Forums - General Discussion - Green jobs czar Van Jones resigns - GOP victory

Jackson50 said:
TheRealMafoo said:I would call John Adams someone who believed in the Constitution, being he wrote it. The first military action without a declaration of war, was when John Adams was president in 1798.

John Adams may have believed in the Constitution, but he was not a strict constructionist. Honestly, I wished conservatives would discontue their use of that term. Its definition is different from what they think it is. 

I am not sure what they think it is, but the reason they call themselves that, is because they want to hold onto the whole "justice is blind" thing. They don't want modern day people in power to manipulate our Constitution for the purpose of whatever the agenda of the day is.

The argument you have against them, in this regard, doesn't apply. The Constitution, when it was written, was done so with the intent of allowing military action without a declaration of war.

You can be a  strict constructionist and agree with military action without a declaration of war.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:I am not sure what they think it is, but the reason they call themselves that, is because they want to hold onto the whole "justice is blind" thing. They don't want modern day people in power to manipulate our Constitution for the purpose of whatever the agenda of the day is.

The argument you have against them, in this regard, doesn't apply. The Constitution, when it was written, was done so with the intent of allowing military action without a declaration of war.

You can be a  strict constructionist and agree with military action without a declaration of war.

One can hold onto the whole "justice is blind thing" without being a strict constructionist. 

No, it applies. The intent is impertinent with stict constructionism. The Constitution, as strictly construed, grants Congress the power to declare war. If it is not strictly construed, which military action without a declaration is, that power does not exist. That is why that philosophy is widely condemned. Justice Scalia did not label it "degraded" without a reason. What you are describing seems to be originalism.



Jackson50 said:
TheRealMafoo said:I am not sure what they think it is, but the reason they call themselves that, is because they want to hold onto the whole "justice is blind" thing. They don't want modern day people in power to manipulate our Constitution for the purpose of whatever the agenda of the day is.

The argument you have against them, in this regard, doesn't apply. The Constitution, when it was written, was done so with the intent of allowing military action without a declaration of war.

You can be a  strict constructionist and agree with military action without a declaration of war.

One can hold onto the whole "justice is blind thing" without being a strict constructionist. 

No, it applies. The intent is impertinent with stict constructionism. The Constitution, as strictly construed, grants Congress the power to declare war. If it is not strictly construed, which military action without a declaration is, that power does not exist. That is why that philosophy is widely condemned. Justice Scalia did not label it "degraded" without a reason. What you are describing seems to be originalism.

The War Powers Act of '73 allows the president to deploy for 90 days before having to get congressional approval, right?

IIRC (its been a while since I've gone over this material) the War Powers Act was in response to Veitnam being waged without congressional approval and was intended to clarify/place limits on the existing (then and now) interpretation of Article II, Section 2 in which most presidents assumed that their position as "Commander in Cheif" afforded them the right to go to war.

To be completely honest my take is that the attempt of the War Powers Act to clarify Article II is unconstitutional since, as I understand it, it would take an amendment to add the 90 day limit .  By the same token though I don't think that Article II, Section 2 actually grants the president the power to go to war as it is written.

I would actually support the 90 limit because it, imo, places a well-reasoned limit on the presidents war powers and accounts for the need to react quickly in some situations.  Thus allowing the president freedom without completely bucking checks and balances and ultimately keeping war power in the congress while allowing flexibility as needed.

Just my $0.02 on war powers.

With that said, the current use of A2S2 will likely not change because it is politically useful for allowing presidents to do what needs to be done with wars without requiring the congress to necessarily put their names on it.



To Each Man, Responsibility
Sqrl said:

The War Powers Act of '73 allows the president to deploy for 90 days before having to get congressional approval, right?

IIRC (its been a while since I've gone over this material) the War Powers Act was in response to Veitnam being waged without congressional approval and was intended to clarify/place limits on the existing (then and now) interpretation of Article II, Section 2 in which most presidents assumed that their position as "Commander in Cheif" afforded them the right to go to war.

To be completely honest my take is that the attempt of the War Powers Act to clarify Article II is unconstitutional since, as I understand it, it would take an amendment to add the 90 day limit .  By the same token though I don't think that Article II, Section 2 actually grants the president the power to go to war as it is written.

I would actually support the 90 limit because it, imo, places a well-reasoned limit on the presidents war powers and accounts for the need to react quickly in some situations.  Thus allowing the president freedom without completely bucking checks and balances and ultimately keeping war power in the congress while allowing flexibility as needed.

Just my $0.02 on war powers.

With that said, the current use of A2S2 will likely not change because it is politically useful for allowing presidents to do what needs to be done with wars without requiring the congress to necessarily put their names on it.

The president can only commit troops up to 60 days. If the president does not receive congressional authorization after 60 days, the president has a 30 day withdrawal period.



Not one mainstream media source reported until he resigned from "smear"(videos of himself on youtube)

Win for internet and new media



Repent or be destroyed

Around the Network
Jackson50 said:
Sqrl said:

The War Powers Act of '73 allows the president to deploy for 90 days before having to get congressional approval, right?

IIRC (its been a while since I've gone over this material) the War Powers Act was in response to Veitnam being waged without congressional approval and was intended to clarify/place limits on the existing (then and now) interpretation of Article II, Section 2 in which most presidents assumed that their position as "Commander in Cheif" afforded them the right to go to war.

To be completely honest my take is that the attempt of the War Powers Act to clarify Article II is unconstitutional since, as I understand it, it would take an amendment to add the 90 day limit .  By the same token though I don't think that Article II, Section 2 actually grants the president the power to go to war as it is written.

I would actually support the 90 limit because it, imo, places a well-reasoned limit on the presidents war powers and accounts for the need to react quickly in some situations.  Thus allowing the president freedom without completely bucking checks and balances and ultimately keeping war power in the congress while allowing flexibility as needed.

Just my $0.02 on war powers.

With that said, the current use of A2S2 will likely not change because it is politically useful for allowing presidents to do what needs to be done with wars without requiring the congress to necessarily put their names on it.

The president can only commit troops up to 60 days. If the president does not receive congressional authorization after 60 days, the president has a 30 day withdrawal period.

Well like I said, it's been a while =P



To Each Man, Responsibility

I'm fine with this. I'd prefer the "green jobs" czar to know something about economics or biology or preferably both. This guy went to law school to learn to prosecute civil rights cases. He should be doing something else.