quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is ironic, that I, who believe that the President has lied repeatedly in office, who caused the death of people working for the US government through his inaction, who violated the privacy rights of the people would actually probably argue against an impeachment.

Such a proceeding, motivated by the syrian situation, is more or less just legal harassment. It is also a waste of time, as there is no way a trial in the senate results in conviction, with a Democrat majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Nothing in that first part, since Syria had nothing to do with the attacks and al Qaeda is actually involved in fighting on the rebel's side.
Nothing in the second part, either, since, again, Syria had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have they been suspected of harboring or supporting those that did (again, al Qaeda is fighting against the Syrian government).
The third part, however, is where things get dicey. Syria is considered a terrorist sponsor, by the State Dept., right? However, we aren't actually attacking any terror organization, unless you consider the Assad regime a terror organization, which would then mean we need to effect a major change in their governance, which isn't going to happen, according to the President.
That's the gray AUMF authority.

Actually since Syria does support and harbor Hezbolla and other terrorist organizations they can be attacked under the AUMF.

quote:

On to the War Powers Act...

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, even a trivial google seacrh will turn up many legal scholars that say so. Every time it has been ignored Congress has not gone to court because they know the courts will throw it out.

quote:


So, basing President Obama as having the authority because of the War Powers Act (which MN has done), is... ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

So, basing President Obama as having the authority because of the War Powers Act (which MN has done), is... ?

I have made no such demonstration, as Barry Goldwater did, I hold the war powers act unconstitutional on its face. I don't believe I have mentioned the war powers act in my proofs here, although I have seen a rather dishonest clipping out of context of the AUMF. Remember the big HE DECIDES? Done; over; fat lady has trilled the last note.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Happens, let's move on to Colorado now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DianeB269

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

That's a good thing.
If elected public officials aren't going to listen to the people who put them in office they need to go.
They're there to do our bidding not to try to tell us what to do!
It should be made abundantly clear to any candidate before they take the oath that they are the "hired help" not the Management, The People are the Management.

That's what libtards do...It's all about them and not the people...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday ~New York Times

The result should not surprise. The will of the people was clear...

According to a Quinnipiac University poll last month, voters in the state opposed the gun laws by a margin of 54%-40%. Democrats were supportive of the measures, 78%-16%, while Republicans more strongly opposed them, 89% to 7%. More importantly for electoral purposes, a majority of independent voters opposed the laws, 56%-39%. ~CNN

Nevertheless, big buckets of cash from anti-gun groups poured into Colorado in an attempt to defeat them...

The recall battle drew more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions. But the vast majority of the funds - nearly $3 million - came from opponents of the recall drive who support stricter gun control, figures from the secretary of state's office showed. ~Reuters

But no cigar this time. The voters talked, and money walked.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

State reps are supposed to vote the will of the people.
These 2 didn't.
They're gone now.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

If the will of the people is to repeal the law, I have a feeling it will be done now as this was a bit of a warning shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

State reps are supposed to vote the will of the people.
These 2 didn't.
They're gone now.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

If the will of the people is to repeal the law, I have a feeling it will be done now as this was a bit of a warning shot.

They can run again. As to the laws, wait and see. Oh and the two were in a weak position anyway, so they were easy. You may want to consider the failure of the GOP in Missouri on their failure to override the Governors veto on their attempt to make enforcing Federal Laws and allow criminal to sue.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/us/missouri-gun-laws-challenge/index.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

State reps are supposed to vote the will of the people.
These 2 didn't.
They're gone now.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

If the will of the people is to repeal the law, I have a feeling it will be done now as this was a bit of a warning shot.

They can run again. As to the laws, wait and see. Oh and the two were in a weak position anyway, so they were easy. You may want to consider the failure of the GOP in Missouri on their failure to override the Governors veto on their attempt to make enforcing Federal Laws and allow criminal to sue.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/us/missouri-gun-laws-challenge/index.html

Actually, I'd rather consider the failure of a certain person to post on topic (this is Colorado we're talking about, not MO) or write a coherent sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

What part of "RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators" can't you read?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

From what I read the Senators were recalled because they pissed of the voters. First with the gun bill, then limiting the time for people to speak on the gun bill, and finally ignoring what a large portion of the voters wanted done. I think that it worked out well for the voters to be able to do this, if there were only something like this for all elected officials.