Senator McCain: ‘Unconstitutional’ to limit Obama’s war powers

[Chef Ramsay]

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that Congress should give President Obama more military authority than he has asked for to defeat the Islamic State.

Mr. McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said stripping the commander-in-chief of any military options is “unconstitutional and frankly leaders to 535 commander-in-chiefs” as lawmakers get too involved in specific military strategy.

“I think we should not restrain the president of the United States,” the Arizona Republican said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Congress has the power of the purse. If we don’t like what the commander-in-chief is doing, we can cut off his funds for doing so.”

The president last week presented to Congress a new war authorization for military action against the Islamic State, despite having conducted airstrikes for more than six months under authorizations from 2001 and 2002.

Mr. McCain said that while it’s “probably not absolutely necessary” to approve a new authorization, it’s “probably appropriate” to have the debate since Congress hasn’t done so in more than a decade.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he doesn’t support putting a time limit on any war authorization, despite the White House’s proposal only lasting three years. He does, however, support limiting which U.S. troops can be sent into battle.

...

More...http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/15/mccain-unconstitutional-to-limit-obamas-war-powers/#ixzz3RrORhCOk

Mr. Warhawk doing his hawking and continuing the executive's power of unrestrained action overseas. Just stop the BS and actually declare war and then this commander in chief will have the constitutional authority to do what is needed with respect to ISIS - not some crap authorization of military force which is an abdication of Congress' authority on the matter. They just don't want a debate on the matter cause that would involve polling the American people and having that being shown on television showing the special interests either getting shot down cause the population is tired of intervention and undoubtedly the engineering of the situation from the get-go, which has been subtly proposed by future Prez candidate Rand Paul, or the populace getting overlooked in favor of these same special interests at the helm of the MIC.

[1715118943]

1715118943

[1715118943]

1715118943

[1715118943]

1715118943

[1715118943]

1715118943

[1715118943]

1715118943

[BADecker]

Also, unconstitutional to let the President have any war powers without a direct declaration of war by the Congress.

[username18333]

If you should wish that a reigning written constitution or other founding document of your current country of residence be revised or otherwise reviewed, formally comunicate your wish to the imperial government.

[BADecker]

It isn't the Constitution of/for the United States that needs review. Rather, it is the ignorance of the common people that is constantly under review by the people in government, to see how they can be raped and plundered more.

http://1215.org/

http://voidjudgments.com/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

[username18333]

Founding documents could be made to, more directly, counter perversions of their original intents should such perversions exist (à la the U.S. Bill of Rights [i.e., the ten foremost amendments to the Constitution of the United States]).

[BADecker]

The thing that the Constitution does for us is this. At its core and base, it allows freedom for everyone as long as people don't harm other people or damage their property.

The Constitution was never meant to be a binding document on the people. It was meant to be a restraining document for restraining government people.

Until the people wake up to how to use the Constitution to protect themselves, rather than to look to the President of the USA as a king, the whole Constitution is useless for them.

If the Constitution is changed, it needs to be changed in a formal way to give the people their freedom formally, right out in the open. In other words, the freedom for the people expressed in the Constitution is hidden in crafted language. It is there, but it isn't easy to ferret out.

If the Constitution is changed, it needs to be changed only in the ways that express the freedom clearly to everyone. Changing it any other way just might prove to enslave people rather than free them.

[username18333]

A constitution, like any legal document whereto a signature is affixed, is a contract between (legal) parties (here, “the People” [some civil societies] and “the United States” [a federation]).

[BADecker]

The freedom of the people extends so far that nobody need sign the Constitution to get into American government. Rather, an Oath of Office is required. This protects both freedom of the people and ease of use of the Constitution.

[username18333]

Alternatively, they are not legally bound thereto until such a time as they willfully choose to be so bound before credible witnesses. (Recall, that federation was illegally constituted.)

[BADecker]

There is method for the people to remove anyone from government office through State action in one form or another. There is no direct U.S. government controls by the people, nor direct controls of the people by the U.S. government, except where contracts are signed.

[username18333]

First and foremost, the Constitution of the United States.