Unconstitutional "War" In Libya

[Caster]

hey, believe whatever you wish to believe. But when you won't listen to those who challenge your beliefs you admit, more or less, that you're some kind of super bigot. People that talk to you waste their, and your, time.

Which is a fine and easy way to live, you're right no matter what. Taking away cognition is a comfortable thing but one more at home in third world countries than the US.

I'm not saying your not right but I will say that blind belief is the tool of the democrats and islamists. And nazis and communists. Plus anyone who doesn't agree with me. Vote Puppies!

After 34 years on this dirt ball, I'm long past blind belief.

I don't recall claiming to be right no matter what either, BUT, I am happy and at peace. That's more than many folks can say. I've never seen a more unhappy lot of people than atheists. They are always getting their blood pressure up arguing and demanding people see reason or show proof. Must be a nightmare carrying a burden like that. I know for me, sometimes I toss and turn for two maybe three minutes before I fall asleep.

[Daniel]

I am an atheist. TBH I don't care if others have faith. My own wife professes to be Presbyterian or something but we haven't been in a church since our daughter was baptized at her insistence almost 9 years ago. I know more about Christianity than she does. I am quite at peace with knowing that when I die, when all of us die, we will cease to be. I do not feel that I need to have an afterlife to make my present life worth it.

[Guest bkelm18]

I do not feel that I need to have an afterlife to make my present life worth it.

Well said.

[Rightwinger]

so that's the best you non believing folks all can hope for is the average insurance companies male actuarial table for life span and that's it?

Have fun for your 67.3 years or whatever it's at now. The first 16 or so you couldn't do what you wanted to, the last 20 or so, you physically can't do what you want to and then you wink out Dan and Bkelm, that's it? That's all you can hope for? I'll take the option of eternity in happiness and if I"m wrong, I still was happy here. But if the rest of us delusionist are right.....well again have fun for your 30 or so years and get ready for a long hard journey that never has a respite...never.

[Guest bkelm18]

so that's the best you non believing folks all can hope for is the average insurance companies male actuarial table for life span and that's it?

Have fun for your 67.3 years or whatever it's at now. The first 16 or so you couldn't do what you wanted to, the last 20 or so, you physically can't do what you want to and then you wink out Dan and Bkelm, that's it? That's all you can hope for? I'll take the option of eternity in happiness and if I"m wrong, I still was happy here. But if the rest of us delusionist are right.....well again have fun for your 30 or so years and get ready for a long hard journey that never has a respite...never.

I never called anyone delusional. And yes, I agree with Daniel, I do not need the possibility of heaven to enjoy my life while it lasts. I live for myself, not for something or someone that may or may not exist. I surely didn't say that I hope for an average life. Well, technically I didn't say anything other than agreeing with something Daniel said. It's life. It's what you make of it. At the end, you're put in a box, and you're decomposed. Plant food. End of story. If you believe there's more after that, good on you, but don't start thumping a book because someone's beliefs are different than yours because there isn't a person on this earth that will force me to believe otherwise.

Edited to add: And I'm not a "non-believer" as you so aptly labeled me. I firmly believe life is a miracle. Billions of years of life brought me to this point. Brought me to where I am right now. If one little glitch happened at any point before now, one virus, one cataclysm, I might not be here. So yes, I do believe life is precious and that it should be enjoyed to the fullest and I personally don't need a book or the promise of eternal happiness to do it.

Edited June 19, 2011 by bkelm18

[Mr. Brooks]

Back on topic;

Personally I'm glad we are in Libya. We will eventually pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and I would just hate having to spend some time at home with my wife.

We should go into Iran and the horn of Africa just for good measure!

[Daniel]

We have people in HOA atm.

[Mr. Brooks]

I know, I meant amounts like we currently have in OND/OEF. Of course, I was also being a smartass.

[Daniel]

Word. We just had two come back from HoA last fall. Out at Camp Lemonnier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . They have PSYOP billets but they arent allowed to perform it lol.

