Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/17/07 07:21 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, your argument isn't a legal one, it's one of "Oh, but they did it too!" and, "But there have been thousands of instances in our history!"

I said I was staying out of this but...

You didn't listen to the legality of it, you didn't listen to the presidential powers, the Congressional powers or even the Supreme Court powers. Hell you though that the War Powers Act of 1973 gave the president more military power for the longest time.

You don't listen to any of it and Imperator has yet to fully realize that.

At 4/17/07 07:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You don't listen to any of it and Imperator has yet to fully realize that.

Unfortunately, the one piece of information needed to refute your argument, I've Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution, you've completley failed to listen to as well. You overlooked it completely, as a matter of fact. But have fun thinking that you've won.

Fuck it... He's not gonna listen and everyone knows it. Back to the ORIGINAL topic, it's far too late to impeach Bush now because he only has a few more months in office and we'll get the next shitbird. By the time anything would happen to him, he'd be packing his bags for Crawford. While you and I may not like him, just ride out the storm. It could be worse. We could have Cheney. Bush has done plenty of things worthy of impeachment, but the ship has sailed on that. The time to do this should've been many months ago, but Congress couldn't get the votes for it and Pelosi has even said that any document calling for the president's impeachment isn't gonna go through. And if you really want a reason to impeach him, Dre-Man, there are plenty other than Iraq. Wikipedia's article about a Bush impeachment.

At 4/17/07 08:26 PM, Dre-Man wrote: I've Article I, Section VIII

*Clicks link* *reads Section VIII*

failed to listen to as well

yeah about that...

At 4/17/07 08:26 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/17/07 07:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You don't listen to any of it and Imperator has yet to fully realize that.

Unfortunately, the one piece of information needed to refute your argument, I've Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution, you've completley failed to listen to as well. You overlooked it completely, as a matter of fact. But have fun thinking that you've won.

Dre-Man, perhaps you should examine your own soruces:

Powers of Congress:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Bush obtained approval from Congress for his military action within 60 days, as required by the laws passed by Congress regarding the deployment of troops. As Congress is within its own power to establish procedures for the President to deploy troops to capture territory, and he followed said procedures, he actions were entirely legal.

Hence, the President is not impeachable for his actions and the Capture of Iraq (it is not a war in any sense) is entirely legal as well under American law.

Ah yes, an entire article on the War Powers Clause for you idiots to take a gander at. Maybe it might clear up some misconseptions on the exclusive right to declare war, by Congress.

"In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never settled."

"Its constitutionality has never settled."

"Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter."

I find it kind of funny that the Supreme Court never even blinked at this matter, don't you?

Oh, and before you go on being blindly stupid and a tool of the Federal Government, buy, read, and educate yourself with this book. Good day.

At 4/17/07 09:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Ah yes, an entire article on the War Powers Clause for you idiots to take a gander at. Maybe it might clear up some misconseptions on the exclusive right to declare war, by Congress.

I noticed everything we have been telling you is in that wikipedia page.
You sure like to CTRL+C what you want and CTRL+X what you think might hurt your views.
(Also, please don't use wikipedia as a source for anything)

At 4/17/07 09:48 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 4/17/07 09:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Ah yes, an entire article on the War Powers Clause for you idiots to take a gander at. Maybe it might clear up some misconseptions on the exclusive right to declare war, by Congress.

I noticed everything we have been telling you is in that wikipedia page.
You sure like to CTRL+C what you want and CTRL+X what you think might hurt your views.
(Also, please don't use wikipedia as a source for anything)

All of the information on that wikipedia page was correct, and it did not add to YOUR arguments in any way.

At 4/17/07 09:50 PM, Dre-Man wrote: All of the information on that wikipedia page was correct, and it did not add to YOUR arguments in any way.

I didn't say it was incorrect I just said don't use wikipedia as a source for info.
Your right it didn't add anything, but it does blatantly say everything we did.

At 4/17/07 09:52 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 4/17/07 09:50 PM, Dre-Man wrote: All of the information on that wikipedia page was correct, and it did not add to YOUR arguments in any way.

I didn't say it was incorrect I just said don't use wikipedia as a source for info.
Your right it didn't add anything, but it does blatantly say everything we did.

