Skip to main content

View Diary: Congress must declare war. (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And you are continuing to careen off the rails (0+ / 0-)

    by making really unfounded assumptions about what I want, along with making legal claims that simply do not hold water. You're right about one thing, however: The War Powers Act hasn't been challenged and ruled on by the SCOTUS. However, I can't see much of a way for the POTUS to challenge it except by doing exactly what would be a bad thing to do - try to exceed its restrictions on his actions. I don't think either of us wants him to do that.

    All roads lead to Congress if you want the rules to change. Sorry you can't accept that, and sorry that your response to being told that is to attack me.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 04:34:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The President can ignore the War Powers Act. (0+ / 0-)

      And go to Congress for a Declaration of War. If he gets his wish, Congress must fund it and run on it. If he doesnt get his wish, he must abide by the decision unless the situation becomes so dangerous he may invoke the War Powers Act. It is a last resort remedy. I do not understand how you think this is out of the track. It is logical, legal and puts the onus on Congress to put up or shut up, and makes clear that the War Powers Act may not be used for trivial reasons by future Presidents.

      The President has the power to force Congress to act, or decide. This is the time to use that power and re-establish democratic governance in the area of war and peace.

      You have never shown how these legal claims do not hold water, but you are filled with invective for those of us who want the President to act strictly Constitutionally.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:14:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have never shown (0+ / 0-)

        how your legal claims DO hold water, and you're the one making them; the onus is on you. However, start with Prize Cases.

        The President choosing to go to Congress for a declaration of war (or even an AUMF) is not going to help the underlying problem, because that doesn't put any real constraints on the President's power -- the next President, or even this President next time, would not be any more constrained than he is now. Again, the only way to really restrict the President's war powers is to go through Congress -- and that means repealing or altering the War Powers Act.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:33:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The way to alter the War Powers Act is to NOT USE (0+ / 0-)

          IT. Make it obvious that it is uneccesary to the waging of war and damaging to us because it make its too easy for irresponsible Presidents to invoke it. If Obama were to say.. "Ladies and Gentleman, for a long time I have considered the War Powers Act of 1973 to be unconsitutional. It has led Presidents into hasty and unsupported wars with no end, and of dubious benefit. In accordance with my promise in 2008, I am asking Congress to consider this resolution and approve a Declaration of War against Syria. At a later time, we can debate the abuse of the War Powers act on the making of war in the last 40 years, but for this action, I need the support of the Congress and the American people. I am asking for your support on making sure chemical weapons are never used on civilians anywhre in the world. I expect Congress to act swiftly with a decision. I will not invoke the War Powers Act unless an imminent emergency occurs and the fate of the nation is at stake. In this case, today, a Contitutionlly required Declaration of War is the only legal course allowable. God Bless you and good night."

          This is legal. This is moral. This restricts the use of the Act to specific times and sets it on a course to extinction. This is effective in curbing Presidential warmaking.

          I thought liberals on my side would approve of a principled stand which can work to lasting benefit.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:48:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What part of (0+ / 0-)

            "Not using it will not constrain a President from using it next time" are you not understanding? The President declining to use it does nothing -- NOTHING -- to restrict the use of the Act except by the President's -- this or the next one's -- continued choice. It would be foolhardy to regard that as a solution.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:50:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I dont understand how you dont understand process. (0+ / 0-)

              This is how leaders create doubt that a law is useful or necessary. They ignore them and go back to previous law which is not in dispute. The War Powers Act has ALWAYS been in dispute because of the harms it has caused.

              Obama can and should lead this way. Use the laws which are legal and show how the War Powers Act is unnecessary and must be repealed. It is what a Constitutional scholar was elected for, and its why I voted for him, twice.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:53:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please provide an example (0+ / 0-)

                of how any law was ever repealed because a President declined to use it in favor of a more restrictive one.

                Just one.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 08:07:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  More restrictive for Presidents, yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  But less restrictive for the good of the republic. The point of being President is to accomplish the people's business, not to continue to enlarge Presidential Power. That is our problem. If Obama is half the man he campaigned as, he will understand that he has an obligation to try to kill the War Powers Act before it kills us in endless wars.

                  I do not know of a precedent. Lincoln had no precedent, and Roosevelt had no precedent for many of the problems they faced. They did well by breaking precedent, and all great leaders do. Obama has the chance right now to be a great leader. I do not expect people to understand this completely, but this is the job of political leadership. Great political leadership. It is novel and new, and yet, I think it will work. And it will wrong foot the Republicans.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 08:15:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're telling me (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't understand process, yet you admit that there is no precedent for the process you're prescribing.

                    I think I'm done here.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 08:19:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, you may not get the art of politics (0+ / 0-)

                      Its not about precedent. Its about what is right. If you cannot see that, there is something wrong with your thinking. You are a mere technocrat. I am interested in something new to change the Republic. You dont have to listen, but I think many creative political types are listening. They do not know how to break out of the gridlock leading us down to the ashpit of history, and this is one creative way to do it.

                      Thanks for reading, even though your sarcasm and condescension was barely tolerated.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 08:35:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There is definitely something wrong (0+ / 0-)

                        with the thinking of one of us.

                        I'll take my degree in political science over your continued insistence I just can't recognize the brilliance of your political analysis because my thinking is deficient, thanks. And I'm really done with your obduracy.

                        End of line.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 08:39:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site