LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Sidd Finch
Did you bother reading that act all the way to the end?

In case you've forgotten what 4(a)(2) says:

Congress declared that we should pursue the removal of Hussein from power. Period. The policy was set in 1998.

4(a)(2) laid out the initial scope. Obviously, with subsequent Congressional funding authorizations, the scope was increased. I don't see an issue.

Quote:

If a GA wrote a memo saying that this act authorized the invasion of Iraq, the commitment of several hundred thousand troops, and the spending of several hundred billion dollars, I would fire him and alert the carrier.

Nor does it prevent further expansions of the policy.

You just like firing people.

Quote:

Shape Shifter
China.

Touche. Well played, Lizard.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can't wait until the year 2065, when Ty's grandson is posting on these boards and saying: "It's 2003. Your Bush. The US has just been viciously attacked. What do you do?"

Attack the guy who made fun of your dad?

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A a country full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys got a permanent veto on the Security Council.

So who really made out on the deal?

The below is from a text of an email circulating amongst high ranking military officials:

French Military History in a Nutshell

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy (hi Slave!) to France's ugly girl (hi Shifty!) home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.

http://www.johntrapp.com/cheesesurrendermonkey.jpg

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In Boston on October 30 FDR said; “I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

What were the two sentences before and after that one?

Quote:

He lied and our boys died. I agree with his decisions, but that doesn't alter the characterization of his duplicity.

I was asking about Spanky's claim of causation.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The Lend Lease act was an act of war. He pretty much gave an entire fleet to the British for nothing. I support what he did. The point is that Roosevelts conduct prior to WWII was much more deceptive than Ws conduct prior to Iraqi Freedom.

Unless the Constitution worked differently in those days, the Lend Lease Act would have been passed by Congress, and so it probably wasn't much a secret. Where's the deception?

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Congress declared that we should pursue the removal of Hussein from power. Period. The policy was set in 1998.

4(a)(2) laid out the initial scope. Obviously, with subsequent Congressional funding authorizations, the scope was increased. I don't see an issue.

That's only because you completely ignore Sec. 8.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4(a)(2) is limited to "provid[ing] to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations" assistance, limited to "the drawdown of defense articles", not to exceed $97,000,000.

How can you possibly read that to authorize an invasion with several hundred thousand troops? "Oh, the democratic movements ran out of troops! We'll draw down our stocks... of people!!!"

Quote:

Penske_Account
Are the senile feeble old justices, O'conner and Rehnquist, going to clutch at the edges of their blackrobes like petty tyrants until the grim reaper comes calling or will they actually have the decency and respect for our Consitution to step aside and let W do what we elected him to?

The latest SCOTUS decision was just handed down:

Quote:

Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land

In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for 'public purposes' under eminent domain.

The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of last week's court declaration that so-called "private" property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure.

In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in courtrooms unless the following disclaimer is included: "Display of this historically-significant collection of laws shall not be construed as an endorsement of the God who may, or may not, have spoken them, nor of the existence of such a God, nor of the legality of the laws. Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk. Please consult your family attorney before embarking on any law-abiding regimen."

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Who is this "we," kemosabe?

Me and 59M of my closest pals.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorta telling as to the faith they have in the President if they're gonna try and stick it out until their dying breaths. Here's hoping they last another three years.

They are petty tyrants drunk with power. Scalia oughta bitchslap some sense into them.

eta: oddly, googling "supreme court" AND "monkey" for images gets several pictures of penii. weird dat.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
They are petty tyrants drunk with power. Scalia oughta bitchslap some sense into them.

eta: oddly, googling "supreme court" AND "monkey" for images gets several pictures of penii. weird dat.

You didn't seem to hate their tyrrany (your word) so much in December 2000.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You didn't seem to hate their tyrrany (your word) so much in December 2000.

It was judiciously applied at that juncture.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You didn't seem to hate their tyrrany (your word) so much in December 2000.

Never mind.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That's only because you completely ignore Sec. 8.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4(a)(2) is limited to "provid[ing] to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations" assistance, limited to "the drawdown of defense articles", not to exceed $97,000,000.

How can you possibly read that to authorize an invasion with several hundred thousand troops? "Oh, the democratic movements ran out of troops! We'll draw down our stocks... of people!!!"

Nice try Sidd, but what is "defence services" :

4(a)(2)(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

It is the provision of troops. Clearly.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
They were limited leases on non strategic bases. We got nothing.

The British certainly felt otherwise. They thought we extracted all sorts of concessions at a time when they had no leverage. Those bases were hardly worthless.

Quote:

And protecting British shipping in international waters was an act of war. In case you guys forgot, we protected British ships with US Naval protection half way across the Atlantic.

No more an act of war than the Germans sinking our ships. I don't really understand how you think we were supposed to be neutral in the fact of total war. Ceasing all economic activity with every country at war was hardly an option.

Quote:

In addition, the Germans never sunk anything in our territorial water.

I don't know how you define "territorial waters", but you could stand on the beach in Florida and watch the ships burn.

Quote:

Wasn't the Atlantic Charter signed while we were still "neutral"? We were having summits with the head of state of a country at war while supposedly Roosevelt was doing everything to keep us out of war. Before December 7th we instituted the draft and were pretty much mobilizing for war.

The fact is, he kept us out of war until Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

Anyone know anything about Russian tanks?

The Russian T-34, contrary to popular belief, was the best tank in the war.

bts. We did not get the bases. We only got leases on the bases. That is why it was called the Lend Lease act.