Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat does marque and reprisal or rules regarding captures of land have to do with anything? I was quoting the section so I know why I mentioned it. You asking about it though I don't understand. Unless you are just acting like a child.
Did the US grant letters of marque? How about rules concerning captures of land and water?
"Also, I think the issue of whether or not it is a declaration of war has already gone to court and found to be a declaration of war, though I cannot cite at this time."
Don't just make up "facts" please.
I never made up the fact "it has already been to court" I simply said I thought it had.
Do try to act like an adult would you?
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's what a lot of people think. We wouldn't be in this war at all had Congress not approved it.
if the congress has the power to stop bush then it is ok-ish. i only thought that bush can go over their wishes and do whatever he wants.
Everybody hates Bush so they blame him. It's how it works.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by MerkIts not silly to say that a country isn't a democracy if its not a democracy. - but it uses representative democracy; to me this means that it is a democracy: it uses one form of a democratic system.
Its not silly to say that a country isn't a democracy if its not a democracy.
Direct democracy won't just work today, it didn't work in the past either. That's why nobody wants to go that way.
Democracy doesn't work because "the people" as a whole do what is best less often then elected representatives do. "The people are right" is a common fallacy subscribed to by those with populist tendencies.
Direct democracy won't just work today, it didn't work in the past either. That's why nobody wants to go that way.
Democracy doesn't work because "the people" as a whole do what is best less often then elected representatives do. "The people are right" is a common fallacy subscribed to by those with populist tendencies. - Exactly, we agree. 😵
Originally posted by MerkYou said that Declaration of War is not necessary in those terms, because that passage also mentioned captures and letters of marque. That's the point.
What does marque and reprisal or rules regarding captures of land have to do with anything? I was quoting the section so I know why I mentioned it. You asking about it though I don't understand. Unless you are just acting like a child.
I never made up the fact "it has already been to court" I simply said I thought it had.
Do try to act like an adult would you?
Originally posted by ZahlanziLook what he's done so far...
yes, but surely he cannot go around the congress. no matter that he is the commander in chief, he still is in a democratic country and the will of the people(congress) should come first. there must be ways in wich he can be stoped to send troops if the congress doesn't want him to.
http://www.veryfunnydownloads.com/funnyvideos/GeorgeWBushs1161.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo. I did not say that. I quoted the entire passage so it was complete and therebye showing you that I wasn't leaving anything out.
You said that Declaration of War is not necessary in those terms, because that passage also mentioned captures and letters of marque. That's the point.
If Congres has ever issued a letter of marques is irrelevent to the Declaration of War issue as is their power to decide any issues over captures of land.
The fact that congress can also issue letters of marque, has no bearing on the wording of a declaration of war.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou're argument is framed wrong since America is not a democracy -- it is a constitutional republic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
read it. if this doesn't get bush on trial for despotism and stupidity, then nothing will. he basically gave a raspberry and the finger to the congress and the american people.