IMO every Congressperson that voted for IWR broke their oath of office

Toots

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 10:40 AM
Original message

IMO every Congressperson that voted for IWR broke their oath of office

One power vested in Congress by the Constitution is the Power to make/Declare war. Only Congress can do that and by voting to transfer that power to another is an unconstitutional act. The Constitution is quite explicit in that only Congress has the power to take the nation to war. It is unconstitutional to give that power to another. The IWR has no legal standing because it is an unconstitutional transfer of Congressional Power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pocoloco

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 10:48 AM
Response to Original message

1. You are exactly right Toots,

and perhaps one of the reasons for their silence now, hard to admit a f*up!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message

2. Yep. That's the elephant in the room.

They also vote continuing funds for the occupation. It's criminal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kansas Wyatt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. Correction, that's ONE of the elephants in the room.

The trouble with Washington these days, is that we now have so many elephants in the room, that everyone ignores, and the Republicans still refuse to clean out the elephant shit to keep the place from smelling and looking too bad.

Which explains why our Nation's Capital smells and looks like it is rotting in shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Perhaps I should have said ...

Edited on Sun Dec-04-05 02:41 PM by TahitiNut

"That's the elephant in the Caucus"?? (Sorry if I wasn't clear.)

Only twenty-three of them honored their oath of office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

indepat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message

3. Clearly violated the framers intent not to vest this power in one person

Edited on Sun Dec-04-05 11:02 AM by indepat

for that one person might have his/her own agenda, be crazy, drunk with power, a war-monger, corrupt, petulant, eaten up with a messianic complex, you name it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkofos

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. Sounds like you are describing *.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

indepat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Hoped the him/her would clear up any ambiguity

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message

7. Careful ... the DU 'centrists' will attack you.

At the same time they'll (pseudo-)generously say you have a "right" to your opinion. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

moondust

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-04-05 02:52 PM
Response to Original message

9. Sen., Byrd

made sure everybody knew what this was in relation to the Constitution. He talked about it on the Senate floor for what must have been hours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat Apr 20th 2024, 03:50 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.