Topic: When You Are So STUPID You Have To Ask...

[Thresherman]

It's actually the War Powers Act. That means it's a law which carries just a little more weight than a mere resolution.

Uh, actually no, it is more complicated than that.

From the Library of Congress Law Library web site.

This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

[rickl]

The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete?  Glad he cleared that up.

[Pandora]

The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete?  Glad he cleared that up.

As I said, a complete absence of the knowledge of First Principles (and human nature).

[Thresherman]

The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea...that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy.

Never mind that the reason it was done so that the smaller states did not become the mere vassals of the larger ones, which is not so crazy if your goal is to respect the views of all the states and not to let the larger ones run roughshod over the smaller ones.  Further, to find the wisdom of that, one only has to observe what a cluster f*ck California is and how fortunate we are not to have them dictating their lunacy on a national level any more than they currently do.

They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much influence. The framers weren't afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.

They checks and balances were placed to prevent omnipotent central authority, which is exactly the goal of of the left when they want to change or reinterpret the Constitution.  

Speaker of the House John Boehner has asserted that the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from armed hostilities if Congress has not given its approval within 60 days.

Obastard is is in violation and if it was Bush this asshat would be apoplectic about it.

The government also compels us to buy car insurance (if we want to legally drive our car), which is a product from a private company.

First off, car insurance requirements are state and not federal law and if you cannot grasp that distinction, the last thing you should be doing is writing an article about the Constitution and should be taking remedial civics.  Secondly, this has meme has been trotted out by liberals in so many instances and has been thoroughly debunked so many times, that anyone using it yet again, has no gift for depth of thought and is clearly confusing the regurgitation of liberal talking points with rational thinking.

[Thresherman]

The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete?  Glad he cleared that up.

As I said, a complete absence of the knowledge of First Principles (and human nature).

It actually is promoting the insipid idea that the tools we use alter and dictate out ethics and morality.  That murder is somehow more heinious if we use an semi-automatic pistol rather than a single action or even a club.  They simply cannot get their minds around the concept that it is the act and not the tool that is immoral.

[John Florida]

The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete?  Glad he cleared that up.

As I said, a complete absence of the knowledge of First Principles (and human nature).

 Check your PM.

[trapeze]

It's actually the War Powers Act. That means it's a law which carries just a little more weight than a mere resolution.

Uh, actually no, it is more complicated than that.

From the Library of Congress Law Library web site.

This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

I am guilty of being unclear on this point and I suppose it has to do with the late hour when I wrote the post.

On reflection I suppose that I should have left this out of my post.

I guess I was trying to express the issue that this law is often not taken seriously because it is referred to as a resolution by whichever party is currently trying to ignore it. The fact is that it is a law and should either be obeyed or challenged in federal court as to its constitutionality.

The article's author goes on to say this:

The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.

Which is to say, the president breaks the law and that's okay with the author because, presumably, he agrees with the president in this situation.

Clinton ignored the law during the bombing in Kosovo (and also in Somalia) so this is nothing new for Democrat executives to violate the law.

The article's author is being very selective in his discussion of the law for reasons that I will assume we can all guess. I did not express this well.

[trapeze]

It's an apologist, cover piece for our current commander in chief.....The one who has sullied the Constitution at every opportunity.

Trap, with your permission, would you mind if I used portions of your critique? Pieces of crap such as this need to be attacked and I have the idea of an opinion piece for my small local paper, if I can get it printed.
If I can't get it printed, then I'll buy the space.
This type of garbage needs to be challenged.

Anything that I write here may be used by anyone. I do not write professionally (very obviously) so I care nothing for attribution. If I ever get to that point I will copyright what I commit to print. I don't see that ever happening.

So go for it.

EDIT: I think you may find a better source for your opinion piece HERE. Pull up the audio archive and listen to that.

[Thresherman]

The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.

Which is to say, the president breaks the law and that's okay with the author because, presumably, he agrees with the president in this situation.

Clinton ignored the law during the bombing in Kosovo (and also in Somalia) so this is nothing new for Democrat executives to violate the law.

The article's author is being very selective in his discussion of the law for reasons that I will assume we can all guess. I did not express this well.

My intent was to clarify not criticize.

