Forum Thread

Rand Paul's Repeal Bill

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill that would repeal that unconstitutional bill that allows a President to wage war anytime and anywhere without Congressional Approval.

    Naturally the Republicans who are working for the Military Industrial Complex and the weapons dealers voted against Paul's bill and so did 17 Democrats.

    When Eisenhower warned against the destructive and detrimental influence of America's Military Industrial Complex he was right and today the U.S. Government has become an Oligarchy ruled by that Military Industrial Complex which has turned 7 countries into rubble, killed 100's of thousands of innocent human beings and created millions of refugees and managed to destroy every ideal and good thing this country once stood for.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Connie Wrote:

    U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill that would repeal that unconstitutional bill that allows a President to wage war anytime and anywhere without Congressional Approval.

    Naturally the Republicans who are working for the Military Industrial Complex and the weapons dealers voted against Paul's bill and so did 17 Democrats.

    When Eisenhower warned against the destructive and detrimental influence of America's Military Industrial Complex he was right and today the U.S. Government has become an Oligarchy ruled by that Military Industrial Complex which has turned 7 countries into rubble, killed 100's of thousands of innocent human beings and created millions of refugees and managed to destroy every ideal and good thing this country once stood for.

    The biggest enemy is the $. The $ controls beyond mind and imagination. I asked a Harvard business graduate what his guiding ethic was. Make a profit for the stockholder was the answer.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Do you think it's possible that many Senators were concerned about the extremely short timeline of Paul's proposal and thought it might be smarter to spend more than 30 minutes debating it considering it would affect thousands of Americans currently serving overseas?

    I'm all for Congress reasserting their authority when it comes to military engagements, but I want them to do it in a way that won't make everything worse.


    I apologize if I'm crass, but you are a very angry person. I may be young(ish), but one thing I've learned is that anger gets you nowhere in life.

    Reigning in the military industrial complex is going to be a very complicated endeavor and rash decisions could very well bring about a nuclear conflict. I firmly believe that the adults, not the ideologues, should take the lead.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The biggest enemy is the $. The $ controls beyond mind and imagination. I asked a Harvard business graduate what his guiding ethic was. Make a profit for the stockholder was the answer.

    And? He has a business degree. If he had a social work degree and said the same thing then I'd be worried.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Any business person who runs a company and doesn't have "enhance shareholder value" as his/her principal goal should be fired. The very nature of corporations is to make a profit for their investors. They are not charities.

    That's not saying that they do not consider the value and contributions of their employees or their customers. That is also an essential part of their profitability. But show me a business that didn't care about profits and I'll show you a business that went bankrupt and had to let go of all of their employees.

    This is off topic again, but I just had to respond.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Getting back on topic, I'm not sure what law you are referring to Connie. From the Free Dictionary website on Presidential Powers:

    "Although the president is commander-in-chief, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Despite this apparent constitutional impediment, presidents since Thomas Jefferson have dispatched troops to combat situations without the prior approval of Congress. The Supreme Court held in the Prize cases, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459; 70 U.S. 451, 18 L. Ed. 197; 70 U.S. 514, 18 L. Ed. 200; 70 U.S. 559, 18 L. Ed. 220 (1863), that the president has the authority to resist force without the need for special legislative action.

    "In times of crisis, the president has the power to commit U.S. forces, but the Vietnam War led Congress to place limits on the presidential war power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 1541 et seq.) restricts the president's power to mobilize the military during undeclared war. It requires the president to make a full report to Congress when sending troops into foreign areas, limits the duration of troop commitment without congressional authorization, and provides a veto mechanism that allows Congress to force a recall of troops at any time.

    "Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to use force to fight a War on Terrorism. President George W. Bush issued military orders in October and November 2001 that mobilized National Guard and Army Reserve units and directed the detention of enemy combatants by the military. In a controversial move, President Bush authorized military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, many suspected terrorists were captured and moved to military prisons for indefinite terms of detention. The invasion of Iraq by U.S. and British forces in March 2003 was authorized by Congress in the fall of 2002, again giving the president as commander-in-chief broad authority to conduct a military campaign."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is easy to oppose any law that allows the president to use his/her discretion as Commander-in-Chief to use force. If you want to entirely handcuff the president in that role, then be careful of what you wish for.