Rep. Kucinich (D). Good looking wife...dumb as a box of hammers.

[mal]

I can't believe I'm supporting the communist Kucinich, but, HE'S RIGHT! The "war powers" IS clear in the Constitution.

And the Hobbit's wife ain't that great-looking either.

Congress has Authorized each...

It is the Job of Congress to Undo it, or Shut the Fuck up.

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are Violations of the Constitution or US Law.

As for an "Official Declaration of War" as those who want to Stop these Wars Claim didn't happen...

There is NO Requirement in the US Constitution that a "Declaration of War" be in Place to Activate Military Action.

It's just a Power that Resides with the Congress if they Choose to Use it.



peace...

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Yep... And again, CONGRESS Authorized what has Happened...

A "Declaration of War" is NOT A Requirement in ANY Setting Dictated by the Constitution, it's simply a Power of Congress... Among others.

You are Assuming it Conveniently...

Quote the Constitution otherwise.



peace...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Congress has Authorized each...

It is the Job of Congress to Undo it, or Shut the Fuck up.

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are Violations of the Constitution or US Law.

As for an "Official Declaration of War" as those who want to Stop these Wars Claim didn't happen...

There is NO Requirement in the US Constitution that a "Declaration of War" be in Place to Activate Military Action.

It's just a Power that Resides with the Congress if they Choose to Use it.



peace...

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Yep... And again, CONGRESS Authorized what has Happened...

A "Declaration of War" is NOT A Requirement in ANY Setting Dictated by the Constitution, it's simply a Power of Congress... Among others.

You are Assuming it Conveniently...

Quote the Constitution otherwise.



peace...

Actually it is a requirement to go to war. Why else would the founders, who debated long and hard as to what should be in the Constitution, include it? It makes no sense for them to say "Well the Congress can issue a Declaration of War if it wants but it's irrelevant."

As for authorizing the war, I repeat that voting to give their authority to the President is not something the Constitution gave the Congress authority to do.

 

[mal]

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Yep... And again, CONGRESS Authorized what has Happened...

A "Declaration of War" is NOT A Requirement in ANY Setting Dictated by the Constitution, it's simply a Power of Congress... Among others.

You are Assuming it Conveniently...

Quote the Constitution otherwise.



peace...

Actually it is a requirement to go to war.

No, it's not.

It's simple ONE of Various Powers listed...

I've Noticed that you are Failing to Quote ANY Part of that Section of the Constitution...

Did you want me to?

You are also Incapable of Quoting the Constitution putting ANY Requirements on Declaring War, aside from Congress having that Power.

I'll be here.



peace...

 

[skookerasbil]

Kucinich.....................

Got to admire the guy.........he's called a complete k00k by so many and he keeps showing up on these TV stations giving interviews.

Never knew he had a hot wifey..................

She must be a mental case too though.............think about it. How many times did we see back 3 or 4 years ago this fringe of the fringe bring a motion to the floor to impeach Bush. He'd get about 100,000 signatures and every nut on this forum would get giddy. Idiots like Right Winger, Dean, Jillian, Dr Smith, Starkey, Cold Fusion et. al. and all the other crazies would come out gauranteeing Bush would be impeached the following week!!!

 

[Paulie]

Show all the videos you want...Constitutionality and reality are 2 entirely different things when national security comes into play.

So we should disregard the constitution during a time when our government decides that our national security is threatened enough?

What's the point of even HAVING the constitution then? There's a REASON why the constitution has that section in there pertaining to war declarations.

It doesn't say "disregard me when convenient". It says "congress shall have the power to declare war".

It really is THAT SIMPLE. When threatened, congress declares war, we fight the war until it is finished, and we come home.

 

[Paulie]

Many of you in here will be surprised to know that even Gunny agrees with the idea of Congress "declaring" war, rather than authorizing the president to do whatever the fuck he wants to.

There still needs to be checks and balances in a war declaration. It's foolish to lend complete authorization to the executive branch with little to no accountability from the exec in the process.

The problem with Bush, was that he was given full authorization, and then when Congress requested certain information or asked for certain actions, he and Cheney simply said "no". It doesn't work like that. Congress has the power to declare war, and therefore should have the power to keep the executive branch in check in the process.

 

[Kex]

Standing by your principles makes you dumb, as long as they are not right wing principles.

P.S. His wife isn't all that hot. A tall ginger with pretty face. Subjective beauty to say the least.

 

[Dr Grump]

Many of you in here will be surprised to know that even Gunny agrees with the idea of Congress "declaring" war, rather than authorizing the president to do whatever the fuck he wants to.

There still needs to be checks and balances in a war declaration. It's foolish to lend complete authorization to the executive branch with little to no accountability from the exec in the process.

The problem with Bush, was that he was given full authorization, and then when Congress requested certain information or asked for certain actions, he and Cheney simply said "no". It doesn't work like that. Congress has the power to declare war, and therefore should have the power to keep the executive branch in check in the process.

I think it's completely stupid to give one person so much power...shrug

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yep... And again, CONGRESS Authorized what has Happened...

A "Declaration of War" is NOT A Requirement in ANY Setting Dictated by the Constitution, it's simply a Power of Congress... Among others.

You are Assuming it Conveniently...

Quote the Constitution otherwise.



peace...

Actually it is a requirement to go to war.

No, it's not.

It's simple ONE of Various Powers listed...

I've Noticed that you are Failing to Quote ANY Part of that Section of the Constitution...

Did you want me to?

You are also Incapable of Quoting the Constitution putting ANY Requirements on Declaring War, aside from Congress having that Power.

I'll be here.



peace...

