Bush vs. Kerry
Every Sunday my friends and I play poker. Two weeks ago a political debate broke out that chose not to partake in because I felt that it was neither the time, nor the place. Instead I wrote this letter and sent it to my friends…
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a
choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President."
Bush won the electoral votes. Bush won the election. I don’t care what you think about the electoral system because what you think is irrelevant.
2. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states…
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”
The War Powers Act of 1973 further clarified this clause by declaring that a President may take military action against a foreign nation for a period of 60 days without congressional approval.
In October of 2002, the Senate approved a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use “American military force to enforce existing United Nations Security Council mandates that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution states that the United States Congress has the right “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”
There is no law that says anything about any kind of obligation by the administration to convince the American people that their actions are just or provide them with any true or false information whatsoever prior to any kind of military action.
In light of this information could you please explain to me…
(a) what standards of law by which the war on Iraq is “illegal”
and
(b) why you hate the Constitution so much.
3. Jesus Christ, will this issue ever die? I’m assuming you are from the dilly so just go back and read what I have to say about this. I’m sick of repeatedly arguing against idiotic standpoints.
Reply
2. (These are not my own words)For one, Article 51 of the Charter, which recognises the right of member-states to retaliate against an armed attack by another country, only applies in the case of an "actual armed attack". Neither the U.S. nor the U.K., which has not been attacked by Iraq, can claim refuge under this section of the Charter. Moreover, the very notion of "anticipatory self-defence" is beyond the pale of the Charter because it goes against the fundamental tenet of the Charter, which prohibits the use of force by nations in resolving disputes.
Bush - rather than advocate for "preemptive war" against an immediate threat - developed a doctrine of "preventive war" for a country supposedly considered a long term term threat. The concept of "preventive war" is illegal under Section 51, according to Weston.
The second article justifying water under the U.N. Charter is Article 39, that provides the three circumstances for the use of force: (1) a threat to peace, (2) a breach of peace and (3) an act of aggression.
"Bush kept insisting on Article 39, that there would be serious consequences against Iraq if they didn't comply with the Security Council's wishes, but most of the Council didn't buy into it," said Weston.
U.N. Resolution 1441 didn't authorize the immediate use of force, only the inspections for WMD in Iraq. "The war wasn't authorized by Article 39, so it was an act of aggression by Bush and Blair," said Weston.
Under the standards of the Nuremberg trials, the war in Iraq is considered a crime against peace. "If the regime engages in war crimes, the architects of the war are considered war criminals. Therefore Bush and his entourage are war criminals under international law," concluded Weston.
B)"Hate the constitution"?, alright McCarthy, turn off Fox news and turn down Bill O' Reilly.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment