TONIGHTS DEBATE

KERRY , BUSH
LURCH , MONKEY
FLIP-FLOPPING , STRATEGERY
TAN , WEATHERED
SUIT&TIE , OVERALLS
HIKING BOOTS , [censored] KICKERS
MARRIED MONEY , BORN WITH MONEY


is anyone else disgusted with the 'rules of the debate'? its not even a debate, at least by definition.. its like an orchestrated reality show. there was even arrangements made for each candidiate to bring their own make-up person...? there is a maximum podium height and mandated room temperature. i mean really.. how really cares what they have to say, as long as their mascara done run!!!

bigjohn

In reply to:

---

And the whole basis of the guy's rant was that this was unconstitutional

---

Please keep in mind that the author of the article is a member of the Constitution Party of Texas -- an organization with which I believe you would agree on many issues. Here's a short list:

In reply to:

---

WHEREAS, the legitimate function of government is to protect the life, the liberty and the property of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the 9th and 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights specifically forbid all functions of the Federal Government except those specifically delegated to it; and

WHEREAS, the entire system of government welfare is a communist idea predicated upon the concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of Texas does not empower the State Government to take money from one group to benefit another, and

WHEREAS, both major political parties are socialistic in nature, differing only in how to "reform" the welfare system...

---

Also, his use of the term "un-Constitutional" is special. Notice the capitalization. If we wanted to say that the war in Iraq was illegal according to the Constitution, he would have simply said the war was "unconstitutional". But he didn't. You can't ignore the obvious distinction he is trying to make. This is what he means when he says the war is un-Constitutional:

In reply to:

---

We say "No!" to the so-called New World Order; and "Yes!" to the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

The Constitution Party opposes any alliance or participation in any treaty or agreement which compromises our independence as a nation, or which subverts our Constitution by improperly committing us to participation in foreign conflicts or intervention in foreign wars.

We join with other American patriots to oppose the surrender of American liberty and autonomy to any form of world government or any organization which works toward that end.

We call upon the president and Congress to terminate the membership of the United States in the United Nations and its subsidiary and affiliated organizations.

All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution because the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

No treaties (even if signed by the president or one of his agents on behalf of the United States) lacking the Constitutionally required two-thirds concurrence of the Senate may be implemented, in whole or part, by Congressional act, Executive Order, or bureaucratic regulation(s).

The Framers assumed, as a matter of course, that treaties would be subordinate. In fact, the stated reason for the particular wording of the Constitution concerning treaties was to make sure pre-existing treaties, including post-Revolutionary peace treaties concluded after the Articles of Confederation, would remain valid.

Thomas Jefferson, addressing the question directly, had this to say: "...surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."

---

For something to be definitively unconstitutional the federal courts would have to have the matter brought under their jurisdiction, and to have finally decided the matter. If this has not happened, the unconstitutionality of a process or series of acts would, I think, be a matter of opinion.

The constitution vests the power to declare war in congress, not the president or the senate. The War Powers Act of 1973 lays out the power of the president to commit U.S. forces to action. The five Presidents preceding G. W. Bush since 1973 have considered the war powers act unconstitutional and they and congress have frequently ignored it. So it does appear that Presidents and congress both frequently act unconstitutionally in the use of military force.

Since congress has not declared war, and a sovreign nation has been invaded, its government overthrown, and the country occupied based on what are now disputed facts as to the threat that country actually posed justifying the invasion, it seems to me that constitutionality is debatable. To call a soldier engaged in the occupation of that country a liar for opining on the unconstitutionality of the war doesn’t seem warranted. That congress voted on a resolution has no definitive bearing on whether that resolution was in fact constitutional. That fact would have to be established in the courts. It seems more reasonable to me to consider the man’s point of view based on his observations and logic rather than dismiss everything he has to say and calling him a liar because you disagree with a single opinion on a debatable matter.

Minus the findings prefacing the resolution, the act authorizing the use of force in Iraq reads as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Since the U.S. didn't return to the U.N. for a final resolution autorizing the invasion, and by U.S. law/treaty the we are bound to the U.N. process it is again, at a minimum, debatable, rather than a matter of established fact upon which one should be called a liar.

In reply to:

---

That congress voted on a resolution has no definitive bearing on whether that resolution was in fact constitutional.

---

This is exactly what I was trying to bring up with my questions above. Apparently that point was missed by craigsub.

The debate is over, so I'll get things started here. From someone who went in it still trying to decide who to vote for, Kerry won. What he had to say just sit better with me and makes more sense then what Bush had to say.

So true (about the debate format) Big John!

As far as who won tonite... I think it doesn't matter, that was an extremely weak debate. I think it was a abysmal 'draw' cause neither canidate said anything other than "im better!"

Ditto.

I think Kerry won, but already Wolf Blitzer is trying to nitpick on where Kerry said Osama is. I think Kerry meant Osama "was" in Afghanistan - not Iraq.

Yes, I did not watch the debate on Fox News. But they did provide some good cutaways of Bush.

Well of course each was trying to say "I'm better", but hands down, Kerry was more convincing. I find it hard to believe how anyone could see this as a draw.

President Bush came off as a little perplexed, especially toward the last half of the debate.

I thought Bush came off as more "pissed" than "perplexed". In that sense Kerry won - he made Bush become un-Presidential.
In the larger sense we all lost, as what Kerry had to say greatly undermines the efforts of our country and our soldiers in the Middle East.
I would say Kerry's newest position on Iraq is ludicrous. It was a mistake, but if he is elected he will prosecute the war more effectively? If he thinks the war is a mistake he should bring the troops home and put Saddam back in power. Bam! mistake undone.