Getting tired of Ron Paul

[Vertnut]

So we just started going downhill the last 5 years?

We all know you have been around since before dirt, you make that very well known.

All we are saying is the policies we have had (even before barry) are doing nothing but driving us to collapse. Can you deny that?

<-----In my 30's and am not regurgitating anything about past presidents.

It didn't start 5 years ago, but has accelerated dramatically. Just the debt we've accumulated alone, is enough of an argument for that.

If my statement doesn't fit you, then DON'T take offense to it.

[majorownage]

The Constitution contains the "Necessary and Proper Clause" which states:

"Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

And Congress cited the act of allowing a President to defend the country without legislative hindrance as being necessary and proper for carrying into execution.

So I guess the NDAA is constitutional as well?

[mikec]

How does federal law negate a section in the constitution?

Lol. Same way it just nullified the Bill of Rights and circumvented the Posse Comitatus Act...

[Vertnut]

<--- elitist and condescending at times.

[mikec]

It didn't start 5 years ago, but has accelerated dramatically. Just the debt we've accumulated alone, is enough of an argument for that.

If my statement doesn't fit you, then take offense to it.

I take offense to this statement!!!


Ok. Now what?

[CJ]

So I guess the NDAA is constitutional as well?

You suddenly changed topics. Let's finish the "These wars are unconstitutional/illegal" discussion first.

[majorownage]

You suddenly changed topics. Let's finish the "These wars are unconstitutional/illegal" discussion first.

No, that it is pertaining to the same topic.

[CJ]

CJ, I had previously perceived you as being elitist and condescending, at times. You are doing a fantastic job right now of blowing that out of the water with your explanations on why you think as you do, validating it with the knowledge you are throwing out. Honestly, this is making a tremendous difference in how most everyone analyzes your posts. I will try and take time later to delve deeper into what you are saying. If you happen to have a link to validate one or two of your points, I for one, would be appreciative, as it would make make my continued learning a bit easier/faster?

For now, thanks for typing it all out...

I appreciate it Mike, but I am definitely condescending still

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

This explains how these wars are not unconstitutional. It also explains why some people feel the actual act is. I personally think it is unconstitutional, but something approved through a congressional super majority and passed into law cannot be either. You can repeal the act, but you can't prosecute it's previous exercises.

So when I hear someone say "those wars are illegal" and ESPECIALLY if I see a politician say it, I'm immediately suspicious of their intentions.

[CJ]

No, that it is pertaining to the same topic.

Do you understand why those wars are not unconstitutional/illegal now? I can understand if you feel the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, I agree with that.

[majorownage]

Do you understand why those wars are not unconstitutional/illegal now? I can understand if you feel the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, I agree with that.

They are unconstitutional/illegal because they are undeclared under the constitution.

Just because under the new NDAA I might be arrested without reason and dragged to a dungeon doesn't make it not unconstitutional/illegal.

[CJ]

They are unconstitutional/illegal because they are undeclared under the constitution.

Just because under the new NDAA I might be arrested without reason and dragged to a dungeon doesn't make it not unconstitutional/illegal.

No, that's factually incorrect. We're not talking about NDAA right now. Until I can get your focused attention on what I'm saying it's pointless to discuss NDAA, because you fundamentally are ignoring or misunderstanding the concept I'm trying to explain. You will drag me into that discussion, cite a bunch of shit that will waste both of our time, and we will be right back to this discussion, which is the whole point I'm trying to communicate.

I will attempt to explain this in a different way, so you see what I'm saying.

You say the Afghan and Iraq wars are unconstitutional.

The President says no, they are not - it is within my power to declare war at my own discretion without congressional approval. and he cites the War Powers Act.

You say the WPA is unconstitution, so it's irrelevant.

The Congress tells you the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives them this ability to grant the president these rights.

So, via proxy the Constitution seems to contradict itself, by saying War must be declared by a majority of congress, and then stating congress has the right to give the President the power to declare without their approval (In more words).

So there you go, which is it? You're opinion is perfectly merited. Both you and I agree that the WPA is not in the spirit of, and circumvents the intent of the founding fathers. However, it is not illegal, and it is not unconstitutional.

[Vertnut]

I take offense to this statement!!!


Ok. Now what?

Ummm. Sorry. I edited it.

[mikec]

Ummm. Sorry. I edited it.

Killjoy!

[Forever_frost]

On the topic of crazy countries of the middle east, how can we be certain that if they do get nuclear weapons that they would come after us? How can we say with any degree of certainty that they wouldn't set about trying to conquer the lands around them? What proof do we actually have that shows they are close to achieving their goals? There are so many areas in which we truly don't have the actual answer that no one, imo, can say with any degree of certainty what will or will not happen. It's all supposition. I just don't agree that we should stay the course and keep doing what we are when it is resulting in that which we see transpiring in todays society. It's obviously not working, something is broken and the same old song and dance is NOT the answer.

And I agree that he is not the perfect candidate, but he's all we have. Newt is releasing his book after the election, which by all reports espouses the exact opposite of what a true conservative believes. It's just more of the same. They tell us what we want to hear, then go back to those indelibly etched in the sand party lines, which are by design preventing us from exploring an alternative solution to the problems that plague our country.

We have got to find a way to eliminate the two party system and begin to work together.

Yes because WW2 showed that if we stay out of things, it absolutely will not come here. Iran with a nuke? They view US as Satan. If they have it, they'll use it. A bunch of religious nutbags who believe that if they kill themselves and us, they get a bunch of virgins and Allah will love them. Imagine Pearl harbor, but with nuclear weapons.

[Lason]

It didn't start 5 years ago, but has accelerated dramatically. Just the debt we've accumulated alone, is enough of an argument for that.

If my statement doesn't fit you, then DON'T take offense to it.

Although I agree that we have accumulated debt at a much faster rate in the last 4 years, we still had a metric shit ton of it before that. Both sides are just as responsible as the other for that shit.

Oh and us whipper snappers seperate our thoughts using these things called paragraphs. I know they were invented long after you were out of school but just a FYI. If you werent talking about me then you should have seperated that or at the very least said who you were reffering to.