Having said that, let us not forget that the left, even though Bush was in compliance with the WPR/A, wanted to impeach him over it. 

They should call themselves the Double Standard Party rather than the Democratic.

They could still keep the (D).

[trapeze]

The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.

Which is to say, the president breaks the law and that's okay with the author because, presumably, he agrees with the president in this situation.

Clinton ignored the law during the bombing in Kosovo (and also in Somalia) so this is nothing new for Democrat executives to violate the law.

The article's author is being very selective in his discussion of the law for reasons that I will assume we can all guess. I did not express this well.

My intent was to clarify not criticize.

Having said that, let us not forget that the left, even though Bush was in compliance with the WPR/A, wanted to impeach him over it. 

Agreed.

[BigAlSouth]

Obama, during the election process, was able to convince 52% of the voting public that he was exactly what they wished for in a President. This is actually an impossible effect as most of the Democrat Special Interest Groups eventually conflict with each other. The anti-war Left was convinced that they were electing a President who would close GITMO and bring the troops home. What they have realized is that GITMO will never close, Muzzies ain't gonna be tried in downtown New York, and their boy is as much of a Warmonger as Bush ever was. Ignoring the War Powers Resolution just reminds the anti-War Left that Obama, again, is a disappointment.

I hope Obama does nothing to validate the War Powers Act or Resolution. It will result in another reason certain parts of the Left will not be energized in 2012.

[LadyVirginia]

Talking about preaching to the choir....

Clearly, Time knows its readers.

[Weisshaupt]

Frank J's response at imao.us  to this was perfect

* The article inside the Time magazine is a special form of aggressively stupid. It includes the sentence “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.” How do you even respond to this? It’s like someone arguing “Two plus two equals Thursday.” It’s pointless to argue; just steer clear. Really, though, with magazines failing left and right, this is what Time is going to pay someone to write? At this rate, they’ll be lucky get the dollar asking price Newsweek had.

[charlesoakwood]

...
I hope Obama does nothing to validate the War Powers Act or Resolution. It will result in another reason certain parts of the Left will not be energized in 2012.

A snippet on the radio today about  losing losing big donors.  That may be what that Big 11 industrial kumbahja he's trying to pull is about.........campaign money, bleed the companies for all they are worth.

[Predator Don]

There is no doubt, with any liberal, there is an ulterior motive. Hard to imagine a Chicago political guy not having other motives.

[trapeze]

AceOfSpades posts on this today. Ace links to a post at Paterico that lists 13 Factual Errors with the article. We got a few of them.

The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.
The Constitution is not law.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.
The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
That the original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.
Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”
The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.
We have only declared war five times.
Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.
Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Naturalization depends on your birth.
The Obamacare mandate is a tax.

From Paterico's piece:

Late last week, I fisked Richard Stengel’s Time Magazine cover story  “One Document, Under Seige” (update: click here for the one page version) but it deserves more discussion.  I consider it nothing less than a journalistic scandal that this piece was (1) a cover story, (2) written by their Managing Editor, (3) who serves in an organization dedicated to teaching other journalists about the Constitution, and yet it is rife with factual errors, including many that are obvious simply by reading the Constitution.

Great article at Paterico. He goes on to do a detailed analysis of each factual error.

Oh, yeah...at the end of the article the author requests our help to try (in vain) to get a retraction from Time.

[Weisshaupt]

Great article at Paterico. He goes on to do a detailed analysis of each factual error.

Darn- he didn't get to " no idea of germ theory or antibiotics."

Right, they din't know about germs or antibiotics  but they got small pox innoculations
A special form of aggressively stupid.

[charlesoakwood]

Yes, earlier Jefferson had to slip into PA to get his.

[hemm]

been busy but I thought that thread title had my name all over it........til I saw what it was......

all kidding aside, Trap, I hope you are ok after wading through "Time". I wouldn't line a bird cage with it if the birds had diarrhea. Even diarrhea deserves better.

[trapeze]

LINK

The above link is to a BigGovernment piece about how the American Constitution Society is falling on a sword for the Time author/moron.

The ACS seems to operate under the Humpty Dumpty principle:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

So, they have no trouble at all accepting Stengel's 14 factual errors about the Constitution that he wrote in his little essay.