No, no, it doesn't. What it does say is that the Supreme Court has overlooked the matter of the War Powers Resolution's constitutionality entirely, oh so very convenient for them, eh Deagle?

Did you purchase or at least glance at the book yet, Deagle?

At 4/17/07 09:56 PM, Dre-Man wrote: No, no, it doesn't. What it does say is that the Supreme Court has overlooked the matter of the War Powers Resolution's constitutionality entirely, oh so very convenient for them, eh Deagle?

It does say that... sort of.
You didn't read any of it did you?
Can you please look past that one point that your making out?
All of our points that we keep telling you is in that page.

Did you purchase or at least glance at the book yet, Deagle?

Why should I when Wikipedia suffices for everything?

At 4/17/07 08:31 PM, Snerd wrote: Fuck it... He's not gonna listen and everyone knows it. Back to the ORIGINAL topic, it's far too late to impeach Bush now because he only has a few more months in office and we'll get the next shitbird.

Thank you.

Now can we just have Dre-Man and Imperator shut up and let the damn thread die.

At 4/17/07 09:59 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: It does say that... sort of.
You didn't read any of it did you?
Can you please look past that one point that your making out?
All of our points that we keep telling you is in that page.

You need to learn to read, badly.

Did you purchase or at least glance at the book yet, Deagle?

Why should I when Wikipedia suffices for everything?

When the fuck did I say that?

At 4/17/07 10:01 PM, Dre-Man wrote: You need to learn to read, badly.

Yeah okay dre what ever you say.

When the fuck did I say that?

Hmm? Did I accuse you of saying that at all?

Let this thread die all ready. :P

At 4/17/07 10:00 PM, MoronicLegion wrote:

At 4/17/07 08:31 PM, Snerd wrote: Fuck it... He's not gonna listen and everyone knows it. Back to the ORIGINAL topic, it's far too late to impeach Bush now because he only has a few more months in office and we'll get the next shitbird.

Thank you.

Now can we just have Dre-Man and Imperator shut up and let the damn thread die.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of Newgrounds" -- Jesus Fulp. Quote taken from the Book of Fulp, somewhere toward the back.

At 4/17/07 08:26 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/17/07 07:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Unfortunately, the one piece of information needed to refute your argument, I've Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution, you've completley failed to listen to as well. You overlooked it completely, as a matter of fact. But have fun thinking that you've won.

And where my friend have I overlooked that a President gets Veto power, that the Senate and House can make bills.

Please, point it out for me.

At 4/17/07 09:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Oh, and before you go on being blindly stupid and a tool of the Federal Government, buy, read, and educate yourself with this book. Good day.

So your basically admitting that were right then.

That if the Supreme Court has yet to decide if it's unconstitutional, that means it is constitutional and has been.

Or the part that the War Powers Act of 1973 limits the Presidents military power(have you not realized that yet) that if it was unconstitutional, then the President would have more military power.

At 4/17/07 10:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: That if the Supreme Court has yet to decide if it's unconstitutional, that means it is constitutional and has been.

This is true but you see he wont accept this because he'll just argue that just because it hasn't been stated as unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional.

At 4/17/07 10:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/17/07 09:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Oh, and before you go on being blindly stupid and a tool of the Federal Government, buy, read, and educate yourself with this book. Good day.

So your basically admitting that were right then.

Uh, not exactly.

That if the Supreme Court has yet to decide if it's unconstitutional, that means it is constitutional and has been.

The Supreme fucking Court does not decide whether or not something is constitutional! The Supreme fucking Court POINTS OUT whether or not something is constitutional! Get it through your thick fucking vacant skull!

Or the part that the War Powers Act of 1973 limits the Presidents military power(have you not realized that yet) that if it was unconstitutional, then the President would have more military power.

The President has absolutely NO right to engage in military conflict with another nation, WHAT SO EVER. That is SOLEY the power of Congress due to the Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. CONSTIFUCKINGTUTION!

At 4/17/07 10:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/17/07 10:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/17/07 09:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

The Supreme fucking Court does not decide whether or not something is constitutional! The Supreme fucking Court POINTS OUT whether or not something is constitutional! Get it through your thick fucking vacant skull!

So, judicial review just got through out of the window then?

