Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge Who is able to be President in the U.S.

That was hashed out well. The States cannot "Declare War" or engage in war. That is left to the congress. Bouncing the idea of war, before you do it, off the constitution would never be a bad idea. One can assume that if the States and the President can't declare war, congress should make sure they do so they can pay for it.

Yes there will be police type actions approved by the congress that don't elevate themselves to fit the definition of war.

Could we maybe agree that mass invasion of a sovereign nation where you destroy the infrastructure, decimate the army, eliminate the standing government and kill the ruling family may be classified as war. Not that we would ever do that, but as an example:

If you did that (congress) you would read how the president is supposed to defend the country and the congress declares war and (funds) it. The congress raises money to pay for the war. oh, oh, that means the wars cost are run in the budget! That means that every American family would be assessed a large amount of money to pay for it because the states would be assessed the money as the dept occurred.

Thats why some say, if you go to war, declare war. Translated, if you go to war setup a provision to pay for the war. Don't put the war on your credit card. Don't send the bill for it to your grandkids.

I think the framers were pretty smart. They allowed for paying for stuff they bought.

Ask anyone who died on Grenada whether it be the few hapless Cubans we capped in the process or one of the few US personnell. Was it a war or a police action? Did the sitting US President need to take the time under the circumstances to ask congress and approve funding? Of course not.

Did LBJ know or realize or even begin to think that the little police action he and his predecessors got us into (albeit with the best intentions like 99.9 of all our actions) would balloon into what it became? Nah.

No sitting president is obligated to "get funding for" or ask the congress before he commits US military people to action in what he sees and his advisers see as necessary to fulfill the oath of office that he has taken.

Can you imagine the time that would be lost if we had to go "ask permission" of the group of weenies we typically have in the congress and the senate and or ask them for funding to defend ourselves from either internal or external threats.? ! LOL.

Nope.... presidents just need to go ahead and "bombs away" and then listen to the other side whine later. Even in the most 100% objectively justifiable use of any armed force in our defense he or she would still see a strong degree of opposition in this day and age. (code pink being the big political power they are would sway people across the country LOL)

So when thinking about a need to prosecute war for the common good and when that action is seen as needed ASAP no president should ever need to ask first or have his action subjected to constitutional scrutiny. If that were the case we might as well fold our tent.

Let the bombs fly and listen to the code pink crybabies afterwards. Thats the lay of the land in our current polarized environment.

Any sitting president whether he be Dem or Repub or Liberwhatever must fulfill his oath of office and make hard decisions that might lead to (gasp) criticism. Up to an including the use of Armed forces on an expedited basis.

Anything else would be suicide.

Thread title = Who is able to be President in the U.S.

You guys are straying way off course so please steer it back...

I am saying that as the "Commander In Chief" the president has authorization to fulfill his oath to defend and protect up to and including committing military personnel to go in harms way to the benefit of the republic at a moments notice without a by your leave to any citizen, legislator, body of congress or senate. As he and his advisors find prudent once again without regard to any legistlative body that might choose to oppose.

(The current case in point was supported by both houses of the legislative body for funding at its beginning.)

At each key juncture both legislative bodies refunded the effort along the way.

(It was supported by the current sitting chief executive's last reelection opponent. It was supported by two of three of the current front runners for their party's nomination.)

That is his job. (The pres) Taking the criticism that comes from those who oppose him for the sake of opposing him is part of being president. Even if it means his approval rating takes a big dip. Even if it means he might not get reelected. Even if he makes a precieved mistake. ( I always find it amazing that presidents are not supposed to make any mistakes.)

Can a legislative body choose to try and cut funds? I think so. It has been weakly attempted in recent memory with poor results for those who supported the measure.

The man at the helm all but ignored the effort and the politics of the day kept his effort in place as it remains today. And shall remain until he leaves office.

the current front runner for the nomination of the party of the sitting president supported the effort from day one and has never waivered even to the point of being written off as a likely candidate.

To what degree the effort continues after Jan 09 remains to be seen by the jurisprudence of the electorate does it not?

No one ever said its easy to be President of the US. Its a tuff job and it means doing the right thing despite your popularity.

Look like one of those banned political thread to me.