The president can also order troops to invade another country without congressional approval.
Several have demonstrated the ability, but they still lack the constitutional authority.
The fact that POTUS after POTUS has done it is a failure of Congress - it is their job in such cases to impeach the POTUS, then, deliberate over a declaration of war, following which the new POTUS will be obliged to either wage that war or return the troops home.
POTUS can argue his case, but in matters of war he is not "the decider", or even *a* decider. He's just another military commander carrying out the order he was given.
an ideologically deadlocked congress should be able to prevent the US from defending itself?
I think I misinterpreted that earlier. There's no authorization required to *defend* against an attacker. If anybody being assaulted deliberates whether it's legal to defend himself, he'll be dead. I'd say self-defense transcends the law.
However attacking a foreign country, be it for retaliation, pre-emption, machismo, or just for kicks, is a decision of Congress. And an unconvinced Congress is supposed to result in our troops staying home.
the president is free to order the military to locate, pursue and destroy the enemy forces even if those forces have disengaged and are withdrawing
I agree. Going after somebody who just attacked you is still self-defense.
Sending soldiers to the perpetrators' country is what requires a declaration of war. If it were not so, we'd forever have what we have today - massive foreign deployments, years of war, all without a congressional declaration of war.
it is good that Congress has the luxury of time and may fully deliberate whether a formal declaration of war is necessary
I agree with the sentiment. If an act were really an unambiguous act of war, I think the decision would be a no-brainer. Otherwise, I agree, they need to talk it out, while POTUS makes plans and waits for authorization to strike.
> the president may order the US military > to attack the perpetrators
The President may order the US military to defend against an active attack. Taking the fight to the attackers requires authorization.
> wait for the following day when congress got the > paperwork
Congress may be incompetent, stupid, crazy, and deadlocked, but if there were a real attack on American soil, the most dysfunctional Congress we've ever had could get this done in the middle of the night. If Congress can't do it remotely, I'm sure a quorum of members could get individual direct transport to the capital.within a couple hours and pass something within 30 minutes.
It would take at least that long to prove who started the cyber attack.
is nuclear power still a viable solution to the world's energy problems?
There is only one "solution" to the world's energy problems - demand below renewable supply. Uranium is not a renewable resource. It may seem abundant at current rates of consumption, but the supply is finite.
There are energy sources besides nuclear.and fossil fuels. And there are huge market distortions, so it's not clear that the energy providers' prosperity is due to the merits of their company or product.
For example, the barriers to entry in those techs are huge, such that small businesses are locked out. Also, uneven subsidies corrupt the pricing and warp the balancing effects a free market would naturally have.
We should develop every technology we can, drop subsidies (or at least phase them out as their tech matures), tax their various externalities, and let the markets choose.
> No one in the US has had slaves in a LOOONG time. Really? Slavery ended, let's say, in 1865. A child born into slavery in 1855 may have had a child in 1900, who may have had a child in 1945.
There are people alive today who personally knew former slaves.
There are people alive today who personally experienced the Jim Crow south.
There are people alive today who, because of their skin color, were unable to serve in the military as anything but kitchen staff. Prohibited from playing professional sports. Denied entry into their church's priesthood.
It's nice to think it's all past history, but I'm sorry to inform you that there are still too many open wounds to call the problem eradicated.
We might be able to move on sooner by healing the wounds than by ignoring them and letting them fester.
Get a picture of Miss America and photoshop your mom's face over Miss America's face. Cute, huh?
Now do it again, but photoshop your dad's face over Miss America's.
A visiting alien unfamiliar with our culture wouldn't see much difference in the two acts, but probably for you, the two images have entirely different impacts.
The reason he said not to talk to aliens is because they are probably a high tech space-faring species with big ships and guns which may not be friendly to strangers.
Ironically, this seems to be what he suggests we should become.
> found trivially by googling "number of US overseas bases" So, what is that number?
> there's a pretty thorough list on Wikipedia I love wikipedia as much as the next guy, but "pretty thorough" is not a number, and no wiki article is likely to be authoritative on this subject.
I'm trying to verify what you're saying, and in your support, most news articles I've seen speak of "joint" US and Aussie forces. None of the news articles I've seen yet have mentioned the name of this base.
But in support of what I claimed, Voice of America is calling it a "Planned US Marine Base in Australia" (://www.voanews.com/english/news/ASEAN-Leaders-React-to-Planned-US-Marine-Base-in-Australia-134031053.html)
NPR says "President Obama used his trip to the Pacific Rim this week to announce plans for a new American military base in Darwin, Australia." (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/17/142472063/analyst-spells-out-u-s-interests-in-pacific-rim)
Until I learn better, I'm going to trust NPR and Voice of America over an AC who offered no support of his claim.
> The vast majority of US military installations > overseas are nothing more than offices Supposing you're right, how many similar "military installations" of foreign countries can be found in the USA?
