• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War in Iraq is unconstitutional and unjust

Simon W. Moon said:
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?
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

ALL POWERS HEREIN GRANTED...........shall be vested in a congress on and on plus cause 11
 
alphieb said:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
ALL POWERS HEREIN GRANTED...........shall be vested in a congress on and on plus cause 11

I, too, wonder:
Where is the clause requiring unanimous consent?
 
alphieb said:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

ALL POWERS HEREIN GRANTED...........shall be vested in a congress on and on plus cause 11
Perhaps if you were to bold and highlight the word "unanimous" I'd be able to see it more easily.
 
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
KEY WORDS "BOTH CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT WILL APPLY.......

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER.

Read it yourselves people, sorry if you don't understand the lango. of our constitution.

It is BLACK AND WHITE......even it does not use YOUR specific vocabulary word. Maybe you should find a thesaurus maybe that would help with your understanding.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps if you were to bold and highlight the word "unanimous" I'd be able to see it more easily.

Perhaps if you got over your word of the day....you could read between the lines.
 
alphieb said:
Perhaps if you got over your word of the day....you could read between the lines.

LOL
So... is it just a DoW that needs to be unanimous, or does that apply to ALL votes in the House?
LOL
 
ArmyBrat73 said:
Sorry, but "King Bush" isn't smart enough to make these decisons on his own. He is just a puppet and someone else is pulling the strings.
http://www.vsocial.com/video/?l=522

Of course King Bush is an idiot, but he unfortunately is making his own decisions....thats why we are in the shape were in.
 
alphieb said:
Perhaps if you got over your word of the day....you could read between the lines.
You're the one who brought it up.
 
alphieb said:
Of course King Bush is an idiot, but he unfortunately is making his own decisions....thats why we are in the shape were in.

Good Lord, you libs can't even agree on which slanderous insult you want to sling. Is he an idiot making his own decisions or is he a puppet on a string?

Check here to be sure: www.moveon.org
 
KCConservative said:
Good Lord, you libs can't even agree on which slanderous insult you want to sling. Is he an idiot making his own decisions or is he a puppet on a string?

Check here to be sure: www.moveon.org


All of the above.......

Sincerely,

Lefty
 
Last edited:
Sorry, If I am offending anyone.....I don't mean to be hateful. I am just debating.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You're the one who brought it up.

I brought up that the war was unconstitutional and have provided evidence as to why.
 
M14 Shooter said:
LOL
So... is it just a DoW that needs to be unanimous, or does that apply to ALL votes in the House?
LOL

Congress wanted resolution.
 
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.

None of this supports you claim of "unconstitutional". It's just lies concocted by the left. Apparently you haven't been following this war very closely.
 
Donkey1499 said:
None of this supports you claim of "unconstitutional". It's just lies concocted by the left. Apparently you haven't been following this war very closely.

Refer to post #30.
 
alphieb said:
Refer to post #30.

Um... Congress gave Bush the "go ahead" to wage war against Hussein. Bush showed them the same intelligence on Iraq that he had. But it would be unconstitutional to NOT give the Iraqi people the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that they and everyone else deserve. Are you not happy that the Iraqis are happy? Would you rather that Hussein was still gasing and torturing his own people? That's not very liberal of ya, but then again, maybe it is.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Um... Congress gave Bush the "go ahead" to wage war against Hussein. Bush showed them the same intelligence on Iraq that he had. But it would be unconstitutional to NOT give the Iraqi people the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that they and everyone else deserve. Are you not happy that the Iraqis are happy? Would you rather that Hussein was still gasing and torturing his own people? That's not very liberal of ya, but then again, maybe it is.

Congress gave Bush the OK after the first strike. Not ALL or the Iraqi people are happy, because the country was artificially created by the British Empire post WW1 consisting of approximately 60% Shiite, 20% Sunni and 20% Kurd.
The Shia dominated this region under the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The Shia are not happy re: loss of power. I doubt if a power sharing federation or confederation will keep these disparate groups at bay. Additionally, guess where the oil is located it certainly is not located in Baghdad or central Iraq. I doubt if the Kurds or Shia are willing to share their largess.
 
alphieb said:
Congress gave Bush the OK after the first strike. Not ALL or the Iraqi people are happy, because the country was artificially created by the British Empire post WW1 consisting of approximately 60% Shiite, 20% Sunni and 20% Kurd.
The Shia dominated this region under the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The Shia are not happy re: loss of power. I doubt if a power sharing federation or confederation will keep these disparate groups at bay. Additionally, guess where the oil is located it certainly is not located in Baghdad or central Iraq. I doubt if the Kurds or Shia are willing to share their largess.

