I.8.11 & 12

[RavenHawk]

On another forum, we got into the meanings of 2 particular paragraphs in the US Constitution. The following are the two paragraphs in question:

“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” & “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

So the question is, what does these mean to you. I’m kind of curious on what people think?

[Beckys_Mom]

On another forum, we got into the meanings of 2 particular paragraphs in the US Constitution. The following are the two paragraphs in question:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" & "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

So the question is, what does these mean to you. I'm kind of curious on what people think?

All I remember is during the Iraq war, 52 faces of men on a deck of playing cards, each carrying a different level of bounty, that ANYONE could collect...

I don't get the two years part..

[Capt Amerika]

To me it simply means you cant go to war because one branch feels like it.

The President is the Commander and Chief and has the right to act accordingly in deciding how and when troops will be used.

However, Funding for any use of these troops must come from Congress as does any formal declaration of war.

I would imagine the two years part would simply indicate that funding for any war would have to be revisited and re-voted on every two years to prevent any chance of a never ending war.

That's how i see it anyways.

* kinda like how it takes two people to turn a key to launch a nuclear weapon, you never want these decisions to be made by a single entity.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Capt Amerika

[Bama13]

All I remember is during the Iraq war, 52 faces of men on a deck of playing cards, each carrying a different level of bounty, that ANYONE could collect...

I don't get the two years part..

The two years is because the Founding Fathers, like most British of the time, did not trust a large standing army. The only purpose they saw for a large standing army in peace time was to use against the populace. Of course they might have felt otherwise if they weren't surrounded by water. Notice there is no time limit on funding a navy.

[Beckys_Mom]

The two years is because the Founding Fathers, like most British of the time, did not trust a large standing army. The only purpose they saw for a large standing army in peace time was to use against the populace. Of course they might have felt otherwise if they weren't surrounded by water. Notice there is no time limit on funding a navy.

Ohhh I see..Thanks for clearing that up...

[MiskatonicGrad]

It means our government has enough unwritten rules that the constitution is pointless.

[Yamato]

The two years is because the Founding Fathers, like most British of the time, did not trust a large standing army. The only purpose they saw for a large standing army in peace time was to use against the populace. Of course they might have felt otherwise if they weren't surrounded by water. Notice there is no time limit on funding a navy.

But they weren't surrounded by water (see maps of the day and look to the west). It didn't matter.

[Yamato]

On another forum, we got into the meanings of 2 particular paragraphs in the US Constitution. The following are the two paragraphs in question:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" & "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

So the question is, what does these mean to you. I'm kind of curious on what people think?

Obviously, the authority to RAISE AND SUPPORT an army means that there is no standing army that would have to be raised and supported in the first place.

[F3SS]

What captain America said.

[Yamato]

What captain America said.

Except that declaring war isn't any manner of afterthought to funding it. If you don't declare war, there's nothing to fund. The whole point of authorizing Congress with the power to declare war is that sometimes warfare is necessary. This doesn't presume there's some kind of unwritten exclusion for wars that are neither necessary nor declared but that's exactly how the federal government operates today. "Using the troops", "how and when the troops will be used" is the same thing as war. To think, claim, state or believe otherwise is what enables these asinine liberals from abusing their power and misusing the US military.

Let's understand how the Constitution works. It states (enumerates) what powers the government does have. It doesn't allow creating other extracurricular powers the government doesn't have out of thin air. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war. It doesn't give the power to start war without declaring it. This was the single most important reason for the creation of the US Constitution OF ALL. Not being able to accept or understand this is the most severe breach of Constitutionality there can possibly be. No one person can decide who, what, when, where, why the country goes to war. The President is not a King.

The War Powers Act enhanced executive power to wage war without Congress, but Obama can't even follow that, and who cared about that? The scummy neocons were tickled pink at Obama's 3rd Term of Bush, liberal and conservative Republicans of all stripes shrugged, even the vaunted Tea Party candidates who won their respective elections have proven utter failures at Constitutional adherence for all their juicy promises.

Only Jack Bauer and Ravenhawk could celebrate the son of the father of Neocons stating how happy he is with the born again neocon Barack Obama.

[media=]

[/media]

War is a racket. Obey the Constitution, partisans.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Yamato

[Beckys_Mom]

It means our government has enough unwritten rules that the constitution is pointless.

That is a shame..I seriously mean that..

[F3SS]

Except that declaring war isn't any manner of afterthought to funding it. If you don't declare war, there's nothing to fund. The whole point of authorizing Congress with the power to declare war is that sometimes warfare is necessary. This doesn't presume there's some kind of unwritten exclusion to wars that are neither necessary nor declared. "Using the troops", "how and when the troops will be used" is the same thing as war. To think, claim, state or believe otherwise is what enables these asinine liberals from abusing their power and misusing the US military.

Let's understand how the Constitution works correctly. It states what power the government has. It doesn't allow creating other powers out of thin air. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war. It doesn't give the power to start war without declaring it. This was the single most important reason for the creation of the US Constitution OF ALL. Not being able to accept or understand this is the most severe breach of Constitutionality there can possibly be. No one person can decide who, what, when, where, why the country goes to war. The President is not a King.

