Rule Of Law, Huh???

archer wrote: No RT......we continue to ask questions and marvel at the 1001 ways a conservative can avoid answering them.

We answer by offering the text of the law. What better answer could be given? No spin. No twisting. Just straight language.
We now know why you do not open your mind: because the noise of the wind whistling through would be deafening.

major bean wrote:

archer wrote: I think Major Bean that post means you cannot answer LJs request that you point to where in the law it is required that we be directly threatened. Rather than making the silly little post about spinning just answer the question.

You are in such a heat to spew hate that you failed to notice that is was not LJ's request, but, rather, pineinthegrass. THAT is funny!!

Is this a MAYDAY or MAYTAG for Armchair?

major bean wrote:

archer wrote: I think Major Bean that post means you cannot answer LJs request that you point to where in the law it is required that we be directly threatened. Rather than making the silly little post about spinning just answer the question.

You are in such a heat to spew hate that you failed to notice that is was not LJ's request, but, rather, pineinthegrass. THAT is funny!!

My apologies.....when I am reading on the cell phone it is hard to see the left side where the author is.....well, of course this makes a huge difference that it is pineinthegrass you will not answer and not LJ.....at least I think it does.....hmmmmm, tell me why there is a difference on who you choose not to answer? Or is choosing not to answer questions just your way of saying "sorry, I can't answer that, because to do so would show me to be wrong"?

Tell me major bean.....what is so hateful about asking someone to answer a question? On another thread I was asked a direct question by a conservative, I thought I had already addressed that issue but felt the right thing to do was to answer his question. Duh.....that is how human communication works. At no time did I think his asking me to answer a direct question was hateful in any way.

archer, I answered pineinthegrass and LJ by posting the text of the War Powers Resolution Law. It is written plainly and straightforward. It is not ambiguous. pineinthegrass then ask for something other than the law. He asked for my interpretation. He wanted me to pick passages out of the text of the law. My thinking is that if I do so he will then say that I have taken it out of context. This would result in absolute confusion by clouding the issue with facts. (A little humor, there.)

Hate? That is my conclusion of you drawn from the whole body of the posts that you put on these forums. I believe that it is your raison d'être.

major bean wrote: Hate? That is my conclusion of you drawn from the whole body of the posts that you put on these forums. I believe that it is your raison d'être.

And you would be wrong.....don't judge me by your own motivations.

archer wrote:

major bean wrote: Hate? That is my conclusion of you drawn from the whole body of the posts that you put on these forums. I believe that it is your raison d'être.

And you would be wrong.....don't judge me by your own motivations.

MAYTAG again...by Armchair

archer, my motivations are rather difficult for me to divine. I try to peek behind the curtains of my mind but most of the time cannot see the man pulling the ropes.

I try to ask myself "does this move the conversation forward?". Most of the time this question drives the substance of my posts.
At other times I ask myself "how can I improve that forum member's life?". This is whenever I offer constructive criticism to you, LJ, pineinthegrass, and others which I feel might cause you to conduct a little introspection and self examination. To date, I have not been able to cause anyone to pause or consider the sincerity of their opinions. That is not your fault, but is most probably the ineffectiveness of my arguments and presentation.

residenttroll wrote: MAYTAG again...by Armchair

armchair? Yeah.....I rather like that nic....may even consider changing mine. I can no longer engage in archery, and armchair is about all I am allowed these days. Thanks RT.....I'll think on this.

Major Bean....no matter how hard each of us try, we are just spinning our wheels if we think we can change the other sides thinking, that much I have learned from this board. My motivation? To let other's know that there are two sides to most issues even if they think theirs is the only one. My anger comes when I state my side, or I see another liberal state their side, and the entire message board conservative gang starts bashing the person.....not the opinion/post/idea.

I try very hard not to be the first to start attacking.........I like discussion, but will fight back when necessary. BaileyBoy is the exception........I will probably always hold a deep disgust for him because of his "body of work" attacking me in a very personal and heinous way on the various message boards.

major bean wrote: What do you mean?! Hell, I posted the law. It is in plain English. It cannot be misunderstood. Must I re-post it?
You people are just saying that it does not say what it says. Get real!

No, it can be "misunderstood" and interpreted many ways. The law, like many others, is a hodgepodge of compromise between competing House and Senate bills. What we ended up with was a bill that is not very clear, has a glaring loophole, and lacks any teeth. That is why president's have been able to use it at their whim ever since Gerald Ford.

If you care to read about it, I've got a couple of links that go into the history of the War Powers Resolution. Here's the first...

http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-resolution

The House bill did not define any specific requirements for the president to go to war...

In 1970 the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 289 to 39 a bill recognizing that the President "in certain extraordinary and emergency circumstances has the authority to defend the United States and its citizens without specific prior authorization by the Congress." Instead of trying to define the precise conditions under which presidents may use military force, the House preferred to rely on procedural safeguards.

The Senate, however, did define specific conditions for the President to act alone...

Senators, regarding the House bill as too favorable to presidential power, decided to spell out the conditions under which presidents could act alone without Congress. Armed force could be used in three situations:

To repel an armed attack on the United States, or its territories and possessions, to retaliate in the event of such an attack, and to prevent the direct and imminent threat of such an attack.

To repel an armed attack against U.S. armed forces located outside the United States, or its territories and possessions, and prevent the direct and imminent threat of such an attack.

To rescue endangered American citizens and nationals in foreign countries or at sea.

Once the bill went through committee, all of the Senate restrictions were stripped from the bill and we ended up with...

Instead of the three exceptions specified in the Senate bill and the thirty-day limit, the conference version gave the president carte blanche authority to use military force anywhere, for any reason, for up to ninety days.

And the glaring loophole in the law is that President's can (and most always have) avoided any 60-90 day limit in the law...

Military initiatives from presidents in the years following the War Powers Resolution reveal a glaring deficiency in the statute. The resolution is written in such a way that the sixty- to ninety-day clock begins ticking only if the president reports under a very specific section: not section 4, not section 4(a), but only section 4(a)(1). Not surprisingly, presidents do not report under 4(a)(1). They report, for the most part, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution." The only president to report under 4(a)(1) was Gerald Ford in the capture of the Mayaguez ship in Cambodia. But even in that case, his report had no substantive importance because it was issued only after the military operation had been completed.

If you want to read and even more detailed analysis of the War Powers Resolution, read this...

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2543&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1#search="war+powers+resolution+committee+compromise"

PDF pages 12-20 (actual pages 833-841) discuss the compromises in the bill in more detail.

Section 4 of the bill gives the details of what the President is expected to do, but does not set any conditions on why he can go to war. Some argue section 2(c) does set some limits, but there are no details there. As the second link says...

From its legislative history, section 2(c) must be viewed as the
remnant of the Senate's long effort to define the President's war
powers in emergency situations. That effort failed. It cannot be
stated summarily that the section is inoperative, for it follows the
"be it resolved" clause, but its effectiveness is limited to the advisory
impact its words may have upon a President. It does not bind
the President, but it stands as the only statement of what Congress
believes the President's war powers authority to be.

In short, President Obama is following the War Powers Resolution just as all other Presidents since Gerald Ford have. But that Resolution is weak, unclear, and has a huge loophole. It it may be unconstitutional as well, but it's never been challenged in the Supreme Court, and that's another subject. However as of now, it is still the law of the land.