as Hamilton would have taken that into consideration.

Article II does not expressly say what the CiC can do. Washington called up troops to stamp down the Whisky Rebellion. Presidents have launched military actions w/o Congressional approval throughout our history. There is precedent. Congress, at times, has given POTUS a wide berth and powers while others have tried to rein in those powers.

I don't believe a strict interpretation is practical, considering how many generations and centuries removed we are from the drafting of the laws.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there...Mr. Living Document!

No shit. My thoughts exactly.

[Ibanez]

Whoa, whoa, whoa there...Mr. Living Document!

No shit. My thoughts exactly.

It should be a living document. Are you saying Everything after the 10th Amendment shouldn’t be there? I think we can all agree that the 21st Amendment is a good thing. As are the civil rights amendments.

Just because I think the document should be living doesn’t mean I think we should amend the original 10. Don’t make the mistake by conflating one idea with the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

The problem about it being a “living document” is that the term is misinterpreted.

Living document doesn’t mean creative interpretation by SCOTUS. They should be ruling on original intent.

Living document means it can be changed by the amendment process.

Amend the Constitution or STFU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

The problem about it being a “living document” is that the term is misinterpreted.

Living document doesn’t mean creative interpretation by SCOTUS. They should be ruling on original intent.

Living document means it can be changed by the amendment process.

Amend the Constitution or STFU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. If you don’t like the dead-white-male “well regulated militia” wording, trust the process. It’s laid out unambiguously in Article V.

[kalm]

The problem about it being a “living document” is that the term is misinterpreted.

Living document doesn’t mean creative interpretation by SCOTUS. They should be ruling on original intent.

Living document means it can be changed by the amendment process.

Amend the Constitution or STFU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. If you don’t like the dead-white-male “well regulated militia” wording, trust the process. It’s laid out unambiguously in Article V.

So thinking about our battles over the 4th amendment...

Including electronic surveillance to cover papers and personal effects would require an amendment?

Sounds like we’d need to amend it every twenty years or so.

Too much work!

[Ivytalk]

Yep. If you don’t like the dead-white-male “well regulated militia” wording, trust the process. It’s laid out unambiguously in Article V.

So thinking about our battles over the 4th amendment...

Including electronic surveillance to cover papers and personal effects would require an amendment?

Sounds like we’d need to amend it every twenty years or so.

Too much work!

No amendment required.”Papers and personal effects” comes right out of the text. The Fourth Amendment
is silent as to the mode of search. Doesn’t have to be dead white dudes in tricorn hats going through your stuff. Katz made this pretty clear.

[Ibanez]

The problem about it being a “living document” is that the term is misinterpreted.

Living document doesn’t mean creative interpretation by SCOTUS. They should be ruling on original intent.

Living document means it can be changed by the amendment process.

Amend the Constitution or STFU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100% I support amending it when necessary. That makes the document living.


Although, depending on your politics, one could argue that it's a living document in it's interpretation. 2A is a perfect example. One interpretation means that we should be limited to muskets. Another means any weapon under the sun. 2A doesn't have to reference specific firearms, it's inclusive of all.

Maybe i'm off in my thinking of that. Or i'm not expressing myself clearly. However, I don't think you can just make shit up and imply a right can be taken away just because it's not 1789 anymore. I'd say most of the time i'm in the "Amend or STFU" camp.

[Ibanez]

The problem about it being a “living document” is that the term is misinterpreted.

Living document doesn’t mean creative interpretation by SCOTUS. They should be ruling on original intent.

Living document means it can be changed by the amendment process.

Amend the Constitution or STFU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. If you don’t like the dead-white-male “well regulated militia” wording, trust the process. It’s laid out unambiguously in Article V.

Exactly. And that process has worked well...except in the case of the 18th. Morons.

[∞∞∞]

I love strict Constitutionalism.

Instead of People dictating how to they'd like their society to function, the Constitutionalists want strict adherence to rules written by long-dead (white) men. And if the people or their Representatives don't want to follow these strict rules, they make sure the military has pledged to this document instead of the People.

It's a very "enlightened" way to run societies, right CID?

Same folks believe in small government too, when the Constitution creates the biggest one.

[AZGrizFan]

The problem about it being a “living document” is that the term is misinterpreted.

Living document doesn’t mean creative interpretation by SCOTUS. They should be ruling on original intent.

Living document means it can be changed by the amendment process.

