On Jul 7, 11:30Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:> 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.
true. agreed. i realized that as i was replying and lazily imagined
you might have overlooked my loaded question in order to present
_your_ ideas about the "pull out" from Iraq rather than to have gone
into the "bother" of justifying my line of questioning. mybad.
my basic opinion is that we'll be keeping a large presense out there
and continue to try and breed in some form of long over due democracy.
politics aside; we should consider the best outcomes from the
situations for those people rather than to pander to any desire to
garner votes stateside considering all the spilt blood that has
already been invested.
i'm off the firm opinion that the middle east had long been left to
rot and this is our chance to help those people get up and running
with some type of working humanistic government.
iran is very concerned.. GOOD. i propose that this signifies we're on
the right track in that region. things have been done that will roll
on for decades rather than to have been left to continue to fester on
for decades.
the long term goals and planning go way beyond the POTUS and a couple
of his advisors imo. it's crazy to imagine that isn't the case. which
is implying that there's so much more to these huge operations than
meets the eye. an opportunity arose (9/11) and it was taken..
obviously it's much easier to sit back with the status quo for four or
eight years and keep your neighbors/voters happy.
