Massie to introduce War Powers Resolution to prohibit US involvement in Israel-Iran war

[Invisible Man]

How could I not know who Ron Paul is.

Indeed.

 

[nikcers]

No you haven't.

But also, you said we had been fighting wars without declarations for centuries. Funny how now the precedent (with a "t") you point to is one that was considerably less than one century ago.

And if you really want to hold that up as a great precedent (with a "t"), it would be good to dig a bit into the role the UN played in moving our foreign policy away from one in which declarations of war would ever be used and into one in which the US was increasingly to act as the world's policeman on behalf of global and foreign interests. The US Constitution had nothing to do with any of this.

The constitution is the highest law of the land.

We dont recognize others in any real sense of the word.

The USA has VETO power in the United Nations. That means we are the law.

 

[Invisible Man]

The constitution is the highest law of the land.

You don't actually believe that though.

Edit: to be fair, neither do I. But in this case, it's notable that you don't, since here you are asserting it.

 

[nikcers]

You don't actually believe that though.

Edit: to be fair, neither do I. But in this case, it's notable that you don't, since here you are asserting it.

Interpretation is 10/10ths of the law.

The law has been interpreted that the president can go to war as long as a state of war exists.

The president also determines whether a state of war exists.

That has been the law since the Supreme court ruled it that way hundreds of years ago.

 

[ClaytonB]

The president has deployed troops hundreds of times without a declaration of war

"The president has deployed troops broken the law hundreds of times without a declaration of war..."

FIFY...

what do you call the Korean war? The one where we saved the people of South Korea. That's just one example out of literally hundreds. /

Yes, one example of a foreign entanglement -- out of hundreds, or thousands -- that we should never have been involved in. Korea's problems are Korea's problems. Not our monkeys, not our circus.

You can't go changing the presidents power without a constitutional amendment.

Hey, look at that, the neoCON can learn things!!

 

[ClaytonB]

Interpretation is 10/10ths of the law.

Translation: "Words mean whatever I want them to mean. So the law means nothing because I will just 'interpret' it until it means what I say it means."

Marxist-playbook (which was cribbed by the neoCONs) 101...

That has been the law since the Supreme court ruled it that way hundreds of years ago.

SCOTUS does not and cannot decide what the Constitution means because the Constitution is the raison d'etre of SCOTUS. This is like the Catholic v. Protestant argument... the church does not decide what the Bible means because the Bible is what constituted the church to begin with. Scripture came first, Messiah came first, then the church. The Constitution came first, the Founders came first, then SCOTUS. If SCOTUS contradicts the Constitution, all it does is invalidate its own existence because, by intentionally misreading the Constitution, it evinces that it is not that body which the Constitution is speaking of in Article III. Apostates go to hell, they do not rule God's Kingdom; likewise, traitors go to the gallows, they do not run the country.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Grok replies:

In the United States, the power to declare and prosecute war is divided between the legislative and executive branches of government, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution:

• Congress has the sole authority to declare war, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. This gives Congress the power to formally initiate a state of war with another nation. Congress also has the power to fund military operations and regulate the armed forces, which are critical for prosecuting a war.
• The President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2), has the authority to prosecute war once it is declared or authorized by Congress. The President can direct military operations, deploy troops, and make strategic decisions to carry out the war effort. Additionally, the President can respond to immediate threats or attacks without prior congressional approval, as implied by their role in protecting national security, though sustained military action typically requires congressional authorization.

In practice, the division of powers has been debated and evolved, particularly with modern conflicts. For example:

• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §1541–1548) was enacted to clarify the balance of power. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and limits such actions to 60 days (with a 30-day withdrawal period) unless Congress authorizes further action or declares war.
• Since World War II, formal declarations of war have been rare, and Presidents have often initiated military actions under broader congressional authorizations, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 (Pub. L. 107-40) for actions against terrorism or the 2002 AUMF for Iraq (Pub. L. 107-243).

This framework ensures a system of checks and balances, with Congress holding the power to initiate and sustain war through declarations and funding, while the President executes military operations as the leader of the armed forces.

 

[nikcers]

"The president has deployed troops broken the law hundreds of times without a declaration of war..."

FIFY...



Yes, one example of a foreign entanglement -- out of hundreds, or thousands -- that we should never have been involved in. Korea's problems are Korea's problems. Not our monkeys, not our circus.



Hey, look at that, the neoCON can learn things!!

Containment of the Soviet empire was our problem.

Eventually they would be at our doorsteps and they were with Cuba.

