Is Newt right?

[philly rabbit]

YES! Every President that involved our troops in hostile military actions without a formal debated DECLARATION of war presented by the Congress unconstitutionally DECLARED war by their actions. Every war is "DECLARED" by somebody and usually in America unconstitutionally. The bastards call them "police actions" or whatever suits their fancy to cover their asses from the violence they do to our rule of law, the Constitution. The ignorant minions cheer them on and reelect them then wonder why they turn right around and violate the Constitution again and again, run up debt and bankrupt the nation. DUH! probably because y'all morons allow the bastards to get away with it, huh?

............ this.

 

[NOVA]

Well, there is a little more to it than that.....

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many,who have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

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

 

[Robo]

Well, there is a little more to it than that.....

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

But for the fact that the “specific format” is spelled out perfectly simply by using the word “declare.” Even if it’s only by a voice vote a formal “declaration” of war has to come only from the Congress because there is no other body or person designated and authorized by the Constitution to declare war but the Congress and the Constitution itself certainly does use the word/term “declare.”

Many,who have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.



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

Of course the courts are made up of politically, ideologically, partisan judges appointed and approved by other politically, ideologically motivated partisans which only proves that a court’s decision is simply a “legalization” or a prohibition of a particular action and not necessarily a decision affirming or denying constitutionality of anything. In short, most judges don’t give a flying fuck about the Constitution, they only care about their particular political ideology.

Relative to the actual fact of the issue a resolution from the Congress that gives proxy of the Congresses duty and authority to declare war to a President is not a declaration of war or even anything closely resembling it, but rather a cowardly abdication of the duty and power of the Congress.

Therefore you got exactly what you wished for with your unconstitutional resolution, lacking in congressional debate and fact finding, a fucking quagmire of a war costing billions and billions that killed and maimed thousands of young Americans and ended in creating a clone of Iran and offered up an excuse for the fucking Democrats who voted for it to proclaim they were lied to by a Republican President and thereby innocent of the fucking quagmire and its end result.

Aside from all of that, Iraq and Saddam were no known threat to America nor did Iraq ever attack America.

What God died and made America the enforcer of toothless UN resolutions?

 

[NOVA]

You're another one hung up on demanding that 'particular' words must be used to say something......"a rose by any other mean".....
check your dictionary, there are many words in the language that express and mean exactly the same thing....called synonyms...words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context...so get over that nonsense....

A good example was,
In explaining the War Resolution to pinheads, the Court of Appeals said, (declared, expressed, concluded, announced, acknowledged) that: "The text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

The War Resolution or Authorization to Use Military Force, was in effect, a declaration of war, without ever needing to use the word "declaration"....
The word "authorization" means permission, approval, power, etc.....it all means exactly the same thing in relation to the context.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Declaration+of+war+by+the+United+States

CASE CLOSED