It's not a war, so why does * get all of these "wartime" powers?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the last time Congress declared war was in 1941. So why does the RW spin machine get away with excusing all of Bush's illegal power grabs as being the actions of a "commander-in-chief" during "wartime."

Weird computer behavior, actually.

ask how the hell can a group of terrorist like Alqueda can manage to put the fear into all American.
I mean look at how many American soldiers die, look at how much US spend all this for Al Queda.
I dont know I means is like using a reservoir full of petrol to put out a lighted match.

I don't understand the abject fear of so many of my cowardly countrymen. It's ridiculous. We brag about being the world's only superpower, but we're scared to death of some radical nutjobs who pulled off one big caper using stone age tools.

I mean, come on! Your question is one that has been bugging me since we rushed through the Pat act.
The Professor

I mean would anyone in his right mind think that Al Queda can take the US.
Or Saddam would be able to conquer the US.

I would not call anyone cowardly. Just that all the negative propoganda is damn unhealty. All this fear creation to achieve a personal objectives is bad. Pure bushit marketing. You cant sell a bad products consumers buy it try it and will reject it in the end. Sadly product failuare is just TOO GODDAMN EXPENSIVE in this case.

The American will come around that I am sure. But fucking with people head by the goverment is just asking for a lot of longterm pain. When they wake up the bush cabal better has a good hiding hole.

Which can never end, because terror is a mental state and you can never be sure what people are thinking.

shouldn't apply when the thing going on isn't actually a war, since only Congress can declare war, and it hasn't done so.

Why do our elected idiots not seem to know this?

:dunce:

by ducking their responsibility to define, delimit and declare war. If they want to babbly about a war on ANYTHING they damn well better be able to stand up, articulate it, and then pass a meaningful resolution. And then be TOTALLY accountable for it.

But they aren't.

We're all outraged because Bush has admitted to ignoring the constitution but our Congress has been doing that with War since the end of WW2.

didn't you get the memo?

But if he has it his way, coke will be legal soon.

FREEDOM me seriess 1111

This HUGH..11 bush peeping at morons at freerepublic series111 hugh 111 we better help them or they lose this war. It is HUGH..11

...because they say it is. Of course this changes if a Democrat is in power.

Now move along citizen, or you will be sent to Room 101.

but I fear spiders.

"War on Drugs".

The whole "War on Terror" thing is a brand name, nothing more. It's an polite pseudonym for imperialism, basically.

Got it?

You are right about this not being a war. The Constitution requires Congress to declare a war for there to be a war. This has not happened since World War II.

The Executive power mentioned in Article II Section 1, only means the power to execute the laws that have been passed by Congress nothing more. The President has NO powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Every branch has powers which are specifically enumerated in the document and all powers that are not enumerated to the Government are reserved to the People, not the government as explicitly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In fact you need to call any "conservative" that makes the argument that the President has "magic" unenumerated powers on this because they are the ones who claim to be for small government and states rights. Now they are changing their tune because George has gone and confessed to a felony.

The enumerated powers of the President are listed in Article 2 section 2 as follows:
"Sect. 2. 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.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Nowhere in Article 2 Section 2 does it grant the President the magical power to ignore the separation of powers or the 4th Amendment or the right to break or ignore the law (which would be a violation of the separation of powers as well as illegal.) In fact it is the President's duty to enforce and execute the law, hence the title Chief Executive.

If he could violate the 4th Amendment on the basis he claims, then why not any other provision of the Constitution, say the 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms, or the term of office listed in Article 2. Why bother with a Constitution at all?

These enumerated Executive powers are relatively weak compared to those granted to Congress which authored the Constitution. The Legislative body granted itself far more extensive powers and if you have read the Federalist papers (particularly #69,#70) you would know that they were very much afraid of the President becoming a King and made comparisons in Federalist #69, and #70 as to how the President was intended to be much weaker than a King.

This defense he's putting up is the "magic genie" defense. You know you buy the lamp at the bazaar and take it home. You rub the lamp and a genie pops out and grants you three wishes. Well George Bush is trying to use the third wish to ask for a thousand more wishes.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

The freeps are against "unenumerated powers" until it's their fuhrer who wants to use them.
:thumbsup:

the constitution fails when one party has power over all three branches of government. There are no checks and balances in the all republican government.