Just like with any other group they'll just have to learn to get along, or else suffer the consequences of their own deaths (as in a civil war).
 
alphieb said:
How do you know Iraq is harboring grounds for terrorist? Are you US intelligence that has seen it first hand. Have we found those hidden terrorist? That is bogus lies and an attempt to condone this war.

Um, how about Al Zaqari? Al Qiada's prominant presence? the Bombings? Are you insane?

Where did the WMD go? You are speculating that they even existed.

it is FACT that Saddam had them. He used them on his own people for christ sake! Intelligence in the past also shown he had nuclear weapons. Clinton said he had nuclear weapons. to say bush lied is false.

Bush said the war was to "disarm Iraq, to free its people and defend us from danger"

Isnt tah what the hell i said?

The war was not even legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of UN Charter. A war is justified under two circumstances: under self defense or Security Council.

And what about the way saddam treated his own people? Was that under international law? How he used weapons to destroy many of his own people? is that under international law. How about the Liberty of Iraqi people? Sometimes, morals overcome law! Look at the civil rights movement! People defied the law to bring a just society and morals to this country!

SELF DEFENSE:

We were not attacked by Iraq nor threatened. Provide me proof Hussein was harboring terrorist or offering WMD (there is none). Hussein was not connected to Al Qaeda.

Germany never attacked us! So i guess that war was "unconstitutional and unjust"! Thats what your saying right?

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

The 15-member UN did not authorize the attack on Iraq. They wanted new inspections to resolve peacefully. Iraq accepted the renewed inspections which were actually carried out. The US did not comply with the UN.

Time was at the essence, so it was felt. Nuclear weapons aint something we need to spend time on. There is now ay of deductive reasoning to show that they had WMD's. We tried to go in peacefully with the UN. That didnt work. We gave Saddam a deadline which he had the chance to meet but did not. That seams suspicious to the world. Lets theorize for the moment. what is during the inspections Saddam moved WMD's into syria. If we didnt give him that deadline, he could have used them. Take in mind, this is a theory. It can not be disproven either. It might be a little improbable but certainly possible.

ALSO:

NATIONS AT WAR ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF WAR, HUMANITARIAN LAW AS WELL AS CUSTOMARY LAW, THE LAW OF WAR REGULATES MILITARY OPERATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT CIVILIANS FROM DISASTER.

Ok, so explain how we have not follow the rules of war, besides the SELECT FEW, out of Hundreds of thousands soldiers who have committed, in your sense, torture, when it was, i.e. abu ghrab.


All i see from your posts is fallicious accusations that would not hold up in and law system! Lastly, America holds a higher standard in International relations than other countries. If this war never happened, you liberals would be crying out that we did nothing. its a lose lose situation. We had the intelligence and if we didnt act, you would be screaming just liek the 9/11 report that was even more vague!
 
Last edited:
AK_Conservative said:
All i see from your posts is fallicious accusations that would not hold up in and law system! Lastly, America holds a higher standard in International relations than other countries. If this war never happened, you liberals would be crying out that we did nothing. its a lose lose situation. We had the intelligence and if we didnt act, you would be screaming just liek the 9/11 report that was even more vague!

I don't know what fallicious means,:mrgreen: but I think us cry baby liberals would have been much happier had we KILLED BIN LADEN when Bush had the chance in Tora Bora. It's 4 years after the fact and we still don't have Bin Laden. That fact amazes me EVERY SINGLE DAY!

If I'm a Dem running in 08, that's at the top of my list if he's still on the loose. Take 50K or so troops out of Iraq and get his murderous arse!
 
alphieb said:
Congress wanted resolution.

OK.
Clearly you arent capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation regarding this subject matter.
 
Originally Posted by AK_Conservative:
Ok, so explain how we have not follow the rules of war, besides the SELECT FEW, out of Hundreds of thousands soldiers who have committed, in your sense, torture, when it was, i.e. abu ghrab.
Our use of WP in Falluja, that's how.
 
Back
Top Bottom