State of the Union (WAR?) - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-23-2003, 11:46 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:22 AM
State of the Union (WAR?)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...881215,00.html

The article above basically is saying that after the State of the Union, when President Bush will make a forcefull case for war, Prime Minister Blair will visit. It is after this visit that the military action against Iraq will begin.

This lead me to thinking about our Constitution........

Does the President need approval to Declare War?
Does his authority come from the violation of cease fire?
Does his authority come from the powers granted in the War on Terror?

Where are the checks and balances here that our constitution provides us?

I for one have not given my approval to my representatives for this action nor have I seen them vote for War with Iraq. I am still waiting for the case to be made. I am still waiting for the President to make his case and I am waiting to see my representatives do their JOBS.

No President has asked for a Declaration of War vote since 1941. How many American's have given their lives since then? Is our Constitution being violated?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 12:17 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Maybe last Octobers joint resolution authorizing military action covers this. It is still not a vote for a Declaration of War. That resolution had checks and balances built into it requiring the President to keep our representatives informed of things. This too has not been happening.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 12:27 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:22 AM
This is interesting:

US House bill to repeal Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
by repost Wednesday January 22, 2003 at 07:28 PM

US House bill to repeal Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
Posted by: Admin on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 11:31 PM GMT



On Jan. 7, 2003, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced HR-2, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed." However, it's just now being mentioned in the media -- at the very end of a page 16 Washington Post article on Jan. 19, 2003:

NETWORK, [a Catholic social justice lobby] which sent all new members of Congress briefing books on a war with Iraq that included a cost-of-war analysis, human rights concerns and statements from religious leaders, is also working with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) on a news conference scheduled for Tuesday that will announce her push for repeal of the October Iraqi resolution. NETWORK has encouraged its 11,000 members -- through e-mail -- to attend.

This bill's existence doesn't seem to have made it to any other major media outlets besides the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 01:44 AM   #4
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Where are the checks and balances here that our constitution provides us?

I normally don't poke my head in these threads...

But perhaps you do a lil research on our founding fathers.... and our constitution.

For every law, there is a loop hole.
For every vote, there is a way to defeat it.
etc etc etc...

There are no true checks and balances. The founding fathers of this country were smart enough to not trust the gov't in the hands of the 'people', but stupid enough to think one of their 'own' (someone elected) wouldn't abuse the power.

I even believe (I may be wrong) that the President has the power to dismiss congress, as well as any other branch of gov't.

The ONLY law we seem to have to prevent one leader from becoming a dictator is that of presidential term limits... of course, who knows, perhaps there is a loop hole in that also... something like delaying an election, etc etc etc if we're in a state of emergency. Who knows... the point is...

'everything you know is wrong'
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 02:41 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:22 AM
When you elect a president, you elect a commander in chief and entrust in him powers to react to the countries defense in a moments notice. There are many situations in which consultation with the American people or Congress would be impossible. One such example would be a nuclear strike on the USA from another country. The President would have little time to respond and certainly no time to consult others and debate about it.

Of course this not the situation were in with Iraq at the moment. The vote you refer to happened in October of last year. There was so much controversy about it because the vote took place before the election and everyone and most did characterize it as a vote to decide to use force if Iraq did not disarm. Both the US House OF Representives and the US Senate voted and approved the Presidents resolution overwhelmingly! The United Nations then approved the Presidents resolution 15-0! It authorized "severe consequenses" if Iraq obstructed or refused to disarm in any way. There was never any plans for an additional vote, the ball was in Saddam's court. Saddam could comply with the resolutions and disarm, or he would face a military action that would do that for him if he refused to.

The President has continued to keep Senators and Congressman informed and just had a classified briefing the other day. The Vote has been made, what Saddam does or does not do will determine if there is military action or not.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 03:46 PM   #6
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Both the US House OF Representives and the US Senate voted and approved the Presidents resolution overwhelmingly! The United Nations then approved the Presidents resolution 15-0! It authorized "severe consequenses" if Iraq obstructed or refused to disarm in any way. There was never any plans for an additional vote, the ball was in Saddam's court. Saddam could comply with the resolutions and disarm, or he would face a military action that would do that for him if he refused to.
Really? Most of the countries voting for the resolution did so because the resolution did not immediately approve war. If Saddam does not comply then there will be another vote about the consequences he faces, one of which is war. But there were always plans for an additional vote. That's the only reason France, Russia and others (China?) voted for that resolution, because there still would be another safeguard.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 01-24-2003, 04:47 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:22 AM
If that was the case the USA would not have voted for the resolution itself and what would "Serious Consequences" mean then if a second resolution was required? "Serious Consequences can in fact mean war. Its sad that France and Russia, the two countries that benefit the most from the current United Nations Oil for food program with Saddam, are unwilling to do what is necessary to disarm Iraq. Amazing, another "safeguard" for Saddam.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 04:49 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:22 AM
But it does look like the French, Russians, and anyone else who desires to protect Saddam might in fact get their wish for another resolution. We all know where Saddam stands on this issue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 04:57 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Please keep the UN Debate out of it!

This is about the CONSTITUTION. We have not had a Declaration of War vote in over 60 years.

How many soldiers have died in violation of the constituion. IT IS THEIR JOB to take the vote.

The Iraq situation is not an IMMINENT danger situation in which the president needs to react without consulting Congress.

They need to grow a pair and do their jobs.

As for the President keeping them appraised, you are right and wrong. He was recently criticized for not following the spirit of the resolution. One article I read said Rumsfeld "scrambled" to put a briefing together to appease the Congress. I will find the link if you need me to, just can;t now.

October was months ago. We DESERVE out of respect for the Constitution to have War declared if that is the path he is choosing.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 05:18 PM   #10
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Please keep the UN Debate out of it!

This is about the CONSTITUTION. We have not had a Declaration of War vote in over 60 years.

How many soldiers have died in violation of the constituion. IT IS THEIR JOB to take the vote.

The Iraq situation is not an IMMINENT danger situation in which the president needs to react without consulting Congress.

They need to grow a pair and do their jobs.

As for the President keeping them appraised, you are right and wrong. He was recently criticized for not following the spirit of the resolution. One article I read said Rumsfeld "scrambled" to put a briefing together to appease the congres. I will find the link if you need me to, just can;t now.

October was months ago. We DESERVE out of respect for the Constitution to have War declared if that is the path he is choosing.
Here, Here!
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 09:02 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Congressman voted for that resolution back in October realizing full well that supporting it could mean military action as early as December, January, or February.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I have heard from some at university who say that a declaration of war is not necessary to take the nation to war. I'd have to read up on it again myself but yes, there probably is a loophole or something. You can have a vote much like was done for the first Gulf War and other actions. Congressman can either vote to support it or vote against it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 09:25 PM   #12
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,835
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


Here, Here!
I'd like to second that, that was an excellent post Dreadsox! I mean it.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 09:41 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Quote:
Originally posted by Elvis
For every law, there is a loop hole.
For every vote, there is a way to defeat it.
etc etc etc...
This is the problem. We have an executive branch that has effectively abused a loophole that allowed the president to authorize military force without Congressional approval in cases of emergencies and "police actions." And it isn't just Bush who has done this. Like someone mentioned, it has been 60 years since we've had a true war declaration. The only thing that will change this is if we can get the Supreme Court to rule that this abuse is unconstitutional, which I heavily doubt will happen.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 09:46 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:22 AM
The declaration of war requirement has been ignored since the Korean "police action" War.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:09 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox


I'd like to second that, that was an excellent post Dreadsox! I mean it.


Ummmm....I am lost.....
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com