The War Powers Act enhanced executive power to wage war without Congress, but Obama can't even follow that, and who cared? The scummy neocons were tickled pink, liberal Republicans of all stripes shrugged, even the vaunted Tea Party candidates who won their respective elections have proven utter failures at Constitutional adherence for all their juicy promises.

I reread the op and my opinion is that once one of these stated issues are formally, officially and legally declared they are eligible to receive two years of funding for the cause. I will also reason that they intended to say that if you can't accomplish the goal in two whole years then fugettaboutit. It's a lost cause, enough money was spent and it's time to move on.

[DeWitz]

It means our government has enough unwritten rules that the constitution is pointless.

Miskatonic grasps it. After Nixon, the "War Powers Act" became federal law, and if a petty foreign nation so much as sneezed, the President could unleash the Four Horsemen as long as the Congress didn't yawn. Fact. There has been no declared war, according to constitutional criteria, since 12/8/41 in the USA. Congress likes yawning.

The 'War Powers Act,' and cowardly congresses, gave us Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraqi "Freedom" (freedom for Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.), the Afghanistan morass and every other military adventurism we've seen under Obama.

No one reads the Constitution anymore, much less obeys it; they only suck up to the presidential figurehead offered up in the name of their hatreds and prejudices. So shall the US die.

Edited July 2, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[DeWitz]

I reread the op and my opinion is that once one of these stated issues are formally, officially and legally declared they are eligible to receive two years of funding for the cause. I will also reason that they intended to say that if you can't accomplish the goal in two whole years then fugettaboutit. It's a lost cause, enough money was spent and it's time to move on.

Then Bush was an utter failure times 4.

[DeWitz]

I reread the op and my opinion is that once one of these stated issues are formally, officially and legally declared they are eligible to receive two years of funding for the cause. I will also reason that they intended to say that if you can't accomplish the goal in two whole years then fugettaboutit. It's a lost cause, enough money was spent and it's time to move on.

Bush followed the War Powers Act like a cat on a leash.

[Yamato]

Miskatonic grasps it. After Nixon, the "War Powers Act" became federal law, and if a petty foreign nation so much as sneezed, the President could unleash the Four Horsemen as long as the Congress didn't yawn. Fact. There has been no declared war, according to constitutional criteria, since 12/8/41 in the USA. Congress likes yawning.

The 'War Powers Act,' and cowardly congresses, gave us Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraqi "Freedom" (freedom for Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.), the Afghanistan morass and every other military adventurism we've seen under Obama.

No one reads the Constitution anymore, much less obeys it; they only suck up to the presidential figurehead offered up in the name of their hatreds and prejudices. So shall the US die.

If you're an American, it's your duty to defend and enforce it. We're not these hapless sheep at the whims of our government we're continuously made out to be.

[F3SS]

Then Bush was an utter failure times 4.

Bush followed the War Powers Act like a cat on a leash.

Why are you telling me, twice? You could've just thrown it out there for everyone.

[MiskatonicGrad]

If you're an American, it's your duty to defend and enforce it. We're not these hapless sheep at the whims of our government we're continuously made out to be.

actually there are very few of us that took an oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. unfortunately we see daily the people who publically took the oath (Obama and members of congress) trample and spit on the constitution.

[Yamato]

actually there are very few of us that took an oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. unfortunately we see daily the people who publically took the oath (Obama and members of congress) trample and spit on the constitution.

Does respect for the rule of law that rules us all come from an oath? Take an oath tomorrow night with your family if you think it does.

"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the Constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived." -- James Madison

[Yamato]

Let it be clearly understood: Without the Constitution, the government has no power.

Want to do away with the Constitution? Then you espouse Anarchy.

[Frank Merton]

"Constitutionitis" A form of political constipation related to Bible Thumping where individuals cherry pick text to use for their partisan purposes without reference to the authority that was given power in the same Constitution to interpret it. As more and more of a population engages in this, government tends to grind to a halt.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Let it be clearly understood: Without the Constitution, the government has no power.

Want to do away with the Constitution? Then you espouse Anarchy.

be that as it may, the constitution as I interpret it doesn't give much power to the federal government anyways. and I remember something about the power to govern granted by the governed and if we feel our future is not secure with those in power then it's our duty.....don't want to go to far you never know who is listening.

[Yamato]

be that as it may, the constitution as I interpret it doesn't give much power to the federal government anyways.

Remember the key point made above: The power comes from the people. The Constitution is the codex that contains it, not the source from which it comes.

The people unfortunately give the federal government enormous power over them. Enormous power not contained in the Constitution, thus it's unconstitutional.

If you think you're free, you can't escape.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Remember the key point made above: The power comes from the people. The Constitution is the codex that contains it, not the source from which it comes.

The people unfortunately give the federal government enormous power over them. Enormous power not contained in the Constitution, thus it's unconstitutional.

If you think you're free, you can't escape.

agreed. the people for some reason think the government grants them their freedoms and rights there by giving the government the right to do whatever they want by default.

[aztek]

.

The people unfortunately give the federal government enormous power over them.

no they didn't. ppl are not in a position to give or take anything to\from fed gvmnt. power of ppl is a myth. the only way to take anything from any gvmt is by force, an dthat doesn't look like an option now.