What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
221 Comments
- HugoNaught, on 11/08/2007, -6/+62An important step. I really hope this passes.
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -7/+51I think it raises the awareness of the problem which has never happened before. I really think Americans are fed up with the use of force without a Congressional declaration of war.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/08/2007, -1/+44They wouldnt bother unless bush was planning to... oh *****, yeah Iran....
- jdh24, on 11/08/2007, -2/+37"At a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill, Reps. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), William Delahunt (D-Mass.), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) announced the introduction of H. J. Res. 53, the Constitutional War Powers Resolution."
Gotta love Ron Paul. I expected Kucinich to be on this list though. - whataboutdave, on 11/08/2007, -2/+37If by some miracle this passes, Bush will veto it before the ink is dry.
- Fieri, on 11/08/2007, -1/+25I really like Kucinich, but he keeps letting us down where Ron Paul pulls through. I'm not against him by any stretch of the imagination though. He's a patriot.
Ron Paul 2008. =) - mrjit, on 11/08/2007, -1/+212/3 of the house + senate will undo a Presidential veto.
- TenebrousX, on 10/30/2007, -0/+18full text of bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... - inactive, on 11/08/2007, -6/+24Lets see if all the Republican politicians line up like good little fascists behind W. If the Republicans still count some real conservatives, let them step forward and vote for this bill.
- Kent4jmj, on 11/08/2007, -17/+34God Bless
- jjesusfreak01, on 11/08/2007, -0/+17Note please that unlike a certain Democrat who has run for president in past years, Ron Paul is still working even though he is running a full scale campaign...
- kufu91, on 11/08/2007, -1/+16"Specifically, it says Congress has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
Ronald Rotunda, a professor of law at George Mason University, said the debate over war powers will eventually have to be decided by the Supreme Court - it's a major constitutional issue that has never really been settled. "
How the hell isn't that settled? - MorfiusX, on 11/08/2007, -0/+13You can't get 2/3 of them to agree on what day it is...
- jjesusfreak01, on 11/08/2007, -1/+13Because we have gotten to the point that more than 1/3 of our congress/senate no longer support the constitution.
- jjesusfreak01, on 11/08/2007, -0/+11How is it an unsettled issue when the constitution explicitly states that a declaration of war by the legislative branch is required to go to war???
- mattrmcg, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12Hope it passes for the sake of the troops
- Takalth, on 11/08/2007, -1/+11You know, I used to call Republicans spineless when they caved to Democrats on more social programs or other excessive government spending. Now, seeing it from the other side, I've come to realize that spineless has nothing to do with it. The majority of the politicians at the top of both parties want the same thing, but they have to keep throwing accusations at each other or too many people will wisen up and vote 3rd party.
- sivsta, on 11/08/2007, -2/+12We went to war in Vietnam over a ***** torpedo boat. I don't think congress would goto war if they knew the full truth at the time of that vote.
- chase001, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10Congress did not pass a Declaration Of War.
- guestaccount, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11450 diggs... Meanwhile Maddox is getting 6500...
Pull your heads out of your asses America.... - jstone, on 11/01/2007, -0/+9The executive branch has been sending military troops into 'skirmishes' and 'police action' without declaring war. They've used clever word-plays to remove Congress' power over war. From my understanding of the article, this bill is an attempt to close that loophole and give congress a better option than 'power of the purse' in case of such an undeclared war.
- TenebrousX, on 11/08/2007, -2/+11Wrong. The founding fathers gave the power to conduct war to a single executive, but left the funding and and declaration of war to the Congress intentionally. If we are directly attacked, Congress will certainly pass a declaration of war quickly.
The founders were terribly fearful of an imperial monarch, due to their immediate history. There is no way they intended to give a single man the power to declare and command wars. - maddhopps, on 10/30/2007, -0/+8I wonder if the other candidates are doing any kind of real work during their expensive campaigns...
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -1/+9Where can I get a gun....I'm ready to end this *****!
- objectivist, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8We don't need more laws. We only need a large minority to say that Bush's Authority surpasses that which is allowed by the constitution. "More Laws......Less Justice"-Cicero of Rome
- TenebrousX, on 10/31/2007, -2/+10There's no way this will have such a large majority
- cnot3, on 10/31/2007, -2/+10congress - "shouldn't we tack on a pay raise for ourselves?"
- maddhopps, on 10/30/2007, -2/+10Lying to Congress about WMDs and UAVs to induce congressional support does NOT make the Iraq War legal.
- jaymzdean, on 10/30/2007, -5/+12The fascist Republicans in Congress will not let this fly. They belong to the Military Industrial Complex, who is in charge right now. Your way out? Ron Paul. Get over it. Accept it. Vote.