We are lucky we had a president that stood up to the Soviet Empire and didnt surrender to it otherwise that could have been us that lost the cold war.

We could have an economy smaller than California and we could be fighting a meat grinder war losing millions of lives on our own borders.

The Truman doctrine held strong from 1945 to 1990 and won the cold war.

It has kept us in a position of military primacy where no country on earth can threaten us.

 

[nikcers]

Translation: "Words mean whatever I want them to mean. So the law means nothing because I will just 'interpret' it until it means what I say it means."

Marxist-playbook (which was cribbed by the neoCONs) 101...



SCOTUS does not and cannot decide what the Constitution means because the Constitution is the raison d'etre of SCOTUS. This is like the Catholic v. Protestant argument... the church does not decide what the Bible means because the Bible is what constituted the church to begin with. Scripture came first, Messiah came first, then the church. The Constitution came first, the Founders came first, then SCOTUS. If SCOTUS contradicts the Constitution, all it does is invalidate its own existence because, by intentionally misreading the Constitution, it evinces that it is not that body which the Constitution is speaking of in Article III. Apostates go to hell, they do not rule God's Kingdom; likewise, traitors go to the gallows, they do not run the country.

Yeah words mean what people determine them to mean.

We "aborted" millions of babies for 50 years under Roe V Wade.

We didnt charge millions of women for murder though.

You didnt raise up arms and stop the government.

The supreme court literally created out of whole cloth the reasoning that murdering babies wasnt murder and the country went on doing it for over 50 years.

 

[ClaytonB]

Grok replies:

In the United States, the power to declare and prosecute war is divided between the legislative and executive branches of government, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution:

• Congress has the sole authority to declare war, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. This gives Congress the power to formally initiate a state of war with another nation. Congress also has the power to fund military operations and regulate the armed forces, which are critical for prosecuting a war.
• The President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2), has the authority to prosecute war once it is declared or authorized by Congress. The President can direct military operations, deploy troops, and make strategic decisions to carry out the war effort. Additionally, the President can respond to immediate threats or attacks without prior congressional approval, as implied by their role in protecting national security, though sustained military action typically requires congressional authorization.

In practice, the division of powers has been debated and evolved, particularly with modern conflicts. For example:

• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §1541–1548) was enacted to clarify the balance of power. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and limits such actions to 60 days (with a 30-day withdrawal period) unless Congress authorizes further action or declares war.
• Since World War II, formal declarations of war have been rare, and Presidents have often initiated military actions under broader congressional authorizations, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 (Pub. L. 107-40) for actions against terrorism or the 2002 AUMF for Iraq (Pub. L. 107-243).

This framework ensures a system of checks and balances, with Congress holding the power to initiate and sustain war through declarations and funding, while the President executes military operations as the leader of the armed forces.

Sounds nice on the surface, but this take is trash, constitutionally-speaking.

The Founders were deeply wary of standing armies in peacetime. They knew that standing armies are the breeding-ground for tyranny. Caesar was just a nobody without his legions crossing the Rubicon with him. Every tyranny requires a foundation on a standing army.

It is for this reason that the Constitution makes no provision for a permanent armed force garrisoned on US soil, except for the State militias. It is implied in the Constitution (and based on American history) that the militias are our "quick reaction force" and they are comprised of non-professional soldiers[1], since the States are permitted to maintain their own militias, but prohibited from garrisoning troops except in the case of defense from an invasion (implied that the Federal government has not yet stepped in to help, a more serious problem at that time due to long communication delays). The Congress has the authority to maintain a permanent Navy and the reasoning of the Founders is clear -- a Navy, by definition, is not on domestic soil, so its permanent existence is necessarily outward-facing, which is the only direction that armed forces ought to be facing. By contrast, the army can be funded only for two years, meaning, at the end of hostile action, there would only be two years of funding left before the army would have to be disbanded. This limitation is explicitly meant to prevent a standing army in peacetime.

By contrast, since the end of WW2, the US has been occupied by an alien, anti-constitutional entity we now call "the Pentagon" (with clear occult symbolism) and which is nothing but a standing army in peacetime, the very instrument and breeding-ground of tyranny that the Founders sought to eliminate by the restrictions on Congressional and Presidential powers in the Constitution. And this is why we have to have an endless stream of unwinnable forever wars -- just like Orwell's 1984 -- so that the occupying MIC/Pentagon have an unending string of excuses for their standing army -- "It's not peacetime, we're at war!" But if we're at war, why doesn't Congress declare it? And without such declaration, even if we were at war, any Federal actions are, by definition, illegal and unconstitutional!!

