So you think the Constitution is simple? A plain-reading gives it's obvious intent?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, they specifically are given the power to:



and




If they can make all the rules and regulations for land forces in Iraq, why do the Republicans call even minor changes (like giving troops the usual full break) "micro-managing" and "unconstitutional"? It's clearly their constitutional power

They have the right to make rules, they dont have the right to tell how to fight a battle

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They have the right to make rules, they dont have the right to tell how to fight a battle

Regulations...

How can you say giving soldiers full leave is not a regulation or rule?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Regulations...

How can you say giving soldiers full leave is not a regulation or rule?

full leave ?

[Ardentfrost]

I don't get what he's trying to say either.

Rules and Regulations aren't saying "On X date we will seige Y city until Z objectives are met"

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't get what he's trying to say either.

Rules and Regulations aren't saying "On X date we will seige Y city until Z objectives are met"

No, but I am pretty sure they can say "Land forces after serving a full deployment should have one year off, as has been the standard rule in the past"

People say such a regulation/rule would be "unconstitutional"

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, but I am pretty sure they can say "Land forces after serving a full deployment should have one year off, as has been the standard rule in the past"

People say such a regulation/rule would be "unconstitutional"

fyi that hasnt been a standard rule.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

fyi that hasnt been a standard rule.

regardless, it has been a rule in the past that after you get a deployment, you get a leave of many months, making it a rule would not "control a battle" or do anything other make a rule/regulation...how is this "unconstitutional"?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

regardless, it has been a rule in the past that after you get a deployment, you get a leave of many months, making it a rule would not "control a battle" or do anything other make a rule/regulation...how is this "unconstitutional"?

who said it was unconstitutional ?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

who said it was unconstitutional ?

Let me say it again: the Webb Amendment contains a policy objective that Republicans enthusiastically share. What we do not share is the belief that the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief should be eroded by politicians in Washington in a time of war.
-Leader of the Senate GOP giving the party position
Senator Mitch McConnell - Press Releases

the Senate will begin debate on the 2008 defense authorization bill with a vote on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) amendment that would give troops more time at home between deployments.

Webb’s amendment, the first provision to be debated next week as the Senate takes up the authorization bill, will likely face opposition by the administration. The White House several months ago vetoed the 2007 war emergency bill partly on grounds that Congress should not etch into law deployment and dwell times, which the administration says would curtail commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield.
TheHill.com - Webb’s deployment amendment will open debate on defense bill

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The courts use original intent all the time to interpret the constitution. The federalist papers include writings by the founders that describe in more detail their intent.

Courts don't resort to extrinsic evidence to prove intent unless they can't tell WTF a law means by simply reading it, i.e., you're arguing the thread starter's point for him.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Courts don't resort to extrinsic evidence to prove intent unless they can't tell WTF a law means by simply reading it, i.e., you're arguing the thread starter's point for him.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Let me say it again: the Webb Amendment contains a policy objective that Republicans enthusiastically share. What we do not share is the belief that the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief should be eroded by politicians in Washington in a time of war.
-Leader of the Senate GOP giving the party position
Senator Mitch McConnell - Press Releases

the Senate will begin debate on the 2008 defense authorization bill with a vote on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) amendment that would give troops more time at home between deployments.

The only argument I can see is the fact that a 1 year break would put the nation in a difficult situation.
What happens two months from now and we need those troops immediately ? If the Pres doesnt have the ability to deploy them right now, then he has lost his power as Commander in Chief.


But in general, yes Congress has the right to control general rules

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Courts don't resort to extrinsic evidence to prove intent unless they can't tell WTF a law means by simply reading it, i.e., you're arguing the thread starter's point for him.

Right, but they're SUPPOSED to be educated enough to know the original intent. You'll never hear them say "according to Federalist Paper 15 blah blah blah," however, you will hear them talk about original intent... which is what I said.

[Ardentfrost]

BTW, I don't think it's unconstitutional for Congress to set post deployment rules on soldiers. If the president is unable to strategerize with certain rules in place, he can go to Congress to try to get them to change it.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The only argument I can see is the fact that a 1 year break would put the nation in a difficult situation.
What happens two months from now and we need those troops immediately ? If the Pres doesnt have the ability to deploy them right now, then he has lost his power as Commander in Chief.

But in general, yes Congress has the right to control general rules

Well see we have a genuine constitutional argument between republicans...doesn't sound like a simple document with obvious intent to me if it could create such confusion

[WickedLou9]

My bus. law professor said that we would rue the day we were born in a common law country. Nothing is clear. Everything is case law, precedent, and interpretation. Anyone who says that this stuff is simple is wrong. If the constitution were simple and clear then we wouldn't need the supreme court.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Well see we have a genuine constitutional argument between republicans...doesn't sound like a simple document with obvious intent to me if it could create such confusion

The term "unconstitutional" is used a lot by Dems and Repubs... it doesn't mean they're always correct in its usage

I've heard a few different quotes from GWB where he said something was unconstitutional (in regards to his and Congress' job in the war), and I don't think any of them was correct usage.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The term "unconstitutional" is used a lot by Dems and Repubs... it doesn't mean they're always correct in its usage

I've heard a few different quotes from GWB where he said something was unconstitutional (in regards to his and Congress' job in the war), and I don't think any of them was correct usage.

Wow, we can't even have our elected officialas understand what is unconstitutional...but it's so simple!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

My bus. law professor said that we would rue the day we were born in a common law country. Nothing is clear. Everything is case law, precedent, and interpretation. Anyone who says that this stuff is simple is wrong. If the constitution were simple and clear then we wouldn't need the supreme court.

You should ask her if she disagrees with the common law adaptation of tort law during the industrial revolution...which if we used the law of the 15th century it hadn't been so fluidic, workers could have sued every company to death in the 1800s