<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Constitution is Clear on Presidential War Powers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 05:39:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Other War Powers Act &#124; ChrisInMaryville&#039;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-855361</link>
		<dc:creator>The Other War Powers Act &#124; ChrisInMaryville&#039;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-855361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] 1 -Â The Constitution is Clear on Presidential War Powers [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 1 -Â The Constitution is Clear on Presidential War Powers [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Flowymac</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-623826</link>
		<dc:creator>Flowymac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-623826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What I want to know, if the constitution says the President has the War Powers and it is part of the constitution,  how do you know the framers meant otherwise.. If they meant other wise then why didn&#039;t they say so..  he has  War Powers,  i mean by that and then  explain  what they meant,,Sorry, I want to think that the constitution is what it says, not what we want it to say ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I want to know, if the constitution says the President has the War Powers and it is part of the constitution,  how do you know the framers meant otherwise.. If they meant other wise then why didn&#039;t they say so..  he has  War Powers,  i mean by that and then  explain  what they meant,,Sorry, I want to think that the constitution is what it says, not what we want it to say </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Question: No fly zone = declaration of war?</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-501187</link>
		<dc:creator>Question: No fly zone = declaration of war?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-501187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] the usual [leftist] suspect in agreement with neoconservatives is as ironic as it is entertaining. Presidential war powers             Reply With Quote              + Reply to [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the usual [leftist] suspect in agreement with neoconservatives is as ironic as it is entertaining. Presidential war powers             Reply With Quote              + Reply to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The War Thatâ€™s Not a War &#8211; Tenth Amendment Center</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-354013</link>
		<dc:creator>The War Thatâ€™s Not a War &#8211; Tenth Amendment Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-354013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] But how can we be at war? Congress has not declared war as required by the Constitution. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But how can we be at war? Congress has not declared war as required by the Constitution. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 10th Amendment 101: Essential Reading for Tenthers&#160;&#124;&#160;California Tenth Amendment Center</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-306637</link>
		<dc:creator>10th Amendment 101: Essential Reading for Tenthers&#160;&#124;&#160;California Tenth Amendment Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-306637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] The Constitution Is Clear On Presidential War Powers [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Constitution Is Clear On Presidential War Powers [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alisa</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-300659</link>
		<dc:creator>Alisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-300659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, by force, but I don&#039;t think I would reinstate as the blood thirsty power brokers) would never allow it.  
 For more information on Revolution and getting one started in the US do a google search for &quot;Bob Avakian, Revolution&quot;  or go to Vimeo.com and do a search for Bob Avakian for his videos.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, by force, but I don&#039;t think I would reinstate as the blood thirsty power brokers) would never allow it.<br />
 For more information on Revolution and getting one started in the US do a google search for &quot;Bob Avakian, Revolution&quot;  or go to Vimeo.com and do a search for Bob Avakian for his videos.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alisa</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-300588</link>
		<dc:creator>alisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-300588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Constitution was mainly created to protect the elite and their monopolies, such as the Federal Reserve.  Hence the reason there is so little justice in this world for individuals.      
 
 
SECTION IX. 
 
Sir, if a government is to &quot;do equal and exact justice to all men,&quot; it must do simply that, and nothing more. If it does more than that to any, --- that is, if it gives monopolies, privileges, exemptions, bounties, or favors to any, --- it can do so only by doing injustice to more or less others. It can give to one only what it takes from others; for it has nothing of its own to give to any one. The best that it can do for all, and the only honest thing it can do for any, is simply to secure to each and every one his own rights, --- the rights that nature gave him, --- his rights of person, and his rights of property; leaving him, then, to pursue his own interests, and secure his own welfare, by the free and full exercise of his own powers of body and mind; so long as he trespasses upon the equal rights of no other person. 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Constitution was mainly created to protect the elite and their monopolies, such as the Federal Reserve.  Hence the reason there is so little justice in this world for individuals.      </p>
<p>SECTION IX. </p>
<p>Sir, if a government is to &quot;do equal and exact justice to all men,&quot; it must do simply that, and nothing more. If it does more than that to any, &#8212; that is, if it gives monopolies, privileges, exemptions, bounties, or favors to any, &#8212; it can do so only by doing injustice to more or less others. It can give to one only what it takes from others; for it has nothing of its own to give to any one. The best that it can do for all, and the only honest thing it can do for any, is simply to secure to each and every one his own rights, &#8212; the rights that nature gave him, &#8212; his rights of person, and his rights of property; leaving him, then, to pursue his own interests, and secure his own welfare, by the free and full exercise of his own powers of body and mind; so long as he trespasses upon the equal rights of no other person. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alisa</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-300582</link>
		<dc:creator>alisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:46:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-300582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The bill of rights give people the impression they have rights and that those rights are recognized by the government, but what they don&#039;t know is this: 
 
 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://lysanderspooner.org/node/62&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://lysanderspooner.org/node/62&lt;/a&gt; 
 
 
It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature. 
 
Lawmakers, as they call themselves, might just as well claim the right to abolish, by statute, the natural law of gravitation, the natural laws of light, heat, and electricity, and all the other natural laws of matter and mind, and institute laws of their own in the place of them, and compel conformity to them, as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice, and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture, and set up in its stead. 
 
