PDA

View Full Version : Panetta: Obama Has Authority to Override Congress to Declare War




John F Kennedy III
05-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Panetta: Obama Has Authority to Override Congress to Declare War

Infowars.com
Thursday, May 17, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the President has the authority to override Congress’ exclusive power to declare war, if some “vital interest” is at stake.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9urfFOLzVc&feature=player_detailpage


original article here:
http://www.infowars.com/panetta-obama-has-authority-to-override-congress-to-declare-war/

ZENemy
05-17-2012, 01:28 PM
Again?

John F Kennedy III
05-17-2012, 01:30 PM
Again?

Yes he said it again.

phill4paul
05-17-2012, 01:33 PM
Again?

Repeat it enough and people will believe it.

Anti Federalist
05-17-2012, 01:36 PM
Repeat it enough and people will believe it.

And there are still many who deny that we are now living in a full blown police state/dictatorship.

When, on one man's say so, you can launch wars and make US citizens become "unpersons", it's a fucking dictatorship.

Agorism
05-17-2012, 01:38 PM
Well the initial system was congress declared war and funded it, and then the president would use the money to raise an army.

..But now the president has a massive standing army rendering the whole checks and balances of the past obsolete.

It's kind of like how the Rights are granted or chosen by the government rather than just having them in the first place.

ZENemy
05-17-2012, 01:40 PM
And there are still many who deny that we are now living in a full blown police/dictatorship.

When, on one man's say so, you can launch wars and make US citizens become "unpersons", it's a fucking dictatorship.

I just watched the interview with the no fly list Marine, Holy shit!

John F Kennedy III
05-17-2012, 01:41 PM
And there are still many who deny that we are now living in a full blown police/dictatorship.

When, on one man's say so, you can launch wars and make US citizens become "unpersons", it's a fucking dictatorship.

This.

All hail Dear Leader Obama!

phill4paul
05-17-2012, 01:44 PM
Well the initial system was congress declared war and funded it, and then the president would use the money to raise an army.

But now, the president has a massive standing army rendering the whole checks and balances of the past obsolete.

That's the way that 'damn piece of paper' reads. Not that it's used for anything other than an historical tourist attraction any more.

DamianTV
05-17-2012, 01:44 PM
So suddenly Defense Secretary has more authority to interpret the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

Anti Federalist
05-17-2012, 01:46 PM
This.

All hail Dear Leader Obama!

Well, one half of the country says that.

The other half grumbles under their breath about "that goddamn n*gger from Kenya".

Next year, maybe, one half will say:

"All hail Dear Leader Romney!"

And the other half of the country will grumble about "that goddamn cracker ass Mormon".

And that is one reason why we continue to fail so fucking hard.

Anti Federalist
05-17-2012, 01:47 PM
So suddenly Defense Secretary has more authority to interpret the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

Suddenly: Rule by men, not laws.

John F Kennedy III
05-17-2012, 01:52 PM
Well, one half of the country says that.

The other half grumbles under their breath about "that goddamn n*gger from Kenya".

Next year, maybe, one half will say:

"All hail Dear Leader Romney!"

And the other half of the country will grumble about "that goddamn cracker ass Mormon".

And that is one reason why we continue to fail so fucking hard.

True. The majority of Americans are stuck in the left-right paradigm. They are trained to automatically hate the other side no matter what. They don't ever stop to actually think about the issues. And they certainly never do the research required to learn what is really happening.

It's like two groups of people arguing about how to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic as it's going down. With drones flying overhead to make sure no survivors can escape.

Agorism
05-17-2012, 02:00 PM
So suddenly Defense Secretary has more authority to interpret the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

I don't really have a problem with the executive branch having its own interpretation of the constitution along side the judiciary (judicial review) as well as congress having theirs, but what I don't like is the executive branch having all the guns so that no matter what anyone else says, the president can literally over power the other branches with force.

Here's Jefferson on Judicial Review:


Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed the doctrine of judicial review, and feared it would lead to "judicial despotism," an opinion he voiced often.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams (wife of former President John Adams) in 1804:

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

to Spencer Roane in 1819:

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se[act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."


All of these comments were made during Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure (1803-1835) on the Supreme Court. Marshall and Jefferson were distant cousins who intensely disliked each other, although there is little documentation of public conflict between the two.