[1] -- Or, if they are professionals, they are not on public payroll, they must be working for a PMC, etc.

 

[ClaytonB]

Containment of the Soviet empire was our problem.

No, it was the New World Order's left-hand, we were its right-hand. And the same dynamic is playing out right this very minute over the skies of Tel Aviv and Tehran. Proxy war between the two wings of the Illuminati, both of which answer to the prince of darkness.

It has kept us in a position of military primacy where no country on earth can threaten us.

Exactly backwards of reality. The MIC is the single greatest threat to the peace and safety of Americans because it goes around the world continually making bona fide enemies who have every legitimate reason to hate us. The countries of the Middle East call us "The Great Satan" and rightly so. Indeed, we are the Great Satan, there is no more fitting description possible.

 

[nikcers]

No, it was the New World Order's left-hand, we were its right-hand. And the same dynamic is playing out right this very minute over the skies of Tel Aviv and Tehran. Proxy war between the two wings of the Illuminati, both of which answer to the prince of darkness.



Exactly backwards of reality. The MIC is the single greatest threat to the peace and safety of Americans because it goes around the world continually making bona fide enemies who have every legitimate reason to hate us. The countries of the Middle East call us "The Great Satan" and rightly so. Indeed, we are the Great Satan, there is no more fitting description possible.

Without a military you get invaded and your women get raped.

Im all for oversight of our military and banking institutions but your idea of getting rid of the military when every other country is rearming so they can take over the world is bonkers.

 

[ClaytonB]

Yeah words mean what people determine them to mean.

Nobody in particular decides what words mean. And the meanings of words inheres in their usage and cannot be altered by "interpretation". Logical relativism is for chimps.

You didnt raise up arms and stop the government.

I'm a Christian, Romans 13. It's not our place to use armed force to stop the government from committing crimes. It is our place, however, to speak truth to power, as the Holy Spirit directs us to. Which is what I attempt, sinful though I am, to do online.

The supreme court literally created out of whole cloth the reasoning that murdering babies wasnt murder and the country went on doing it for over 50 years.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[nikcers]

Nobody in particular decides what words mean. And the meanings of words inheres in their usage and cannot be altered by "interpretation". Logical relativism is for chimps.



I'm a Christian, Romans 13. It's not our place to use armed force to stop the government from committing crimes. It is our place, however, to speak truth to power, as the Holy Spirit directs us to. Which is what I attempt, sinful though I am, to do online.



Thank you for proving my point.

So you wouldnt take up arms if your village was invaded and people were being murdered.

We used to tar and feather people like that.

 

[ClaytonB]

Without a military you get invaded and your women get raped.

Im all for oversight of our military and banking institutions but your idea of getting rid of the military when every other country is rearming so they can take over the world is bonkers.

If there is a force coalescing to invade our borders (or shoot missiles, or whatever), then let Congress raise an army to put a stop to that. If we follow biblical and constitutional principles with faith in God, all of these paranoid scenarios will fade into the mists because they are paper tigers invented by the spirit of the Age, who is Satan, as boogey-men to frighten us into betraying our core principles. The American militia defeated the British regular armed forces, a feat at that time as incredible as Afghanistan running the United State military out of town on a rail. The military strategists write entire libraries of books puzzling over how such miraculous events could happen but the answer is staring them right in the face: The Lord is on the side of the righteous and he defends their cause. This is why Iranian missiles are right now raining down on the cities of "Israel". When the wicked attack the righteous, they may seem to make some gains at first, but the end of the matter is determined by God and he will settle accounts not only at Judgment Day (completely) but even right here and now. If you want to keep America safe, then make American Christian again, namely, join the call to public, national, collective repentance to God for our countless sins which are an abominable stench that reeks to high heaven. Every other path is founded on empty egotism and is fated to the flames, the same as the pagan antics of the unbelieving heathen. If America is so exceptional as it imagines itself to be, then let it demonstrate that exceptionalism by turning to God in fear and repentance. That is the only path to true refuge and safety. All other paths are doomed...

 

[ClaytonB]

So you wouldnt take up arms if your village was invaded and people were being murdered.

Dude, the militia is comprised of all able-bodied men, read a history-book. In the case of invasion, every able-bodied American man is to grab his weapon (yes, he is legally assumed to have one, and ammo to go with it), and join the nearest militia unit on its way to repel the invasion. That's the American model, which is similar to the Swiss model, although less centralized because our political framework is more complex and less homogeneous than theirs.

 

[acptulsa]

So you wouldnt take up arms if your village was invaded and people were being murdered.

We used to tar and feather people like that.

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]