- 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 9:19 am to Jjdoc
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:19 am to Jjdoc
quote:
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.
But where is the originalist support for this position?
Another read is Congress has the sole power to begin or respond to hostilities (as war is but an extension of politics and should therefore be decided by the representative political branch) but the president, as Commander-in-Chief, is then in charge of directing troops in theater (as that is the more efficient way to conduct war rather than through the legislative branch).
And now that we’re full of originalists, we’ll need historical support for either position.
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 9:21 am
1
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:21 am to GumboPot
quote:
IDK why this thread seems like it's leaning political one way or another.
It's not about politics it's about lack of intelligence although most of your political posting has gone off the rails this is different
You cite multiple court cases and not one made it a constitutional decision. Because it is not it's a separation of powers issue between 2 branches of government
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:22 am to GumboPot
quote:
With that said is 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.
Is declaring war different from military intervention? Surgical strikes? Kinetic military engagements?
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:24 am to GumboPot
quote:
I'm pretty sure it's 60 days.
It is 60 days extendable to 90 days. So, you are both right
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:24 am to pankReb
quote:
That’s because you are giving no context as to the actual reason behind the post. The OP insinuates that you think Trump bombing Iran is unconstitutional.
Think about what you’re saying.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:25 am to dafif
quote:
Not sure what happened to the old gumbo but recent posting is just abysmal
He hates Jews, and Trump is helping them. Feels he has been betrayed because Trump doesn't hate the Jewish people like he does.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:25 am to boosiebadazz
quote:That is the legal position.
But where is the originalist support for this position?
Another read is Congress has the sole power to begin or respond to hostilities (as war is but an extension of politics and should therefore be decided by the representative political branch) but the president, as Commander-in-Chief, is then in charge of directing troops in theater (as that is the more efficient way to conduct war rather than through the legislative branch).
And now that we’re full of originalists, we’ll need historical support for either position.
This is a political question.
Reverse this from a political standpoint....
Since 2015 Trump has stated that Iran getting a nuke 'can't happen' and it was in the US security interests to stop it.
Congress had a decade to legislate that.
They didn't. Silence was their answer.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:30 am to omegaman66
quote:
If missiles are launched at the USA from China, do you think that the president should have to go to Congress to get permission to launch our nukes?
I have supported the President striking foreign countries without congressional approval on every occasion that said foreign countries have bombed US soil
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:31 am to JimEverett
Agreed.
Changes to the WPR, though, still won't negate the presidents CIC and foreign affairs authority under article II.
Changes to the WPR, though, still won't negate the presidents CIC and foreign affairs authority under article II.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:34 am to prouddawg
quote:
I have supported the President striking foreign countries without congressional approval on every occasion that said foreign countries have bombed US soil
What about if they killed American citizens overseas?
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:42 am to omegaman66
Killing Americans overseas? Where should Obama be housed?
So Congress has no power here ....
Congress leaks worse than the Titanic. I wouldn't give them a cookie recipe.
So Congress has no power here ....
Congress leaks worse than the Titanic. I wouldn't give them a cookie recipe.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:42 am to pankReb
Is John Kerry still in Iran? You know, representing the Great Dem Party?
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:48 am to bluedragon
quote:
Killing Americans overseas? Where should Obama be housed?
So Congress has no power here ....
Congress leaks worse than the Titanic. I wouldn't give them a cookie recipe.
Obama six feet under. Agree with your congress statement.
But why you questioning me about killing americans over seas? I was responding to someone that basically said until they bomb the USA he doesn't support bombing them.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:50 am to I20goon
When has the left ever had trouble defining words?
Depends on the meaning of what “is” is- Bill Clinton
Supreme Court Justice, can’t define what a woman is-KJB.
And these are their best
Depends on the meaning of what “is” is- Bill Clinton
Supreme Court Justice, can’t define what a woman is-KJB.
And these are their best
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:54 am to JellyRoll
quote:
He hates Jews
I don't hate Jews. I have Jewish relatives and I love them.
I hate how much foreign countries drive our foreign policy.
The issue is, so many of y'all conflate the ruling party politics in Israel with ethnic and religious Jews.
THEY. ARE. NOT. THE. SAME.
They can be the same but in general they are not the same. In fact, some of the most vociferous voices against Bibi's current policies and DC politicians that go along with him are Jewish.
This post was edited on 6/24/25 at 10:15 am
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:55 am to GumboPot
That's like saying i'm not racist, my butler is black
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:56 am to JellyRoll
quote:
That's like saying i'm not racist, my butler is black
No, it's like saying I want regime change in Israel by voting Bibi out.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 9:58 am to GumboPot
quote:
The D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, ruling it a non-justiciable political question, as Congress had implicitly authorized the action by funding it, despite the Resolution stating funding does not constitute authorization.
This is bullshite and just shows how judges make up the law. "You explicitly said it didn't provide authorization, but I'm going to ignore that and make up some dumb shite about you implicitly authorizing it."
It's no different than all the terrible judges that upheld birthright citizenship despite explicit statements by the writers that it didn't apply to illegals. These judges need to be hanged for trying to create law.
Posted on 6/24/25 at 10:03 am to AC1221
quote:
Article II states that the president has the power to order the use of military force against attacks, ANTICIPATED ATTACKS, or to ADVANCE OTHER IMPORTANT NATIONAL INTERESTS.
People will really just put outright lies on the internet without a 2nd thought.
The actual text is
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment“
Posted on 6/24/25 at 10:05 am to Flats
quote:
Think about what you’re saying.
I am. It was a pretty simple post. Not sure what you aren't able to understand.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News