I've shown quotes from the two principal authors of the Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, explaining the meaning of the Declaration of War in the Constitution. It is you who has failed to show your assertion that the framers simply put that in there as something the Congress could do if it felt like it but it's not having any real authority.

 

[Paulie]

Many of you in here will be surprised to know that even Gunny agrees with the idea of Congress "declaring" war, rather than authorizing the president to do whatever the fuck he wants to.

There still needs to be checks and balances in a war declaration. It's foolish to lend complete authorization to the executive branch with little to no accountability from the exec in the process.

The problem with Bush, was that he was given full authorization, and then when Congress requested certain information or asked for certain actions, he and Cheney simply said "no". It doesn't work like that. Congress has the power to declare war, and therefore should have the power to keep the executive branch in check in the process.

I think it's completely stupid to give one person so much power...shrug

Right...any OTHER aspect of government is about checks and balances, and no one branch having any more power than another...but somehow when it comes to war, it's ok for the executive to have carte blanche?

Fuck that. That's the kind of shit I expect out of rogue dictatorships, not a constitutional representative republic, LEAST of all the United States.

A couple fucking terrorists blow something up, and the entire fucking country loses its collective mind.

Bunch of PUSSIES in this country anymore.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

She's a solid 2.

 

[Kex]

She's a solid 2.

Want to see pics of your 9s and 10s, even in my book she was 6.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm aware that the Supreme Court holds a monopoly on what it deems "constitutional," but that doesn't change the fact that what the Supreme Court calls "constitutional law" and what the Constitution says are at odds quite a bit. But if what the Supreme Court says is the gospel, I'm curious what your opinion of Roe v. Wade is. You strike me as a fairly conservative poster, but if you truly believe what you say you must support Roe v. Wade right?

At any rate, if my posting on this message board is a waste of time, are you not wasting your own time as well?

Apparently not if I got you to agree with my position.

My opinion of RvW hasn't got shit to do with what's constitutional. If you are so bent on being a constitutional scholar and strict interpreter of the document then perhaps you should run for office on that platform and tell me how it works out. (See Ron Paul)

and for the record...I'm pro-choice.

I'm still against the war, still believe it was unconstitutional, and still believe that the Supreme Court violates the Constitution by giving itself the sole power to decide what is or is not constitutional.

OK. So who..in your ifinitely narrow mind who should interpret the Constitution...you? Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Perhaps you need to broach a textbook or 2 on U.S. Civics...and then tell us WHY the Supreme Court is the body that decides what's constitutional...and what's not. That shouldn't be too difficult a task for someone, such as yourself, with such a lofty opinion of themselves.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

She's a solid 2.

Want to see pics of your 9s and 10s, even in my book she was 6.

I'm glad to see that we're getting back to the topic at hand.

She's at least a 7 or 8. She's half his age, and has a tongue ring.

I say, more power to you, Mr. Kucinich.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Apparently not if I got you to agree with my position.

My opinion of RvW hasn't got shit to do with what's constitutional. If you are so bent on being a constitutional scholar and strict interpreter of the document then perhaps you should run for office on that platform and tell me how it works out. (See Ron Paul)

and for the record...I'm pro-choice.

I'm still against the war, still believe it was unconstitutional, and still believe that the Supreme Court violates the Constitution by giving itself the sole power to decide what is or is not constitutional.

OK. So who..in your ifinitely narrow mind who should interpret the Constitution...you? Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Perhaps you need to broach a textbook or 2 on U.S. Civics...and then tell us WHY the Supreme Court is the body that decides what's constitutional...and what's not. That shouldn't be too difficult a task for someone, such as yourself, with such a lofty opinion of themselves.

Every branch of government, and all 50 states have an equal role in interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Solid 6

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm still against the war, still believe it was unconstitutional, and still believe that the Supreme Court violates the Constitution by giving itself the sole power to decide what is or is not constitutional.

OK. So who..in your ifinitely narrow mind who should interpret the Constitution...you? Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Perhaps you need to broach a textbook or 2 on U.S. Civics...and then tell us WHY the Supreme Court is the body that decides what's constitutional...and what's not. That shouldn't be too difficult a task for someone, such as yourself, with such a lofty opinion of themselves.

Every branch of government, and all 50 states have an equal role in interpreting the Constitution.

Sorry...that may be true in Bizarro world...but here in reality the Supreme Court IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

how has this war been carried out for longer than 90 days?

The Congress passed a Resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq thus waiving their rights under the War Powers Act. Every time a funding bill comes before Congress authorizing money for the 2 conflicts the authorization from Congress given to the President to use military force is renewed.

Voting to give their authority to the President is unconstitutional. That power was given to the legislature for a reason.

ROFLMNAO...

When Congress declares war, it authorizes the President... or gives to the President the authority it possesses, via the Constitution... thus it's consent to take the nation to war.

You're arguing that Congress ceded it's authority... transferring that power from the Legislature to the Executive; as if Congress permanently gave up it's authority; such was not the case.

I see your point; and the simple fact is that you've no grounds to rest this claim.

The Legislature can lend it's consent giving the CinC the authority to war, when ever it deems it necessary; and again... that's the what it did.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I disagree with Kucinich on just about everything but at least he is an honest Anti-War Leftist. Where did all the other so-called "Anti-War Leftists" go? Not hearing from them anymore huh? Gee i wonder why? For the most part the Anti-War Left are a bunch of dishonest hypocrites. I have to give Kucinich some credit for at least being an honest Anti-War Leftist. He's probably the only one in America.

 

[amrchaos]

All I know is that some party ran on stopping the war now.

Then they turned around and said they are going to stop the war latter.

I wonder--when later comes, will they have another excuse to keep the war going?

Of course I am talking about the Democrats!!