Jefferson's opposition to judicial review may seem odd in light of the Marshall Court's rulings, which often asserted the federal government's rights over states' rights under various constitutional provisions, including the Supremacy Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause, which benefited Jefferson's administration. It is important to note, however, that Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, had a radically different political philosophy from Marshall, a Federalist. Jefferson favored a less powerful central government and supported state sovereignty and individual liberties, while Marshall believed in a strong central government.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_Thomas_Jefferson_say_about_judicial_revie w#ixzz1v9vXExS6

DamianTV
05-17-2012, 02:35 PM
Its one thing to make an interpretation, but to make an interpretation that is in direct conflict with the Constitution is where the balance of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial need to come into play. In plain english, thats when the other branches need to be stepping in and saying "nope, you cant do that". Of course, they dont treat the President like a President, they treat the President like a King, or Dictator. So apparently not only does the Dictatorship of the Unite... er President have the Executive Power to Execute (meaning enforce the law, not end peoples lives arbitrarily) the Law, he also has the unlimited power of Legislating and Judging from the Executive Branch. And they also "interpret" that, by extension as the VP and right on down the "Chain of Obedience" all have the exact same powers, unless someone higher in the Executing, er Executive Branch overrides their authority.

Dangerous Times are made by Dangerous People.

Liberty74
05-17-2012, 03:03 PM
One word - CRIMINAL!

XxNeXuSxX
05-17-2012, 03:10 PM
Wow; does anyone NOT see the resemblance from the Fall of Roman Republic and the Rise Of the Roman Empire repeating itself... in the same fashion.

It was the same excuse for the Romans to allow popular voted in "dictators" who had 'speciifc duty'. However, he was accountable to noone. And then hello Cesar, and Lord Augustus. Your word is GOD; never to be questioned. AGAIN

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-17-2012, 03:35 PM
The whole nation went to war during World War 2 because the rich feared losing control over what would done with their wealth. In other words, the rich living in Germany, Italy and Japan were a real threat to the rich elsewhere. Both world wars were battles to determine who would eventually control the world market which ended up being primarily the United States. The police actions afterwards happened for the purpose of controlling and keeping the market in tact.
The idea of checks and balances was to make the federal government so inefficient that it would be utilized as little as possible. Unfortunately, a lot of the states, mostly those up in the northeast, are now using the federal government as their own personal local government.
I noticed that you used the word "Right" in the higher case. In actuality, there is a difference between a civil and a natual right. While a civil right is granted by Constitutional law, a natural right is granted by natural law. This is a difference between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. In comparison to a civil law, a natural law reduced down literally on the physical level.
We own property because it is a natural law regardless of the ability of the false powers of manipulation to take it away from us. The powers utilized to make it look like I am not a property owner are a deception. This is why a natural law is superior to a civil one. The Civil Rights movement might have looked like a good cause, but it has worked out to diseducate the masses in the nonsense of false dichtomies.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-17-2012, 04:00 PM
True. The majority of Americans are stuck in the left-right paradigm. They are trained to automatically hate the other side no matter what. They don't ever stop to actually think about the issues. And they certainly never do the research required to learn what is really happening.

It's like two groups of people arguing about how to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic as it's going down. With drones flying overhead to make sure no survivors can escape.

You have to understand this as a grand tragedy. You see, the Leisure class, those living in an unlimitied fiat economy who have control over the means to counterfeit wealth, have defeated the Bourgeoisie class, those functioning in a limited economy who have control over the means of production. Unfortunately, rather than the Bourgeoisie class take back from the Leisure class, they have turned instead to steal from the proletariat class. Ultimately, as this cruelty continues rolling down hill, the baby (happiness) is the one who is ultimately left out in the car in the heat of the day.
Although we do have real problems, we don't always have real issues. Most of what we are concerning ourselves with today are a result of diseducation in the nonsense of false dichotomies. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you are I think, but what that baby is thinking as to why it has been left abandoned and alone. It would not surprise me that many have been so deceived that they would think liberty and equality more important than an abandoned baby.

HOLLYWOOD
05-18-2012, 08:27 AM
One word - CRIMINAL!It's a DICTATORSHIP

check it out: Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen
h XXp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/16/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-threatening-peace-security-or-

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 16, 2012

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF PERSONS THREATENING
THE PEACE, SECURITY, OR STABILITY OF YEMEN



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others threaten Yemen's peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, and by obstructing the political process in Yemen. I further find that these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:


Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to:

(a) have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power in Yemen, or that obstruct the political process in Yemen;
(b) be a political or military leader of an entity that has engaged in the acts described in subsection (a) of this section;
(c) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the acts described in subsection (a) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(d) be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 5. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that
because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 11. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


BARACK OBAMA

John F Kennedy III
05-18-2012, 10:51 AM
It's a DICTATORSHIP

check it out: Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen
h XXp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/16/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-threatening-peace-security-or-

what...the...fuck...