Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[WildCat]

You let me know when the last war that America fought was declared by congress, and how many wars have been fought undeclared since.

Can you show me the Declaration of War for the first Barbary War in 1801? The one waged by a US President (Jefferson) who was also one of the Founding Fathers?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Can you show me the Declaration of War for the first Barbary War in 1801? The one waged by a US President (Jefferson) who was also one of the Founding Fathers?

Yusuf Karamanli declared war on the United States.

 

[WildCat]

Yusuf Karamanli declared war on the United States.

So what? So did OBL. As did Japan and Germany, yet there was still a formal declaration of war.

Or maybe Congressional approval is all that the Constitution actually requires after all?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So what? So did OBL.

Is he the head of state for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Or maybe Congressional approval is all that the Constitution actually requires after all?

Or maybe when war is declared against your country another declaration of war is redundant.

 

[Corsair 115]

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

 

[WildCat]

Is he the head of state for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran?

He's the head of the organization we are at war with.

The Constitution mandates no specific language for a war declaration. It's quite clear that all that is necessary is Congressional approval.

 

[WildCat]

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

Apparently Jerome is claiming that the POTUS is using unconstitutional powers for war, and thus there is precedent for the POTUS to use unconstitutioinal powers to form a NAU.

Of course, the precedent was set in 1801 by one of the Founding Fathers, so his case is extremely weak at best.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This declaration of war stuff is interesting, but what exactly is its connection to the alleged NAU?

The premise that the laws and structure of the US government are not currently being followed. This allows for the executive branch to exercise authority to put into practice recommendations of the SPP without the need of congress.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

He's the head of the organization we are at war with.

Al qaeda? When did they take charge of the three nations we are talking about?

The Constitution mandates no specific language for a war declaration. It's quite clear that all that is necessary is Congressional approval.

To declare War

Nope. It's only three words, very clear.

It is clear that congress has the power to declare war. It does not have to power to allow the president to declare war.

 

[WildCat]

It is clear that congress has the power to declare war. It does not have to power to allow the president to declare war.

Absolutely true. That's why there is this Authorization For Use Of Military Force against terrorists and the nations that support them, and this one for Iraq.

There's the Congressional approval demanded by the Constitution. All you're doing is arguing semantics, which is silly since there is no specific wording demanded by the Constitution.

 

[Corsair 115]

The premise that the laws and structure of the US government are not currently being followed. This allows for the executive branch to exercise authority to put into practice recommendations of the SPP without the need of congress.

Seems an awfully thin premise. "Thin? Damn near invisible." (Bonus points to anyone who can cite the movie that line comes from!)

The amount of rules, regulations, standards, codes, procedures, and practices that would have to be changed in order to unify the three countries is staggering. It's not something that can be cobbled together in a few pages, it'd be an utterly massive undertaking.

Just look at the financial industry for example. In the U.S., a rather large and problematic subprime mortgage crisis. In Canada, no such subprime mortgage crisis. The reason? Different financial regulations and practices in Canada as compared to the U.S.

So whose financial laws get adopted?

I can't speak to the U.S., but in Canada if the public complains loudly about something politicians pay attention. Some years back the big banks here wanted the legislation changed so that they could merge; the public made it very clear to the Liberal government of the day that they were not in favour of the idea. The idea was shelved. Even now, the Conservative government announced recently that it would not be allowing bank mergers any time soon. (They know a political loser of an idea when they see one.)

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Absolutely true. That's why there is this Authorization For Use Of Military Force against terrorists and the nations that support them, and this one for Iraq.

There's the Congressional approval demanded by the Constitution. All you're doing is arguing semantics, which is silly since there is no specific wording demanded by the Constitution.

The constitution does not give the congress the authority to give their authority to declare war to the president.

I know they have done this, that's the point!

 

[Checkmite]

It is designed to function within the authority of the executive branch thus neglecting the congress entirely.

But its function is nothing but dialogue. It is not designed to initiate any action or make any binding policy.
It's job is only to consult and suggest courses of action.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But its function is nothing but dialogue. It is not designed to initiate any action or make any binding policy.
It's job is only to consult and suggest courses of action.

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

 

[Horatius]

Better than us?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Who is "us"?


I am honestly confused by this statement.

The "us" would be everybody who has quoted the same document to you several times.

For someone who alludes to having a better comprehension of the written word than I, or the others linked above, you really do seem to have trouble following the thread of a conversation.

You claim to have read the document you've been linked to several times, and yet, you don't seem to remember it from one day to the next....Why exactly should any of "us" be impressed with your level of comprehension, given your seeming inability to recall simple things for more than a day?


But hey, don't let me get in the way of your next dismissive non-reply.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

This is a long standing point of mine.

You let me know when the last war that America fought was declared by congress, and how many wars have been fought undeclared since.

The above is just the most easily understood example.

Well for one thing declaring war does not represent the power ot eh executive branch. There are cases where the time it would take to get congressional approval for an attack would be a national security issue. For instance if Russia launched a nuclear attack on us. Someone has to respond. This is why the president is allowed to delcare war for a brief period. But eventually it has to be approved by congress. Just like the Afghan and Iraq war were approved.

You're being pretty dishonest and using strawman arguments.

 

[Horatius]

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

Uh-huh. Yeah, except it isn't, really.

The three leaders instructed each nation to establish ministerial-level Security and Prosperity working groups. Secretary Chertoff chairs the security agenda while Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, chairs the prosperity agenda.

Taken from a report to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations.



So where does the "neglecting the congress entirely" part come into it again?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The constitution does not give the congress the authority to give their authority to declare war to the president.

I know they have done this, that's the point!

The constitution isn't a list of things that are allowed. The Constitution is a list of exceptions. A democracy lets the people make any rules the people want. The constitution is an exception to that. Basically a list saying (well, you can't do this).

It's not a list of what CAN be done, but what CAN'T.

Do you understand the purpose of the constitution OR the executive branch? There IS a purpose for the executive branch if you didn't know.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For someone who alludes to having a better comprehension of the written word than I, or the others linked above, you really do seem to have trouble following the thread of a conversation.

Ever think the appearance of allusions could be projection? I leave it to you to discern who and why.

You claim to have read the document you've been linked to several times, and yet, you don't seem to remember it from one day to the next....Why exactly should any of "us" be impressed with your level of comprehension, given your seeming inability to recall simple things for more than a day?

O.K., WE will give it a go.

The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

The President can act unilaterally under the authority of executively controlled entities. With this power he can implement the recommendations which are agreed upon by the three executives of sovereign nations contained within the "non-treaty".

Please explain how acting upon an agreement with others nations without the approval of the congress is constitutional.