- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On the surface it seems the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:56 am to GumboPot
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:56 am to GumboPot
It violates separation of powers. It’s unconstitutional. And courts have no business getting involved in these disputes anyway. Yet another reason Too Late Massie is out of his lane.
1
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:57 am to pankReb
quote:
That’s because you are giving no context as to the actual reason behind the post.
I know it's hard to believe but I was just trying to understand the legal technicalities of the issue.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:58 am to Riverside
quote:
It violates separation of powers. It’s unconstitutional. And courts have no business getting involved in these disputes anyway.
What? Courts have all the business determining whether statutes are unconstitutional.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 8:59 am to GumboPot
quote:
I know it's hard to believe but I was just trying to understand the legal technicalities of the issue.
I didn’t say that I don’t believe you. I’m just saying that you need to give context as to the intention of your post.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:00 am to GumboPot
quote:Are you an attorney that argues cases before a court of competent judicial jurists, or just spit-balling your own personal interpretation?
seems the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. And by the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 should make the War Powers Resolution of 1973 null and void.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:02 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
Are you an attorney that argues cases before a court of competent judicial jurists, or just spit-balling your own personal interpretation?
I'm an engineer who grew up with a father that was an attorney and I learned early on the best course of action was to always take the 5th as much as possible.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:03 am to GumboPot
You also can never go wrong with “it depends”.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:05 am to boosiebadazz
quote:aka "the Clinton special".
You also can never go wrong with “it depends”.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:05 am to GumboPot
quote:Congress, the heart of the most powerful branch, are indeed LAW MAKERS.
It’s a clear demonstration that laws are basically enforced by political will or convenience.
I find it funny that when there's a legislative solution of they deem it political they bow out and kick back to Congress.... unless it is Trump
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:05 am to GumboPot
cope
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:06 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
You also can never go wrong with “it depends”.
Very true. "It appears" is another good one.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:07 am to Hateradedrink
quote:
cope
Is that really your interpretation of this thread?
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:07 am to AC1221
quote:
No, It's not unconstitutional
The Act is largely not subject to judicial review. In that sense, its Constitutionality is unimportant.
If Congress feels strongly about compliance with the Act then Congress has to do something.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:07 am to GumboPot
You use the “sole power to grant war” but you forget that the president has full authority to implement military actions upon an another country. If war is to be declared then Congressional authority would be needed. They are 2 very separate things
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:09 am to JimEverett
quote:
If Congress feels strongly about compliance with the Act then Congress has to do something.
You are right. And, this can be said about many many issues.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:09 am to GumboPot
quote:Specialty? I work with lots of engineers. Electro-Optical, Mechanical, Industrial, Wing Frame, Civil. What's yours?
I'm an engineer
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:09 am to GumboPot
I consider “cope” to be pointless screaming into the void, like bitching about refs in a football game.
So, yeah.
So, yeah.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:11 am to HubbaBubba
Pipeline and facilities.
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 9:12 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:12 am to Nosevens
quote:correct. That's the trick to this. If the anti-MAGA can define 'war' then they can make everything 'war'. If Trump farts in the general direction of Spain - it's a forever war.
You use the “sole power to grant war” but you forget that the president has full authority to implement military actions upon an another country. If war is to be declared then Congressional authority would be needed. They are 2 very separate things
Then they can parse words and judge shop.
So who is known for modifying language to achieve a political end?
That's correct, the left. So anyone who says we are at war for SELLING Patriot and THAAD batteries to Israel or says the strike on Fordow is 'war' has earmarked themselves as a leftist because they are using leftist tactics to achieve leftist TDS goals.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:15 am to GumboPot
I think its pretty clear.
There is a declaration of war that thrusts our entire nation into war mode. That introduces a lot of powers to be able to conduct the war effort.
Then there is the protection of American interests and people. For good reason, the president has powers to act to defend those without plunging the USA into war.
An example of that would be our troops located outside the USA being attacked. Are they to do nothing until congress declares war? Not at all.
Thats the main difference. At issue is the population not grasping the difference between a war and protecting interests.
There is a declaration of war that thrusts our entire nation into war mode. That introduces a lot of powers to be able to conduct the war effort.
Then there is the protection of American interests and people. For good reason, the president has powers to act to defend those without plunging the USA into war.
An example of that would be our troops located outside the USA being attacked. Are they to do nothing until congress declares war? Not at all.
Thats the main difference. At issue is the population not grasping the difference between a war and protecting interests.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News