[strickj]

The WPA defined timeline is up and Obama's report is out.

Seems he does not feel that air strikes and UAV strikes is a military action or an act of war.

Central Florida Future

From the link:

"In a later report by the Times,

published online Friday evening, the

president reportedly "rejected the

views of top lawyers at the

Pentagon and the Justice

Department" and adopted the legal

analysis of senior members of his

own legal team, instead.

The Obama administration has set

precedent by declaring an ongoing

high-tech military strike involving

remote-controlled weapons does

not constitute actual warfare. The

operator of a Predator drone,

comfortably seated in a swivel chair

while killing targets on a computer

screen, may agree, but people on

the ground in Tripoli, in the midst of

daily bombardments, likely beg to

differ.

"

[Guest BungieCord]

Nowhere does the US Constitution make the existence of a declaration of war a prerequisite to waging it. Waging war in absence of a declaration does not breach the Constitution.

The US Congress has declared war exactly 10 times (the War of 1812 (x1), the Mexican War (x1), the Spanish-American War (x1), WWI (x2) and WWII (x5)), yet there have been dozens of other military incursions, foreign and domestic, for which there was no Congressional declaration issued and a great many never received any semblance of Congressional approval.

The Constitution nowhere grants the Congress one whit of command authority over the Armed Forces, therefore the War Powers Act violates the separation of powers, infringes upon POTUS's Constitutionally-delegated powers Commander in Chief and is unconstitutional. The sooner it gets its day before SCOTUS, the better.

[strickj]

Nowhere does the US Constitution make the existence of a declaration of war a prerequisite to waging it. Waging war in absence of a declaration does not breach the Constitution.

The US Congress has declared war exactly 10 times (the War of 1812 (x1), the Mexican War (x1), the Spanish-American War (x1), WWI (x2) and WWII (x5)), yet there have been dozens of other military incursions, foreign and domestic, for which there was no Congressional declaration issued and a great many never received any semblance of Congressional approval.

The Constitution nowhere grants the Congress one whit of command authority over the Armed Forces, therefore the War Powers Act violates the separation of powers, infringes upon POTUS's Constitutionally-delegated powers Commander in Chief and is unconstitutional. The sooner it gets its day before SCOTUS, the better.

You are terribly misguided. While the constitution does not make mention of a "DoW", it also does not give the president the power to activate the military, in any way, shape or form. It only gives congress that power and it only gives the president the power to control them once activated as " commander and chief".

People tend to confuse, and just not understand, what a DoW is and what congressional approval is.

A DoW is a type of war. Authorization to take a balls to the wall approach, if you will. A no holds bared war. That's why only a few have ever been issued.

That's completely different then congressional approval. Congressional approval is nothing more then congress activating the military, approving the president's request for military activation, and/or setting limits on military actions with funding.

As far as other military "conflicts" are concerned, all have received congressional approval.

Either prior to the action or afterwards (when congress is not in session or there's no time to wait)

Read here for the exact wordings of the constitution as well as an explanation law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

Edited June 20, 2011 by strickj

[Guest bkelm18]

Nowhere does the US Constitution make the existence of a declaration of war a prerequisite to waging it. Waging war in absence of a declaration does not breach the Constitution.

The US Congress has declared war exactly 10 times (the War of 1812 (x1), the Mexican War (x1), the Spanish-American War (x1), WWI (x2) and WWII (x5)), yet there have been dozens of other military incursions, foreign and domestic, for which there was no Congressional declaration issued and a great many never received any semblance of Congressional approval.

The Constitution nowhere grants the Congress one whit of command authority over the Armed Forces, therefore the War Powers Act violates the separation of powers, infringes upon POTUS's Constitutionally-delegated powers Commander in Chief and is unconstitutional. The sooner it gets its day before SCOTUS, the better.

As Strick pointed out, the constitution does not grant the POTUS supreme power over the military. There has to be a check in place, and it's Congress.