Amend the Constitution or STFU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100% I support amending it when necessary. That makes the document living.


Although, depending on your politics, one could argue that it's a living document in it's interpretation. 2A is a perfect example. One interpretation means that we should be limited to muskets. Another means any weapon under the sun. 2A doesn't have to reference specific firearms, it's inclusive of all.

Maybe i'm off in my thinking of that. Or i'm not expressing myself clearly. However, I don't think you can just make shit up and imply a right can be taken away just because it's not 1789 anymore. I'd say most of the time i'm in the "Amend or STFU" camp.

So how can it be misinterpreted then?

[AZGrizFan]

I love strict Constitutionalism.

Instead of People dictating how to they'd like their society to function, the Constitutionalists want strict adherence to rules written by long-dead (white) men. And if the people or their Representatives don't want to follow these strict rules, they make sure the military has pledged to this document instead of the People.

It's a very "enlightened" way to run societies, right CID?

Same folks believe in small government too, when the Constitution creates the biggest one.

I got this, CID: Treep, if you don't like the constitution the way its written, amend it or STFU.

It really IS that simple.

[Ibanez]

Agree 100% I support amending it when necessary. That makes the document living.


Although, depending on your politics, one could argue that it's a living document in it's interpretation. 2A is a perfect example. One interpretation means that we should be limited to muskets. Another means any weapon under the sun. 2A doesn't have to reference specific firearms, it's inclusive of all.

Maybe i'm off in my thinking of that. Or i'm not expressing myself clearly. However, I don't think you can just make shit up and imply a right can be taken away just because it's not 1789 anymore. I'd say most of the time i'm in the "Amend or STFU" camp.

So how can it be misinterpreted then?

I think you know the answer. A Democrat would suggest that the 2A made perfect sense when we had milita's and carrying a rifle was required for safety. We aren't in the same situation anymore.

[AZGrizFan]

So how can it be misinterpreted then?

I think you know the answer. A Democrat would suggest that the 2A made perfect sense when we had milita's and carrying a rifle was required for safety. We aren't in the same situation anymore.

I would disagree.

[Ibanez]

I think you know the answer. A Democrat would suggest that the 2A made perfect sense when we had milita's and carrying a rifle was required for safety. We aren't in the same situation anymore.

I would disagree.

Of course. I just gave you a democrat argument, btw. Don't confuse it with my own.

[AZGrizFan]

I would disagree.

Of course. I just gave you a democrat argument, btw. Don't confuse it with my own.

I'm not disagreeing with YOU. I'm disagreeing with the statement.

[Ibanez]

Of course. I just gave you a democrat argument, btw. Don't confuse it with my own.

I'm not disagreeing with YOU. I'm disagreeing with the statement.

Ah, got you.

Yeah. Amend or STFU. We have a way of changing the laws in the country. Let's use them.

[89Hen]

[CID1990]

I love strict Constitutionalism.

Instead of People dictating how to they'd like their society to function, the Constitutionalists want strict adherence to rules written by long-dead (white) men. And if the people or their Representatives don't want to follow these strict rules, they make sure the military has pledged to this document instead of the People.

It's a very "enlightened" way to run societies, right CID?

Same folks believe in small government too, when the Constitution creates the biggest one.

It was written with a built in mechanism for changing it, Treep

You seem to prefer just whining about democracy while the amendment process is as democratic as it gets

Instead of trying to overrule by fiat those Americans you obviously hate, why not seek out a system that caters to your tastes?

I can think of a couple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

It was written with a built in mechanism for changing it, Treep

You seem to prefer just whining about democracy while the amendment process is as democratic as it gets

Instead of trying to overrule by fiat those Americans you obviously hate, why not seek out a system that caters to your tastes?

I can think of a couple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will you remember your own words when things take a U-turn?

Welcome to the board! I’m CID1990, nice to meet you!

I have lived through many U turns, Jearf

I have never changed my tune on the Constitution and I never will. That’s a central tenet of conservatism and one of the primary reasons I call myself one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

I love strict Constitutionalism.

Instead of People dictating how to they'd like their society to function, the Constitutionalists want strict adherence to rules written by long-dead (white) men. And if the people or their Representatives don't want to follow these strict rules, they make sure the military has pledged to this document instead of the People.

It's a very "enlightened" way to run societies, right CID?

Same folks believe in small government too, when the Constitution creates the biggest one.

You on captagon, bro? This makes no sense.