Is it...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:30:27 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

They should be tried for treason, sedition or whatever else is
allowable under the constitution.

How exactly are the Republicans shredding the US Constitution?

http://tinyurl.com/ltq3mcj

Useless link, I can't get by the "subscribe now" ad


http://tinyurl.com/m27jrvo


Again Kevin googles up something and links it without reading it.

The words "shredding" and "Constitution" were in the hit piece but not
in the same sentence.

Really, I had absolutely NO trouble clicking on the "close" button to
close the subcription window..... Anywho...

House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Tea Party,
and their circle even attempted -- in unsettlingly bumbling manner -- to
read the document into the Congressional Record at the opening of the
current Congress.



Now, however, with a backdoor plan to commit the United States to a
course of permanent warmaking, they are affronting the most basic
premises of a Constitution that requires congressional declarations of
all wars and direct and engaged oversight of military missions.



The House Republican leadership, working in conjunction with House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, has included in
the 2012 defense authorization bill language (borrowed from the sweeping
Detainee Security Act) that would effectively declare a state of
permanent war against unnamed and ill-defined foreign forces
"associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda.



The means that, despite the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan
(which GOP leaders in the House have refused to officially recognize as
a significant development), the Department of Defense will be authorized
to maintain a permanent occupation of Afghanistan, a country bin Laden
abandoned years ago, and a global war against what remains of bin
Laden's fragmented operation.



Instead of an explicit declaration of war with Afghanistan or the ill-
defined global conflict, the GOP leaders has slipped language into the
spending bill that simply announced theU.S. is "engaged in an armed
conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces" and that
claims an old "Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily
includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat
posed by these groups."



That's about a wide-ranging as it gets, and the ranking Democrat on the
House Judiciary Committee argues that the language makes a mockery of
the Constitutional requirement that Congress check and balance the
executive branch and the Department of Defense when it comes to
questions of extending wars.

It would have made a lot more sense if the wording said, "...al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated
forces are engaged in an armed conflict with the United States." And it certainly makes sense to
address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups, unless, of course, you believe
that these groups pose no threat to the US, its citizens around the world, or our allies.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

John, try to keep up, this is about skirting the constitution.....

Is it...
 

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:22:11 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:30:27 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

They should be tried for treason, sedition or whatever else is
allowable under the constitution.

How exactly are the Republicans shredding the US Constitution?

http://tinyurl.com/ltq3mcj

Useless link, I can't get by the "subscribe now" ad


http://tinyurl.com/m27jrvo


Again Kevin googles up something and links it without reading it.

The words "shredding" and "Constitution" were in the hit piece but not
in the same sentence.

Really, I had absolutely NO trouble clicking on the "close" button to
close the subcription window..... Anywho...

House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Tea Party,
and their circle even attempted -- in unsettlingly bumbling manner -- to
read the document into the Congressional Record at the opening of the
current Congress.



Now, however, with a backdoor plan to commit the United States to a
course of permanent warmaking, they are affronting the most basic
premises of a Constitution that requires congressional declarations of
all wars and direct and engaged oversight of military missions.



The House Republican leadership, working in conjunction with House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, has included in
the 2012 defense authorization bill language (borrowed from the sweeping
Detainee Security Act) that would effectively declare a state of
permanent war against unnamed and ill-defined foreign forces
"associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda.



The means that, despite the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan
(which GOP leaders in the House have refused to officially recognize as
a significant development), the Department of Defense will be authorized
to maintain a permanent occupation of Afghanistan, a country bin Laden
abandoned years ago, and a global war against what remains of bin
Laden's fragmented operation.



Instead of an explicit declaration of war with Afghanistan or the ill-
defined global conflict, the GOP leaders has slipped language into the
spending bill that simply announced theU.S. is "engaged in an armed
conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces" and that
claims an old "Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily
includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat
posed by these groups."



That's about a wide-ranging as it gets, and the ranking Democrat on the
House Judiciary Committee argues that the language makes a mockery of
the Constitutional requirement that Congress check and balance the
executive branch and the Department of Defense when it comes to
questions of extending wars.

It would have made a lot more sense if the wording said, "...al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated
forces are engaged in an armed conflict with the United States." And it certainly makes sense to
address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups, unless, of course, you believe
that these groups pose no threat to the US, its citizens around the world, or our allies.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

John, try to keep up, this is about skirting the constitution.....

For sure, that's why I said, " It would have made a lot more sense if the wording said, "...al
Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces are engaged in an armed conflict with the United States."
And it certainly makes sense to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups,
unless, of course, you believe that these groups pose no threat to the US, its citizens around the
world, or our allies.

Don't you agree?

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

Is it...
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

They should be tried for treason, sedition or whatever else is
allowable under the constitution.

How exactly are the Republicans shredding the US Constitution?

http://tinyurl.com/ltq3mcj

Useless link, I can't get by the "subscribe now" ad


http://tinyurl.com/m27jrvo


Again Kevin googles up something and links it without reading it.

The words "shredding" and "Constitution" were in the hit piece but not
in the same sentence.

Really, I had absolutely NO trouble clicking on the "close" button to
close the subcription window..... Anywho...

House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Tea Party,
and their circle even attempted -- in unsettlingly bumbling manner -- to
read the document into the Congressional Record at the opening of the
current Congress.



Now, however, with a backdoor plan to commit the United States to a
course of permanent warmaking, they are affronting the most basic
premises of a Constitution that requires congressional declarations of
all wars and direct and engaged oversight of military missions.



The House Republican leadership, working in conjunction with House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, has included in
the 2012 defense authorization bill language (borrowed from the sweeping
Detainee Security Act) that would effectively declare a state of
permanent war against unnamed and ill-defined foreign forces
"associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda.



The means that, despite the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan
(which GOP leaders in the House have refused to officially recognize as
a significant development), the Department of Defense will be authorized
to maintain a permanent occupation of Afghanistan, a country bin Laden
abandoned years ago, and a global war against what remains of bin
Laden's fragmented operation.



Instead of an explicit declaration of war with Afghanistan or the ill-
defined global conflict, the GOP leaders has slipped language into the
spending bill that simply announced theU.S. is "engaged in an armed
conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces" and that
claims an old "Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily
includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat
posed by these groups."



That's about a wide-ranging as it gets, and the ranking Democrat on the
House Judiciary Committee argues that the language makes a mockery of
the Constitutional requirement that Congress check and balance the
executive branch and the Department of Defense when it comes to
questions of extending wars.

When was the last declared war?