Let me now ask you how you imagine that your so-called lawmakers can &quot;do equal and exact justice to all men,&quot; by any so-called laws of their own making. If their laws command anything but justice, or forbid anything but injustice, they are themselves unjust and criminal. If they simply command justice, and forbid injustice, they add nothing to the natural authority of justice, or to men&#039;s obligation to obey it. It is, therefore, a simple impertinence, and sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands, as such, are of any authority whatever. It is also sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands are at all necessary to teach other men what is, and what is not, justice. The science of justice is as open to be learned by all other men, as by themselves; and it is, in general, so simple and easy to be learned, that there is no need of, and no place for, any man, or body of men, to teach it, declare it, or command it, on their own authority. 
 
For one, or another, of these reasons, therefore, each and every law, so-called, that forty-eight different congresses have presumed to make, within the last ninety-six years, have been utterly destitute of all legitimate authority. That is to say, they have either been criminal, as commanding or licensing men to do what justice forbade them to do, or as forbidding them to do what justice would have permitted them to do; or else they have been superfluous, as adding nothing to men&#039;s knowledge of justice, or to their obligation to do justice, or abstain from injustice. 
 
What excuse, then, have you for attempting to enforce upon the people that great mass of superfluous or criminal laws (so-called) which ignorant and foolish, or impudent and criminal, men have, for so many years, been manufacturing, and promulgating, and enforcing, in violation of justice, and of all men&#039;s natural, inherent, and inalienable rights? 
 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bill of rights give people the impression they have rights and that those rights are recognized by the government, but what they don&#039;t know is this: </p>
<p><a href="http://lysanderspooner.org/node/62" target="_blank">http://lysanderspooner.org/node/62</a> </p>
<p>It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature. </p>
<p>Lawmakers, as they call themselves, might just as well claim the right to abolish, by statute, the natural law of gravitation, the natural laws of light, heat, and electricity, and all the other natural laws of matter and mind, and institute laws of their own in the place of them, and compel conformity to them, as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice, and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture, and set up in its stead. </p>
<p>Let me now ask you how you imagine that your so-called lawmakers can &quot;do equal and exact justice to all men,&quot; by any so-called laws of their own making. If their laws command anything but justice, or forbid anything but injustice, they are themselves unjust and criminal. If they simply command justice, and forbid injustice, they add nothing to the natural authority of justice, or to men&#039;s obligation to obey it. It is, therefore, a simple impertinence, and sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands, as such, are of any authority whatever. It is also sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands are at all necessary to teach other men what is, and what is not, justice. The science of justice is as open to be learned by all other men, as by themselves; and it is, in general, so simple and easy to be learned, that there is no need of, and no place for, any man, or body of men, to teach it, declare it, or command it, on their own authority. </p>
<p>For one, or another, of these reasons, therefore, each and every law, so-called, that forty-eight different congresses have presumed to make, within the last ninety-six years, have been utterly destitute of all legitimate authority. That is to say, they have either been criminal, as commanding or licensing men to do what justice forbade them to do, or as forbidding them to do what justice would have permitted them to do; or else they have been superfluous, as adding nothing to men&#039;s knowledge of justice, or to their obligation to do justice, or abstain from injustice. </p>
<p>What excuse, then, have you for attempting to enforce upon the people that great mass of superfluous or criminal laws (so-called) which ignorant and foolish, or impudent and criminal, men have, for so many years, been manufacturing, and promulgating, and enforcing, in violation of justice, and of all men&#039;s natural, inherent, and inalienable rights? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alisa</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-300573</link>
		<dc:creator>alisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-300573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the book The Bill of Rights by Milton Meltzer:    
 
&quot;Only one delegate, Roger Sherman, spoke up on the proposal for a Bill of Rights.  A federal bill isn&#039;t needed, he said, because the state bills will protect the rights of their citizen.  And the new federal government, he added, has not been given any power to interfere with the rights thus protected.&quot; 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the book The Bill of Rights by Milton Meltzer:    </p>
<p>&quot;Only one delegate, Roger Sherman, spoke up on the proposal for a Bill of Rights.  A federal bill isn&#039;t needed, he said, because the state bills will protect the rights of their citizen.  And the new federal government, he added, has not been given any power to interfere with the rights thus protected.&quot; </p>
<p>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alisa</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/30/the-constitution-is-clear-on-presidential-war-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-300572</link>
		<dc:creator>alisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4240#comment-300572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the missing enabling clause created was not a government by law, but a government by force.   That&#039;s why they created the Bill of Rights-  to protect the people&#039;s rights. But the constitution doesn&#039;t give the federal government any power over the people&#039;s rights so they had no authority from the constitution to create a bill of rights.  So that document too- is moot.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What the missing enabling clause created was not a government by law, but a government by force.   That&#039;s why they created the Bill of Rights-  to protect the people&#039;s rights. But the constitution doesn&#039;t give the federal government any power over the people&#039;s rights so they had no authority from the constitution to create a bill of rights.  So that document too- is moot.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