- cnot3, on 11/01/2007, -1/+8According to the article, the majority of the proponents of the bill are republicans, or at least the ones that showed up at the press conference were. They're not all neocons yet.
- Fieri, on 10/30/2007, -0/+7Exactly. And keeping up his health too. =) I wouldn't worry about him giving out on us. He's an active 72-year-old.
- skinnyskittles, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Does anyone actually read the Constitution anymore? Of course only Congress has the power to declare war! It's ridiculous that it's come to the point where we have to reiterate this.
- Depthfunction, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8I don't think this resolution would go far enough. I think Congress should not only have explicit power to begin war, but also to end a military engagement as well. The President should be more like a general: he is in charge of conducting and coordinating the military in time of war, but the decision about whether and when military forces should be engaged should be solely up to the Congress.
I also think that there should be a constitutional amendment that would require an increase in income taxes for all Americans (and a sharp increase in corporate taxes for military contractors) whenever congress authorizes military action. If we are going to engage in something as costly and destructive as war, then we ought to be able to pay for it. Bush's insistence on tax cuts is obscene. Perhaps the threat of an increase in taxes would serve to temper the jingoistic war fever that we saw in 2003, and even now as we prepare for war with Iran. - morpheus69, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6Congress declared war against Japan less than 24 hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor (on December 8, 1941). I agree with sivsta, you are retarded.
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_ ... - Takalth, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6"Sorry if my views offend your delicate sensitivity , but I think that opposing view points promote conversation."
If you want to promote conversation, learn to use the Enter button to separate ideas and use fewer elipses. - UserSpace, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8what a ***** joke ... those guys voted a blank check ..... now they want to look like they are tough.... best solution, vote AGAISNT the friggin incumbent next year....
- rda1441, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8"And lets not forget that 20 million for the important study my district needs to run about fruit flies and that bridge I need to build."
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8"and $20B in pork for our home districts?"
- Terr01, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5That's a new one.
Now do you have any particular evidence to support your theory that Sadr will lead the sunni miniority to domination of Iraq and the Shiite Iran-supported majority?
Or is it a flight of fancy? - inactive, on 10/30/2007, -3/+8Rudy&the ***** need to be removed from the elections! They are of the same brand name which meant is suck America dry!and make America a third world nation! Vote Ron Paul! We need a real change!
- swordedge, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5As much as Paul brings up the constitution, I would have been shocked if his name wasn't on the bill. If it fails to pass and he gets elected, by the end of January, the war powers act will be history
- rudyghouliani, on 10/31/2007, -2/+7Impeach the whore Pelosi first, she betrayed the whole of the US by pretending that she was listening to us, so we voted for her to stop this war and she ended up sucking Bush's dick once we gave her the power. She even thinks that protesters outside her home should now be arrested, the people that voted for her, the people that were betrayed. What a whore!
- jjesusfreak01, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Which begs the question, whats the point of passing a law against something thats already unconstitutional?
Do our congressmembers believe their laws hold more weight than the constitution? - Terr01, on 10/30/2007, -1/+5You'll be arrested without charge and held as an "unlawful enemy combatant" for years in solitary confinement with no lawyer or court access, no matter how much you talk about your rights as both a person and citizen.
Why are you looking at me like that? Bush's already done it multiple times. - MonsterChaOS, on 11/01/2007, -3/+7Actually, he was never elected, yet somehow there he is.
- prothe113, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4First of all, you're right. The article explicitly states that although we've been in numerous wars, the last "declared" war was WWII.
However the article also points out that this may just be unconstitutional, even if it's not illegal. The Constitution *does* grant sole power to declare war to the Legislative, but it does *not* grant explicit right to have "undeclared conflicts" or "police actions."
This means that Clinton's "police actions" may be just as unconstitutional as Bush's Iraq "war" -- this isn't a partisan issue, despite the best efforts of many to make it so. It's a balance-of-powers issue, and as such it's about the most important legal debate we Americans can have. Our entire system of government, after all, is based upon a careful system of checks and balances.
Take that away and it's the Wild West -- as we've seen with Presidents running off to have illegal, dirty little wars in everywhere from Iraq to Bosnia. - saranagati, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Apparently you both missed the whole point of the article, including the excerpt where it said the US hasn't declared war since ww2.
- sivsta, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4If another pearl harbor happened, congress would not sit on their asses for 2 months before doing something. That is the most retarded thing i've heard in awhile.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4uh what the hell is going on there? Here I can walk into wal-mart sign a piece of paper, they call up the fbi (i think) and i can walk out with a gun and 1000 rounds of ammo 5 minutes later.
- Impact0115, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6We need more title's like these.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is