alphieb
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,982
- Reaction score
- 31
- Location
- Vincennes IN
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
alphieb said:This war in Iraq is unconstitutional. If any of you don't know what I am referring to, look it up.
Why the war is wrong and has nothing to do with 911:
1. Hussein is not a member of the Taliban. The Taliban was actually a threat to him.
2. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911....not Hussein, but we have yet to capture him, even though we have Hussein.
3. The war on Iraq has produced many deaths....no comparison to other wars, but yet has still incurred unnecessary deaths.
4. Where are the WMD?????????? We had intelligence to investigate prior to invasion.
5. Socialist empire....bush is not a king. this war is a violation to our constitutional rights.
cnredd said:Possibly the funniest line I've ever heard in a debate forum...
If any of you don't know what I am referring to, look it up.
KCConservative said::funny
:screwy
In what way? What provision(s) of the Constitution has (have) been violated?alphieb said:This war in Iraq is unconstitutional.
Umm. That's not how things work. You're making the assertion. Part of your case is to provide the backing for your assertion.alphieb said:If any of you don't know what I am referring to, look it up.
Well, that's all fine and good for you to say so, but it doesn't really relate to the constitutionality of the affair.alphieb said:Why the war is wrong and has nothing to do with 911:
See abovealphieb said:1. Hussein ... prior to invasion.
Which ones?alphieb said:this war is a violation to our constitutional rights.
What makes you think that the unanimous support of the House is needed?alphieb said:Bush did not have total support of the house.
AK_Conservative said:Well, to say the war is unconstitutional is flat out wrong. Bush got approval from congress! The connection between terrorists and Saddam is not directly related to 9/11, BUT iraq was and is a harboring grounds for terrorists. To say they are unnecessary deaths, you are bring the military value to a low that is not even right! Ive posted many times between the connection of iraq and al qaeda. Secondly, the war is very much justifyable in the fact that Saddam denied UN weapon inspectors acces to vital areas. That suggest he must be hiding something. Now Iraq has a lit of WMD's not accounted for. Whre did they go? Either Syria or Iran in my guess. Lastly, You fallacious argument parallels the line of the extreme left media and congress i.e. turbin durbin, kennedy dean, ect.. Grab an opinion of your own for christ sake. Next you will be saying that Saddam was a friendly Ally to us or that we are torturing saddam in his tiny jail cell with those whity tighties he has on!
No matter the war, death will occur. It is great that we have had very few casualties compared to WW2 and vietnam. Look at this. Some say Iraq never attacked us and therefor we have no business being there. Well, Germany never attacked us in ww2. But we still went over there and fought. We didnt know about the concentration camps till the closing of the war. I love how people twist and skew information for their political rhetoric to advance an agenda that should not even be produced.
Simon W. Moon said:In what way? What provision(s) of the Constitution has (have) been violated?
Umm. That's not how things work. You're making the assertion. Part of your case is to provide the backing for your assertion.
Well, that's all fine and good for you to say so, but it doesn't really relate to the constitutionality of the affair.
See above
Which ones?
Simon W. Moon said:What makes you think that the unanimous support of the House is needed?
Which clause calls for the unanimous consent of the House?alphieb said:The constitution Article 1, Section 8
It was specifically authorized under the War Powers Resolution.alphieb said:The US congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, congress voted for a resolution in Oct 2002. King Bush unlawfully took it upon himself to launch a first-strike. Congress then supported-after the fact which is just as illegal. Congress said later in Oct. 2002 "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the US as he determines....WRONG.
It's not related to the constitutionality of the invasion.alphieb said:ALSO (see my post about the UN).
alphieb said:The US congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, congress voted for a resolution in Oct 2002. King Bush unlawfully took it upon himself to launch a first-strike. Congress then supported-after the fact which is just as illegal. Congress said later in Oct. 2002 "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the US as he determines....WRONG.
Simon W. Moon said:Which clause calls for the unanimous consent of the House?
Article. I. Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Where in these clauses does it say that the unanimous consent of the House is necessary?alphieb said:clause eleven an twelve. There is also violations of the bill of rights I will look it up and post you.
A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;Simon W. Moon said:It was specifically authorized under the War Powers Resolution.
I think that there is a case of undetermined quality to be made the War Powers are unconstituional.
It's not related to the constitutionality of the invasion.
Please refer to Article 1 at the top and then relate it to clause 11Simon W. Moon said:Where in these clauses does it say that the unanimous consent of the House is necessary?
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
alphieb said:clause eleven an twelve. There is also violations of the bill of rights I will look it up and post you.
And I'm still not seeing where it say that the unanimous consent of the House is required. Would please be so kind as to quote the specific language that states this?alphieb said:That congress shall have the power to: clause 11
KCConservative said:Wow. This sounds criminal. Downright impeachable. Let us know how this works out for you. :2wave:
Hey, when did President Bush become King? I missed this bit of news.
Simon W. Moon said:Where in these clauses does it say that the unanimous consent of the House is necessary?
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
There's still nothing that specifies the unanimous consent of the House.alphieb said:That congress shall have the power to declare War.....If you read at the top of the constitution it states things shall be decided with support of congress. Of course not in those exact words, but that is what it means.
Simon W. Moon said:There's still nothing that specifies the unanimous consent of the House.
alphieb said:That is how it is interpreted. I will do some more research later.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?