The President has absolutely NO right to engage in military conflict with another nation, WHAT SO EVER. That is SOLEY the power of Congress due to the Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. CONSTIFUCKINGTUTION!

No, the constitution has the ability to declare war or authorize force due to Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. And due to Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 he is the Commander in chief of the Army, Militia and Navy when there called into service of the United States. You know, what congress did.

At 4/17/07 10:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The Supreme fucking Court does not decide whether or not something is constitutional!

Okay.

The Supreme fucking Court POINTS OUT whether or not something is constitutional!

Okay.
So basically you just did what I said you would do.
Heres a no-brainer though.
Since the Supreme court is what points out what is, or is not constitutional they are the ones who declare rather or not something is or is not constitutional regardless of what the constitution says.
Is this wrong?
Yes, but this is your whole argument pretty much in a nutshell.

All of the information on that wikipedia page was correct, and it did not add to YOUR arguments in any way.

Well that shouldn't be a problem. I'll just edit that wiki article tonight.......
(this is why wiki is crap as a source)

Oh, and before you go on being blindly stupid and a tool of the Federal Government, buy, read, and educate yourself with this book. Good day.

Before you start discussing matters of legality and war, I have a book list for you too......
Herdotus
Thucydides

A book on State sponsored violence, and how one tiptoes on lines of legality at least for a few articles

A book with articles on linguistics associated with war and violence, including a 20 pg intro on the definition of "Violence"

This one for a brief look at the process of time for better understanding of how modern perceptions of legality are formed. Emphasis on World War II (the last of the 5 wars the US has declared)

A look at silencing of the historical past. If you actually DO read this, you could at least form an argument surrounding the silencing of the illegality of US conflicts occurring without a Congressional declaration of War. In other words, read this and you actually might have a LEGITIMATE argument to make

A cursory knowledge of psychology would also help, as well as a cursory knowledge of linguistics and maybe a course on law. Even Roman Law would suffice.

Come back when you have done all this.
Not planning on it? Then don't expect us to do the same by posting books and saying things like "read it yet?"

You talk about us being the sheep, but you're basing your opinions off a SINGLE book by a SINGLE author? Come on......

My god you people don't shut up do you.

\ I don't have the want or need to respond to your entire post, mostly because I am not sure if you are joking, because until now, I didn't realize that retardation could stoop down this low. But I felt this needs some explaining.

At 3/26/07 08:39 PM, Dre-Man wrote: And it's YOU that we should 'impeach'.

Uh oh, Dre Man is gonna impeach me!

At 4/17/07 11:09 PM, Madferit wrote:

At 3/26/07 08:39 PM, Dre-Man wrote: And it's YOU that we should 'impeach'.

Uh oh, Dre Man is gonna impeach me!

I second the motion! PEACHES FOR ALL! *looks over glasses* Oh, sorry...

At 4/17/07 10:39 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: So basically you just did what I said you would do.
Heres a no-brainer though.
Since the Supreme court is what points out what is, or is not constitutional they are the ones who declare rather or not something is or is not constitutional regardless of what the constitution says.
Is this wrong?
Yes, but this is your whole argument pretty much in a nutshell.

I forgot to add that because of this even though something might in technicality be unconstitutional it is still the Supreme Courts authority to say if it is or not. So it is still legal until they do point it out as such.
Hypocritical? Looks like it.

War is a concrete term. Get over it.

At 4/18/07 05:43 PM, Dre-Man wrote: War is a concrete term. Get over it.

Yeah, about as concrete as Violence. Read that 20 pg article on the definition of violence yet Dre?

I hear beauty is pretty definitive too.....

At 4/18/07 06:13 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/18/07 05:43 PM, Dre-Man wrote: War is a concrete term. Get over it.

Yeah, about as concrete as Violence. Read that 20 pg article on the definition of violence yet Dre?

I hear beauty is pretty definitive too.....

Violence is also a concrete term, if you hurt, injure, kill, batter, what the fuck ever you want to do to hurt someone, you're commiting violence! It's very simple, but I shouldn't expect a pea brained idiot who thinks that he's a badass because he can drive to understand that.

Quit arguing about silly things and let this thread die damnit.
I've pretty much summed it up as not even being remotely resolvable.
(The unconstitutional argument that is.)