Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Sep '12 22:17
    Romney did a political broadside against our consulate personnel and our commander-in-chief on the same day our consulate was being attacked and Americans killed.

    Eisenhower and Reagan are rolling in their respective graves at what has become of the Republican party and who the GOP has nominated as their presidential candidate.

    Answer: Romney lacks the judgment and moral character to lead our nation. Again, Romney was partisan on the day our consulate in Libya was attacked and Americans killed.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Sep '12 22:25
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Romney did a political broadside against our consulate personnel and our commander-in-chief on the same day our consulate was being attacked and Americans killed.

    Eisenhower and Reagan are rolling in their respective graves at what has become of the Republican party and who the GOP has nominated as their presidential candidate.

    Answer: Romney lacks ...[text shortened]... Again, Romney was partisan on the day our consulate in Libya was attacked and Americans killed.
    While I agree with this assessment, it should be noted that the President isn't "our commander-in-chief" unless you are a member of the US Armed Forces:

    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;

    US Constitution Article II, Section 2
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    15 Sep '12 23:37
    Originally posted by moon1969
    ...
    Eisenhower and Reagan are rolling in their respective graves at what has become of the Republican party and who the GOP has nominated as their presidential candidate.
    Oh I don't think Romney would be looking for approval to Eisenhower, if his Wikipedia entry is anything to go by:
    He was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies, expanded Social Security and launched the Interstate Highway System. He sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, for the first time since Reconstruction to enforce federal court orders to desegregate public schools, and signed civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 to protect the right to vote. He implemented desegregation of the armed forces in two years,....

    Protecting the right of black people to vote? That would not be Romney now, would it?

    Then again, some of Eisenhower's legacy may be more pertinent:
    In the first year of his presidency Eisenhower deposed the leader of Iran in the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat,

    Music to Romney's ears I am sure. On the whole a mixed bag.
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Sep '12 10:41
    Mustn't overlook Eisenhower's part in putting a stop to McCarthyism, an earlier move towards an American fascism whose current expressions Romney seems to appease.

    On the domestic front, he covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy but contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking the modern expanded version of executive privilege.
  5. 17 Sep '12 04:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    While I agree with this assessment, it should be noted that the President isn't "our commander-in-chief" unless you are a member of the US Armed Forces:

    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;

    US Constitution Article II, Section 2
    Too late for that. The President has been the "Commander in Chief" for as long as I can remember. "Our" Commander in Chief, not just members of the armed forces and not just sometimes. I find it very suspicious that it wasn't until Obama took office that the right suddenly discovered that part of the Constitution. And I'll be very interested to see if that still applies when we get a Republican in the White House. Will he also be only the Commander in Chief to some and only sometimes or will we go back to the old standard?
  6. 17 Sep '12 05:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    While I agree with this assessment, it should be noted that the President isn't "our commander-in-chief" unless you are a member of the US Armed Forces:

    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;

    US Constitution Article II, Section 2
    Yes. The same commander-in-cheif who launched a war against Libya whom you claimed violated the War Powers Act to do so. Then the Obama created governemnt allowed the embassy to be overrun.

    Yep, Romeny would be a much worse choice.
  7. 17 Sep '12 06:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes. The same commander-in-cheif who launched a war against Libya whom you claimed violated the War Powers Act to do so. Then the Obama created governemnt allowed the embassy to be overrun.

    Yep, Romeny would be a much worse choice.
    While there is no excuse for the overrun, it was not an embassy. Instead, a new consulate "house" in an environment akin to the Somalia blackhawk down along with Al Qaeda trained terrorists.

    And I do shudder, and am truly scared and think it would be disastrous to have Romney as commander-in-chief.
  8. 17 Sep '12 06:31
    Originally posted by moon1969
    While there is no excuse for the overrun, it was not an embassy. Instead, a new consulate "house" in an environment akin to the Somalia blackhawk down along with Al Qaeda trained terrorists.

    And I do shudder, and am truly scared and think it would be disastrous to have Romney as commander-in-chief.
    Are you scared of his magic underwear? That would trump Obama thumbing his nose at the War Powers Act and letting Ambassadors die under his watch ya know.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Sep '12 13:51
    Originally posted by mmmjv
    Too late for that. The President has been the "Commander in Chief" for as long as I can remember. "Our" Commander in Chief, not just members of the armed forces and not just sometimes. I find it very suspicious that it wasn't until Obama took office that the right suddenly discovered that part of the Constitution. And I'll be very interested to see if that sti ...[text shortened]... the Commander in Chief to some and only sometimes or will we go back to the old standard?
    The standard applied when there were Republican Presidents and will continue to apply until the Constitution is amended. Presidents self-claiming they are the nation's "Commander in Chief" isn't sufficient to alter that.
  10. 17 Sep '12 17:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    That would trump Obama thumbing his nose at the War Powers Act and letting Ambassadors die under his watch ya know.
    What president has not thumbed his nose at the War Powers Act. You are not implying that Obama is unique in this regard? Obama was actually easier on the War Powers Act in the sense of ducking it as opposed to outright rejecting it as has previous administrations.

    By the way, the executive branch of previous administrations have made the determination that the law is unconstitutional or likely unconstitutional. Indeed, because of this, and as a matter of form, the executive branch historically has not technically satisfied the War Powers Act, though it has in spirit at times. For example, while the executive branch has satisfied reporting requirements in the past, the executive will title the report to clarify such reporting as in the discretion of the executive branch, and is not in response to binding requirement of the Act. Moreover, the courts have not been willing to rule on whether the Act is constitutional.

