On Jul 6, 7:08 pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:> On Jul 6, 8:51 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> At a minimum a const. amend. effort will help identify those who are
>>> trying to keep the U. S. in Iraq.
>
>>> Bret Cahill
>
>> Maybe we need some ammendmants that curtail and limit the War Powers
>> of US presidents.
>
>> Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution,
>> sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress
>> the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
>
>> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
>> concerning Captures on Land and Water;
>
>> Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the
>> Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World
>> War II. It should be noted that the declaration of the Mexican-
>> American War occurred after America and Mexico had commenced
>> hostilities -- with Congress simply recognizing the existence of a
>> state of war. Thus some historians argue that there have really only
>> been four true declarations. Still other historians argue that the
>> legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against
>> Pancho Villa constitute an additional declaration of war.
>
>> American presidents often have not sought formal declarations of war,
>> instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as
>> commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for
>> "police actions". Some have argued this could pass as offensive
>> actions, though historically police actions fell mostly under the
>> prevue of protecting embassies, U.S. citizens overseas, and shipping
>> such as the Quasi War.
>
>
> What motivates your desire to withdraw all the American forces from
> Iraq under the current circumstances?
I think that that is a Loaded Question since I don't remember stating
that that was what I wanted to do. I was just talking about how the
war powers act is and can be regulated or unregulated.
"Why is George W. Bush so blood thirsty?" an antiwar activist may say.
Or, "Is oil worth the thousands of Iraqi lives we may kill?"
Do you have a claim that you want to argue, but you don't feel like
having the burden of proving that claim? If so, the Loaded Question
just might be the tool for you.
A Loaded Question occurs when a question is raised that forces an
answer based on a false or controversial premise. In the above
examples it is assumed that we are going to Iraq because Bush is
bloodthirsty, or wants the oil in Iraq. Neither of these premises is
based on evidence, but instead on opinion.
We could likewise ask, "Have you stopped beating your wife, lately?"
Whether you answer Yes or No, you admit to beating your wife. If you
don't have a wife (single, or you are a wife), or if you haven't
beaten your wife, the question is loaded.
If you don't give an answer to a loaded question but instead raise
doubt on its loading, sometimes you are accused of dodging it. Though
many times a loaded question is raised unintentionally, it is a common
tactic to trap unwitting debaters into agreeing with a questionable
premise, or to accuse them of "dodging an important issue." Thus, the
apologist or skeptic (yes, we Christians commit fallacies too) must
pay attention to what is assumed in a question before answering it.
http://www.tektonics.org/logical_fallacies.html
