4um: War Funding Bill Passes Senate

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
ObamaNation
See other ObamaNation Articles
Title: War Funding Bill Passes Senate
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... /27/war-funding-passes-senate/
Published: May 27, 2010
Author: AP
Post Date: 2010-05-27 22:03:10 by christine
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: None
Views: 174
Comments: 34

The Senate has passed a bill to fund President Barack Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan.
The almost $60 billion measure passed by a bipartisan 67-28 tally.
More than half of the funding would go to the Pentagon, mostly to support Obama's influx of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
There's also $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief and aid to U.S. allies in the war on terror.
The bill includes legislation to allow the Coast Guard to receive advances of up to $100 million from the oil spill liability trust fund to pay for the federal response to spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The House has yet to approve the war funding measure, which faces opposition from many anti-war lawmakers. Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
#1. To: christine (#0)
The almost $60 billion measure passed by a bipartisan 67-28 tally.

Those people love war.
Truman started wars without Congress approval 60 years ago next month.
Since then congress has not had the courage to say no and keep evading their responsibility.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:08:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Cynicom (#1)
Truman started wars without Congress approval 60 years ago next month.

Only after Congress passed a law giving the authority to declare war to the UN Security Council.

DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:08:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#20. To: DeaconBenjamin (#15)
Only after Congress passed a law giving the authority to declare war to the UN Security Council.

I do not recall any such law????

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 23:20:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: Cynicom (#20)
United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:37:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#32. To: DeaconBenjamin (#25)
The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein

That's invalid. Any treaty that violates our Constitution is invalid. They're also invalid if not approved by the Senate. Regardless of misreadings and opinions to the contrary, no treaty can alter the U.S. Constitution.
From Article 6:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It is State Constitutions and Laws that might be affected by US treaties. No officials are empowered to overstep Constitutional boundaries. If they do, that is when their power to legitimately act under the Authority of the United States ends. This is an example of an invalid treaty in the news because Secretaries of State have absolutely no treaty authorization powers: URGENT: While we're all watching the gulf: Hillary signs UN Small Arms Treaty
Presidents are subordinate to Congress during war and for the use of our troops, which is intended to be a strong incentive for them not to draw us into overseas wars and military adventures. Congress doesn't have to put our troops in more danger by not funding their needs. They have the power to bring them home instead anytime they want to do that, not Presidents. Treaties aren't even necessary to end wars so Presidents don't have to be involved at all in the decision to end them. Bring our troops home now, Congress.

GreyLmist posted on 2010-05-29 1:40:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: GreyLmist (#32)
That's invalid. Any treaty that violates our Constitution is invalid.

I do not disagree that the Constitution controls any treaty or statute. However, the courts have upheld Congressional delegation of powers to the executive -- powers expressly granted Congress by the Constitution.
I do not agree with that judicial doctrine, but it is currently the law.

DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-29 13:49:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#34. To: DeaconBenjamin (#33)
I do not disagree that the Constitution controls any treaty or statute. However, the courts have upheld Congressional delegation of powers to the executive -- powers expressly granted Congress by the Constitution.
I do not agree with that judicial doctrine, but it is currently the law.

It is Unconstitutional law and therefore illegal. Justices of the Supreme Court can be removed for bad behavior like that. People who want to rule or be ruled by "consensus" rather than uphold and adhere to the Constitution are no valid part of our system.

GreyLmist posted on 2010-06-01 23:45:13 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 34.
There are no replies to Comment # 34.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um