The USA just opened a new military base... in Australia. Nobody even knows how many foreign bases the USA has, but we have them in at least 130 foreign countries
If you focus on just two things in the world, the distribution of wealth, and the distribution of military power, you may conclude like I that the US is a de facto empire, and that the world's wealth is migrating to a de facto plutocracy. I can't prove that those two situations are related, but it seems more likely they are, than not.
Being amazed that the debt-bound USA is still developing weapons systems is like being amazed a thirsty pit bull still pisses on trees.
In my studies I've read that people often remember more than what actually happened. And the further away in time from the event, the less accurate their memory gets, and the greater their confidence in the memory grows.
This jives with my personal experience. If I recall correctly.
It's possible that you have much more stored in your brain than you realize. Could you imagine the chaos in your head if it were to provide you with all of your brain's knowledge and wisdom on-demand?
If you can't retrieve it, what exactly does "stored" mean?
> the same Ron Paul that said we should "go back to > 1901" when it came to disasters
I have no idea what that means or what context it was said in. But assuming he meant we should abolish FEMA, rescue aircraft, and good samaritan laws - so what? Is federal emergency response the single greatest issue facing America today?
No candidate will ever perfectly agree with any other thinking person. Pick your battles.
Identify the two or three problems you believe to be most fundamental, read up on a variety of theories to fix them, then see which candidate is closest to you on those core issues. Ignore everything else.
> Good luck convincing any sane person that "if its not > in the constitution, its not the job of government" is a > valid argument. May I try to start with you? I'd like to convince you only that "if its not in the constitution, its not the job of the federal government". Individual states are far more free to govern as much or as little as they like:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> they cannot have WHAT THAY PAID FOR I don't know of anybody who wants to deny SS contributors their benefits. The program doesn't have to end - it just requires a constitutional amendment authorizing the practice, as was done for income tax. And if there is no amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean participants can't get their money back, nor that their home state can't pick up the ball and continue the program.
For the record, II am not necessarily opposed to social security. I picked it as an example precisely because it is popular and affects us all.
All I want is a federal government that obeys the law. Until we have that, little else really matters.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's your argument that the constitution gave Congress the power to write a formal document which is legally irrelevant?
So that line in the constitution about the power to declare war belonging to congress - what exactly do you think that means?
The president can also order troops to invade another country without congressional approval.
Several have demonstrated the ability, but they still lack the constitutional authority.
The fact that POTUS after POTUS has done it is a failure of Congress - it is their job in such cases to impeach the POTUS, then, deliberate over a declaration of war, following which the new POTUS will be obliged to either wage that war or return the troops home.
POTUS can argue his case, but in matters of war he is not "the decider", or even *a* decider. He's just another military commander carrying out the order he was given.
an ideologically deadlocked congress should be able to prevent the US from defending itself?
I think I misinterpreted that earlier. There's no authorization required to *defend* against an attacker. If anybody being assaulted deliberates whether it's legal to defend himself, he'll be dead. I'd say self-defense transcends the law.
However attacking a foreign country, be it for retaliation, pre-emption, machismo, or just for kicks, is a decision of Congress. And an unconvinced Congress is supposed to result in our troops staying home.
the president is free to order the military to locate, pursue and destroy the enemy forces even if those forces have disengaged and are withdrawing
I agree. Going after somebody who just attacked you is still self-defense.
Sending soldiers to the perpetrators' country is what requires a declaration of war. If it were not so, we'd forever have what we have today - massive foreign deployments, years of war, all without a congressional declaration of war.
it is good that Congress has the luxury of time and may fully deliberate whether a formal declaration of war is necessary
I agree with the sentiment. If an act were really an unambiguous act of war, I think the decision would be a no-brainer. Otherwise, I agree, they need to talk it out, while POTUS makes plans and waits for authorization to strike.
> the president may order the US military
> to attack the perpetrators
The President may order the US military to defend against an active attack. Taking the fight to the attackers requires authorization.
> wait for the following day when congress got the
> paperwork
Congress may be incompetent, stupid, crazy, and deadlocked, but if there were a real attack on American soil, the most dysfunctional Congress we've ever had could get this done in the middle of the night. If Congress can't do it remotely, I'm sure a quorum of members could get individual direct transport to the capital.within a couple hours and pass something within 30 minutes.
It would take at least that long to prove who started the cyber attack.
Yes, absolutely.
But if there were another Pearl Harbor, you'd find no ideological deadlock.
Constitutionally, an "act of war" is whatever Congress agrees it to be.
Such decisions are not the Executive's to make.
... Very profitable mistakes.
Social Security Numbers were never really meant to be all that secret.
Every organization that decided to use them as a secret was stupid, and if they were intended to secure anything important, irresponsible/criminal.
SSNs, like biometrics, have all the right characteristics for account ids, and all the wrong characteristics for a password.
is nuclear power still a viable solution to the world's energy problems?
There is only one "solution" to the world's energy problems - demand below renewable supply. Uranium is not a renewable resource. It may seem abundant at current rates of consumption, but the supply is finite.