    Congress doesn't necessarily get to have it's unconstitutional laws enforced, especially those that executive branch per its constitutional obligation determines a law unconstitutional, and the courts refuse to hear the issue and instead leave it as a political question (as is the circumstance with the War Powers Act).

    The executive branch is doing its constitutional duty at thumbing it's nose at the War Powers Act. While the executive branch can choose to follow the provisions of the Act or and believe the provisions of the Act are good, such cannot be forced by Congress but instead is is at the discretion of the executive branch, unless of course the courts say otherwise.

    The executive branch is slave to the Constitution and should not enforce or follow laws it determines to be unconstitutional, unless the courts tell them otherwise. The executive branch has just as much obligation as Congress to make determinations of constitutionality, especially in areas core to the executive branch. It is only the federal courts who can trump the executive branch. And the courts have refused to do so here.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Sep '12 17:27
    Originally posted by moon1969
    What president has not thumb his nose at the War Powers Act. You are not implying that Obama is unique in this regard?

    By the way, the executive branch of previous administrations have made the determination that the law is unconstitutional or likely unconstitutional. Indeed, because of this, and as a matter of form, the executive branch historically ...[text shortened]... ederal courts who can trump the executive branch. And the courts have refused to do so here.
    That argument i.e. that the Executive Branch can unilaterally decide what laws are constitutional or not and disregard those it does not agree with has been rejected by the SCOTUS for at least 200 years.
  12. 17 Sep '12 17:29 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That argument i.e. that the Executive Branch can unilaterally decide what laws are constitutional or not and disregard those it does not agree with has been rejected by the SCOTUS for at least 200 years.
    I never implied the executive branch gets to unilaterally decide constitutionality. Check your reading comprehension. So why do the federal courts refuse to decide the question of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. Further, Congress also does not get to "unilaterally decide what laws are constitutional."

    The courts can always trump either branch, and in certain cases, the courts may refuse to get involve and instead leave it as a political question. Google "political question". Such is common when there is a disagreement between the executive and legislative branches, especially in issues of national security.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Sep '12 17:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I never implied the executive branch gets to unilaterally decide constitutionality. Check your reading comprehension. So why do the federal courts refuse to decide the question of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. Further, Congress also does not get to "unilaterally decide what laws are constitutional."

    The courts can always trump either br ...[text shortened]... e to get involve and instead leave it as a political question. Google "political question".
    Yes you did:

    moon: The executive branch is doing its constitutional duty at thumbing it's nose at the War Powers Act. While the executive branch can choose to follow the provisions of the Act or and believe the provisions of the Act are good, such cannot be forced by Congress but instead is is at the discretion of the executive branch, unless of course the courts say otherwise.


    You are suggesting that the Executive can unilaterally decide the constitutionality of a statute and refuse to enforce it without court action. This is not the law; the Executive Branch is required to follow the law just like everybody else.

    Here's Chief Justice Roberts writing this year:

    Moreover, because the parties do not dispute the interpretation of §214(d), the only real question for the courts is
    whether the statute is constitutional. At least since Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), we have recognized
    that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the
    Constitution, “it is emphatically the province and duty of
    the judicial department to say what the law is.” Id., at
    177. That duty will sometimes involve the “[r]esolution of
    litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of
    the three branches,” but courts cannot avoid their responsibility merely “because the issues have political implications.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 943 (1983).
    In this case, determining the constitutionality of §214(d)
    involves deciding whether the statute impermissibly
    intrudes upon Presidential powers under the Constitution.
    If so, the law must be invalidated and Zivotofsky’s case
    should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. If, on the
    other hand, the statute does not trench on the President’s
    powers, then the Secretary must be ordered to issue Zivotofsky a passport that complies with §214(d). Either way,
    the political question doctrine is not implicated. “No
    policy underlying the political question doctrine suggests
    that Congress or the Executive . . . can decide the constitutionality of a statute; that is a decision for the courts.” Id.,
    at 941–942.

    ZIVOTOFSKY v. CLINTON


    The Constitution itself declares: "he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

    Article II, Section 3


    Your ideas would make the President a virtual dictator. That is not the Constitutional scheme.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Sep '12 17:59
    Originally posted by moon1969
    What president has not thumbed his nose at the War Powers Act. You are not implying that Obama is unique in this regard? Obama was actually easier on the War Powers Act in the sense of ducking it as opposed to outright rejecting it as has previous administrations.

    By the way, the executive branch of previous administrations have made the determination ...[text shortened]... ederal courts who can trump the executive branch. And the courts have refused to do so here.
    BTW, it has been pointed out to you before that Obama has never claimed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional. From the State Department's legal adviser:

    “We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www


    That rationale is dubious (at best) but it does not support your breathtaking claims that the President can disregard duly executed laws if he feels like it.
  15. 17 Sep '12 18:15
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    BTW, it has been pointed out to you before that Obama has never claimed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional. From the State Department's legal adviser:

    “We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of execu ...[text shortened]... ur breathtaking claims that the President can disregard duly executed laws if he feels like it.
    As I said, "previous administrations." Obama is actually the executive most favorable to the Act in my opinion. Obama chose to "duck" the Act with regard to Libya by labeling Libya as a limited action, instead of arguing that the Act is unconstitutional. While Obama did comply with reporting requirements with regard to Libya, the reports made clear it was at the discretion of the executive.