DSK said:
for a President to threaten war in such a manner would be a greivous
violation of the Constitution.


Dave wrote:
Could you 'splain again which section it is that prohibits a President from
threatening war?

Read Article 2. This specifies how the President shall be elected and
which powers he may exercise. The President may make treaties with
foreign countries (subject to ratification by Congress), but he cannot
declare war. The President is the Commander In Chief but he cannot
explicitly threaten war, nor can he invade other countries except under
specific circumstances and in a limited way... this is why President
Bush went out of his way to get Congressional approval of the invasion
of Iraq... remember?

Now read the 9th and 10th amendment... if he could do those things, the
Constitution would specifically grant those powers. If it doesn't say
so, he can't.

It is a conservative belief that the Constitution be interpreted
strictly & literally, and that it's grants & enumerations be taken
seriously. I don't know what you believe in, are you a conservative or a
liberal?

DSK

"Joe" steelredcloudof wrote

BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY
on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911
commissions reports

Well, there's two countries to bomb the crap out of.

SV

Of course, neither are you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:47:16 -0400, DSK said:

The President is the Commander In Chief but he cannot
explicitly threaten war

A Constitutional scholar you're not, Doug.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Dave wrote:
A Constitutional scholar you're not, Doug.

Nope... however it is relatively plainly written. All legal obfuscation
aside, there is no legal basis for a President to make the kind of
threats against another country that Joe was talking about. That would
be a de-facto (spiffy technical term, huh) act of war.

Do you have an explanation of for the timing of the release of the
Iranian hostages, considering that they declared they were willing to
send them home about three months before the election and then held them
until "15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated"??

I do... it's logical and consistent with known facts... but it is not
flattering to Reagan and thus rejected by you "constitutional scholar"
types. BTW if you don't believe in the Constitution, does that make you
conservative or liberal?

DSK

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "Joe" steelredcloudof wrote
|
| BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY
| on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911
| commissions reports
|
| Well, there's two countries to bomb the crap out of.

You still got bombs left after that last fiasco??? We're safe as long as
we're not your allies.
Please start your first sweep through Quebec.

CM

Dave wrote:
The scope of the President's power in foreign relations was extensively
debated by Madison and Hamilton, with Hamilton arguing for the more
expansive view and Madison taking the more restrictive view. Suffice it to
say that Hamilton's view prevailed. The President has broad power in the
field of foreign relations, including the power to make threats. Do you not
recall the Cuban missile crisis?

To actually carry through on those threats, on the other hand, may well
require action by Congress, and that in itself acts as something of a
restraint on diplomacy.

Dave, you're obfuscating. Hamilton never said anything to the effect
that "The President must be granted the power to threaten immediate war,
with any foreign country, for any or no reason, without any regard to
other authority." Kennedy certainly never called Kruschev on the red
phone and said "Listen you commie fag, I'm sending 10,000 paratroopers
to Moscow to smack you with baseball bats, the planes should be overhead
any minute now." Your claims are ridiculous.

If this were true, then how come Nixon got in trouble for bombing in
Cambodia? How come some factions of the Republicans are still furious
with Clinton for getting invovled in the former Yugoslavia? How come
Bush & Cheney didn't just invade Iraq whenever they wanted, and let
Congress go cry in their soup?

The President does have broad powers, and this can include threats of
war *within* the context of already ongoing diplomacy. The President
cannot treat the U.S. military as though it were his privately owned
video game. Is this what "conservatives" beleive now??

Regards
Doug King

And, Dave isn't a constitutional scholar either. So, he's basically
blowing a lot of smoke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
A Constitutional scholar you're not, Doug.

Nope... however it is relatively plainly written. All legal obfuscation
aside, there is no legal basis for a President to make the kind of
threats against another country that Joe was talking about. That would
be a de-facto (spiffy technical term, huh) act of war.

Do you have an explanation of for the timing of the release of the
Iranian hostages, considering that they declared they were willing to
send them home about three months before the election and then held them
until "15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated"??

I do... it's logical and consistent with known facts... but it is not
flattering to Reagan and thus rejected by you "constitutional scholar"
types. BTW if you don't believe in the Constitution, does that make you
conservative or liberal?

DSK

I think we off-shore their manufacture.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "Joe" steelredcloudof wrote
|
| BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY
| on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911
| commissions reports
|
| Well, there's two countries to bomb the crap out of.

You still got bombs left after that last fiasco??? We're safe as long as
we're not your allies.
Please start your first sweep through Quebec.

CM

Dave wrote:
Not obfuscating at all.

Yeah, but I thought that was more polite than saying "you're full of ****."

... What Hamilton said is that the doctrine of
enumerated powers on which you're relying doesn't apply in the area of
foreign relations. In that field he believed the President's authority was
to be plenary

Plenary powers damn sure don't include threatening war with another
country. And you wouldn't argue that they did, if we were talking about
a different President... say, Truman, for example.

DSK

"Joe" wrote
Legend is....He made the call first thing after he left the podium from
the swearing in ceramony.

Legend is the call went something like this: "OK, I'm in and the illegal
parts you need to get your weapons systems back up are on the way ......"

Secondly, ... Why would we reward a country
that had just held 52 hostages 444 days?


Well it goes back to the trader days on the silk route thru the middle
east. The are very skilled people in bartering and have a keen skill
in the art of negotiating. Ronald by heart was a Texan, but the sad
fact was he lived in California. Had he been a true Texas he would not
of bartered with dogs,

So Jimmy Otter must be a truer Texan than RR? Like all Californians, RR
thot Texans a joke.

Thats one of the reasons I like Bush as president. It's been a tough
hard road the last few years, and he's still stickin to his guns.

Yup, it's been tough watching neighbor kids getting killed and our
retirement investment evaporate. Bush may have been a draft dodger himself
but he has no problem sendin our sons and daughters to die in Iraq or
spending our retirement funds to rebuild it. Makes him real popular in
place like Moe's ....