h a l f b a k e r yThis is what happens when one confuses "random" with "profound."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
i.e. (for the US Constitution)
Amendment XXVIII
The President, Vice President, and Congress shall be removed from office on Impeachment for and Conviction of the perpetuation of preemptive and or illegally intrusive use of Military Force against a Foriegn Power not previously at War with the United
States or its Allies.
Illegal War?
http://news.bbc.co....cotland/4832282.stm
A topical example of someone else's belief that invasion of Iraq was illegal. (Not intended to open the whole debate; just a case in point. [Jinbish, Apr 12 2006]
[link]
|
| |
Redundant. Preemptive war is already illegal, and commiting crimes in office is an impeachable offence. But apparently getting a little on the side is considered more serious. |
|
| |
i) The government just has to 'declare war', i.e. change the definition of 'war', to get around this.
ii) I think this is advocacy
iii) Removal of all of the named parties - ALL of Congress?
iv) And put what in their place? Military Junta?
v) sp: removed ;)
|
|
| |
//ALL of Congress?// - yes.
//And put what in their place?// |
|
| |
The newly elected Congress, President, and Vice President. If the previous members get re-elected, so be it. |
|
| |
//Preemptive war is already illegal, and commiting crimes in office is an impeachable offence// |
|
| |
Wasn't Iraqi Freedom a preemptive War?
Maybe this is advocacy, I kind of wanted to see what the flaws of the idea might be. sorry. |
|
| |
(I'm starting to get more worried about the sabre rattling on Iran). |
|
| |
[Zimmy] OIF preemptive? Yup. That is exactly my point. Your proposed amendment is redundant. Also you should probably look at how impeachment works. You are asking congress to kick themselves out of office. |
|
| |
//You are asking congress to kick themselves out of office// Well, if they were all sufficiently honourable, then that is what they'd do.
Oh, I see what you mean.
<tongue-in-cheek> Anyway, it wasn't a pre-emptive war, it was merely a battle in the already-declared War on Terrorism. </tic> |
|
| |
Ooops! [Galbinus_Caeli]. I'll have to look up more stuff to see if there is any check on Congress as a body doing something illegal. (besides the President). |
|
| |
A tad naive I think [Zimmy]. I'm no fan of the current administration but try to imagine for a moment that the President is not a hooligan chimpanzee and his advisors are not villains. What if there was a good reason to use military force? What you're effectively proposing is that the US lose its ability to make a first strike, whatever the circumstances. A rather sweeping restriction methinks. |
|
| |
Anyway it is not that hard to manufacture a casus belli. Look up the USS Maine, or the Gulf of Tonkin. OIF only looks more presumptive because the Bush Adminstration was sloppier. |
|
| |
//Wasn't Iraqi Freedom a preemptive War?// |
|
| |
There's a flaw right there. You don't know, so who decides? You're punishing the highest levels of government. They know, but they're on trial. Does the Congressional Subcommittee on National Security now have to report to some external oversight group? |
|
| |
Actually, a first strike could be made. If the Electorate supported it, They could just re-elect the current members. |
|
| |
Oddly enough, This might have happened for Iraqi Freedom. (I hate to admit it, but I believed the case that was made at the time). I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen for any action against Iran, though. |
|
| |
It looks like there are many flaws in this idea. |
|
| |
//try to imagine for a moment that the President is not a hooligan chimpanzee // Not sure my imagination stretches that far. |
|
| |
//Actually, a first strike could be made. If the Electorate supported it, They could just re-elect the current members.//But under the legislation you propose, wouldn't the new old members have to be impeached and prosecuted all over again as soon as they tried to start a war? That the electorate show their approval of it by majority vote wouldn't make it any more legal. |
|
| |
I wonder if the creation of a Judicial body responsible for the oversight and investigation of the other branches would work better? |
|
| |
The Federal Bureau of Executive and Legislative Oversight would investigate questionable actions of members of the 2 branches and prosecute constitutional violations by Impeachment. .... |
|
| |
Ah who knows. maybe they're already supposed to be doing this. It looks like there is no easy answer. |
|
| |
So in your perfect democracy, they'll delete critics, huh? |
|
| |
my appypologies [tc]. I don't remember doing that, but I was BUI the other day & may have done it. I very rarely do that & wish I wouldn't have. |
|
| |
I suspect I was trying to delete something I thought I wrote, but again I don't remember doing it. (If you want to, you can re-post & I'll leave it alone). |
|
| |
my point was that the "allies" clause makes such a law meaningless, as there is always some ally that's in a state of war with someone. It was expressed somewhat more forcefully, though :) |
|
| |
An ammendment would not solve the current problem. |
|
| |
These guys have absolutely no problem breaking the 4th ammendment. In fact, they brag about it and still don't get impeached. How would a 27th ammendment make any difference at all? |
|
| |
Have you ever hit someone first? I did. Twice. And I was WRONG
WRONG WRONG. |
|
| |
Have you ever hit someone back? I dunno the right or wrong on
those ones, but to me, they got what they wanted. |
|
| |
This idea was baked in a stone oven in the senate
chambers of a nation called Rome, roughly 2000 years ago.
It didn't work then, either. |
|
| |
It was the Babylonians who baked their laws in
ovens, nu? |
|
| |