Skip to main content

View Diary: WATCH: The Case Against Drones (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  AUMF was an unconstitutional abdication (6+ / 0-)

    of responsibility on Congress's part, in the same way that Congress's 1990s attempt to give the President the line-item veto was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The AUMFs said, "Here, Mr. President, you decide whether we go to war." It lets Congress off the hook, leading to things like Sen. John Kerry's "voted for it before I was against it" (or was it the other way around?). Proper use of Article I Section 8 power would be, "We're going to war against this country," no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

    It's Congress's power and responsibility. Authorizations for the use of military force give Presidents too much power. Hence Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya... Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia...

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:43:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Simlplify - to date the Courts have not (0+ / 0-)

      agreed with you.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:56:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cite a case? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD

        From what I've seen, the courts have gone out of their way to avoid adjudicating the legality of the wars.

        And regardless, I'm going to read the plain language of the Constitution and the principles behind it and draw my own conclusion, and advocate for it.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:18:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site