Has John Bolton Ever Read The Constitution?

NOVA said:
The WAR RESOLUTION against IRAQ is still in effect,,,,,the presidents DUTY is protect the citizens of this country and has, not only the authority, but duty to do just that.


Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;



Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;
Click to expand...

The war resolution that delivered the proxy of the Congress to declare war to G.W. Bush in Iraq was never constitutional. There's no authority in the Constitution for the Congress to proxy their war powers and duties to any President for any reason.
 
Robo said:
There is no constitutional authority for any President to use drones and or bombs without a Congressional declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Read the Federalist papers, the founders never intended that the president be utterly unable to use the military without congressional authorization. It was always recognized that this would be dangerous and that some ability for the executive to pursue defensive actions without a declaration of war was necessary. It was not the intention that these powers be used to pursue more or less indefinite military action, but there is nothing clearly preventing that. And the text of the constitution trumps the founders intentions.

Robo said:
There is no constitutional authority for any President to kill an American citizen with a drone without due process of the law.
Click to expand...

Did we need a trial for each Confederate we shot at?
 
the republican party hates government.


give them any power and they try to kill our government.



they make it so it does not work and fucks the people as much as possible
 
Last edited:
Underworld King Star said:
Read the Federalist papers, the founders never intended that the president be utterly unable to use the military without congressional authorization. It was always recognized that this would be dangerous and that some ability for the executive to pursue defensive actions without a declaration of war was necessary. It was not the intention that these powers be used to pursue more or less indefinite military action, but there is nothing clearly preventing that. And the text of the constitution trumps the founders intentions.



Did we need a trial for each Confederate we shot at?
Click to expand...

I forgot Lincoln had drones and the south didn't declared war on the north when they didn't fire on fort Sumner. Silly me!
 
Underworld King Star said:
Read the Federalist papers, the founders never intended that the president be utterly unable to use the military without congressional authorization. It was always recognized that this would be dangerous and that some ability for the executive to pursue defensive actions without a declaration of war was necessary. It was not the intention that these powers be used to pursue more or less indefinite military action, but there is nothing clearly preventing that. And the text of the constitution trumps the founders intentions.
Click to expand...

The text of the Constitution is the rule of law, the Federalist Papers are not. If the founders truly wanted Presidents to have the power to command acts of war without a Congressional declaration of war, they gave posterity Article 5 of the Constitution, i.e. the system to amend the Constitution whereby the Congress, the States and the people could give Presidents such powers. The “War Powers Act” has no such amended constitutional authority and thereby is ”UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
 
this congress refuses to allow Obama appointees to be confirmed.

They don want our government to work


they hate government and want it DEAD
 
this current congress of the right is the most obstructive in our history.


they block everything the first black president the people have ever chosen tries to do.

They dont want the constitution working for a black man
 
Robo said:
It is constitutionally illegal for a President to conduct acts of war without an official declaration of war from the Congress.

"The Congress shall have the power.......to declare war....."(Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)
Click to expand...

No it is not as decided by the surpreme court of the land no matter how many times you stupidly insist that it does. Once in a while, you just have to remove your head from your dumb ass to comprehend reality and get some air into that teeny tiny brain of yours.
 
Robo said:
The United States maintains military bases and personnel in over 120 foreign nations. The United States acts as the military arm of the United Nations taking the nation to undeclared, unconstitutional wars in Kuwait and Iraq to enforce UN resolutions. The United States is called on by every NATO nation to take the leadership roll in every world dispute concerning NATO. The United States has maintained military police forces for more than a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm sure you have your own absurd definition of those actions, but I'll call it the "World's Police Force" even though it punched your undies up the crack of your absurd ass.
Click to expand...

Dear dumbfuck; that does not make us the world's police force no matter how many times you stupidly claim that it does. It is a painfully stupid claim made by incredibly ignorant dumbfucks.
 
Robo said:
The war resolution that delivered the proxy of the Congress to declare war to G.W. Bush in Iraq was never constitutional. There's no authority in the Constitution for the Congress to proxy their war powers and duties to any President for any reason.
Click to expand...

...because only you say so. You really are THAT fucking dense.
 
Robo said:
The text of the Constitution is the rule of law, the Federalist Papers are not. If the founders truly wanted Presidents to have the power to command acts of war without a Congressional declaration of war, they gave posterity Article 5 of the Constitution, i.e. the system to amend the Constitution whereby the Congress, the States and the people could give Presidents such powers. The “War Powers Act” has no such amended constitutional authority and thereby is ”UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
Click to expand...

They aren't acts of war you ignorant repulsive moron. Please get some help extracting your dumb ignorant myopic head from your asshole.
 
evince said:
this current congress of the right is the most obstructive in our history.

they block everything the first black president the people have ever chosen tries to do.

They dont want the constitution working for a black man
Click to expand...

Yeah dumbfuck; the Congress is obstructing it's own legislation because Presidents still cannot issue edicts and write laws.....No wonder you're a Liberal Democrat; they like clueless dumbfucks like you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top