There are energy sources besides nuclear.and fossil fuels. And there are huge market distortions, so it's not clear that the energy providers' prosperity is due to the merits of their company or product.
For example, the barriers to entry in those techs are huge, such that small businesses are locked out. Also, uneven subsidies corrupt the pricing and warp the balancing effects a free market would naturally have.
We should develop every technology we can, drop subsidies (or at least phase them out as their tech matures), tax their various externalities, and let the markets choose.
we are saved!
Which leads me to wonder about the bible. Is there a greenhouse effect associated with saintly christians in the clouds, post-rapture?
> No one in the US has had slaves in a LOOONG time.
Really? Slavery ended, let's say, in 1865. A child born into slavery in 1855 may have had a child in 1900, who may have had a child in 1945.
There are people alive today who personally knew former slaves.
There are people alive today who personally experienced the Jim Crow south.
There are people alive today who, because of their skin color, were unable to serve in the military as anything but kitchen staff. Prohibited from playing professional sports. Denied entry into their church's priesthood.
It's nice to think it's all past history, but I'm sorry to inform you that there are still too many open wounds to call the problem eradicated.
We might be able to move on sooner by healing the wounds than by ignoring them and letting them fester.
It's a culture thing. Try this:
Get a picture of Miss America and photoshop your mom's face over Miss America's face. Cute, huh?
Now do it again, but photoshop your dad's face over Miss America's.
A visiting alien unfamiliar with our culture wouldn't see much difference in the two acts, but probably for you, the two images have entirely different impacts.
The reason he said not to talk to aliens is because they are probably a high tech space-faring species with big ships and guns which may not be friendly to strangers.
Ironically, this seems to be what he suggests we should become.
> I'm certain there are people in the US government
> who know
Why are you certain?
And if you're correct, is there any reason The People shouldn't have this information too?
> found trivially by googling "number of US overseas bases"
So, what is that number?
> there's a pretty thorough list on Wikipedia
I love wikipedia as much as the next guy, but "pretty thorough" is not a number, and no wiki article is likely to be authoritative on this subject.
I'm trying to verify what you're saying, and in your support, most news articles I've seen speak of "joint" US and Aussie forces. None of the news articles I've seen yet have mentioned the name of this base.
But in support of what I claimed, Voice of America is calling it a "Planned US Marine Base in Australia" (://www.voanews.com/english/news/ASEAN-Leaders-React-to-Planned-US-Marine-Base-in-Australia-134031053.html)
NPR says "President Obama used his trip to the Pacific Rim this week to announce plans for a new American military base in Darwin, Australia." (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/17/142472063/analyst-spells-out-u-s-interests-in-pacific-rim)
Until I learn better, I'm going to trust NPR and Voice of America over an AC who offered no support of his claim.
> The vast majority of US military installations
> overseas are nothing more than offices
Supposing you're right, how many similar "military installations" of foreign countries can be found in the USA?
The USA just opened a new military base ... in Australia. Nobody even knows how many foreign bases the USA has, but we have them in at least 130 foreign countries
If you focus on just two things in the world, the distribution of wealth, and the distribution of military power, you may conclude like I that the US is a de facto empire, and that the world's wealth is migrating to a de facto plutocracy. I can't prove that those two situations are related, but it seems more likely they are, than not.
Being amazed that the debt-bound USA is still developing weapons systems is like being amazed a thirsty pit bull still pisses on trees.
Yes, it's news to me.
In my studies I've read that people often remember more than what actually happened. And the further away in time from the event, the less accurate their memory gets, and the greater their confidence in the memory grows.
This jives with my personal experience. If I recall correctly.
It's possible that you have much more stored in your brain than you realize. Could you imagine the chaos in your head if it were to provide you with all of your brain's knowledge and wisdom on-demand?
If you can't retrieve it, what exactly does "stored" mean?
> the same Ron Paul that said we should "go back to
> 1901" when it came to disasters
I have no idea what that means or what context it was said in. But assuming he meant we should abolish FEMA, rescue aircraft, and good samaritan laws - so what? Is federal emergency response the single greatest issue facing America today?
No candidate will ever perfectly agree with any other thinking person. Pick your battles.
Identify the two or three problems you believe to be most fundamental, read up on a variety of theories to fix them, then see which candidate is closest to you on those core issues. Ignore everything else.
> Good luck convincing any sane person that "if its not
> in the constitution, its not the job of government" is a
> valid argument.
May I try to start with you? I'd like to convince you only that "if its not in the constitution, its not the job of the federal government". Individual states are far more free to govern as much or as little as they like:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> they cannot have WHAT THAY PAID FOR
I don't know of anybody who wants to deny SS contributors their benefits. The program doesn't have to end - it just requires a constitutional amendment authorizing the practice, as was done for income tax. And if there is no amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean participants can't get their money back, nor that their home state can't pick up the ball and continue the program.
For the record, II am not necessarily opposed to social security. I picked it as an example precisely because it is popular and affects us all.
All I want is a federal government that obeys the law. Until we have that, little else really matters.