Except Serendipper is right.
Presidents accordingthe constitutions can only declare war via Congress. But since Kennedy they have done it and it is much more streamlined now.
lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
Obama ordered the killing of suspected terrorists who were american citizens. They got no trials. That is against the constitutiontheguardian.com/commentisfr … t-doj-memo
Did you know that the president has his own army? Well, they have for a while…
mentalfloss.com/article/30033/10 … ecret-army
And this army is active around the world.Did you know that earlier in history when there was a disaster the federal government could only go into states when invited - for example after a hurricane? IOW they could then and only then, when invited, send in the national guard and other support.
Now through a presidential executive order, the federal government can decide that there is an immanent threat and send in FEMA and troops to states, without being invited. IOW they don’t have to wait for a disaster and an invitation. They can say that there may be one coming and do this.
A core balance of power was changed via presidential executive order, executive orders become not a radical exception but a new way that legislattion is created by bypassing Congress.
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/view … ntext=jlegI was actually happy to see Serendipper take a this position. Since I think, generally, it is worse than he does. In fact what the above shifts in power mean are that we have presidents who can make law, including specific acts that allow for the killing of us citizens without trial but firing weapons into countries we are not at war with; presidents have their own army that they can send wherever they want with black op budgets and without congressional oversight over what action are taken. And the federal government, that is the president can send troops into states without state permission any longer, and they do not even have to have a present disaster to justify it.
All of this should make people concerned, but since it is marginalized from the mainstream media, very few people know about it.
People are not aware of the private army, the shift in War Powers powers against the constitution, the new rights of the federal government in relatin to states and exectutive orders which give the presidents king like powers.
You missed my major point, i.e. the terms of a contract or covenant within a group of people, i.e. the universal Principles of Contract Law.
Within any mutual agreement between two parties, individuals or groups there is a contract which could be explicit or implicit and included specific terms of the contract.
In this OP, for any one to be a Christian there is a contract or covenant between the Christian and his God via certain initiation processes. The terms of the contract or covenant between a Christian and his God is stipulated or implied within the Gospels.
Serendipper insisted there is no such contract which is intellectually irrational.
There are many examples of a contract between individuals or groups of people, but the critical point is the contract must be govern by a Constitution or agreed terms of the contract. Note the critical elements are the universal Principles of Contract Law.
To highlight the Principles of Contract Law [in this case a social contract], I gave an example, i.e. for anyone to be an American there is a contract agreed between the US Government and the person with terms stipulated in the US Constitution & its associated laws.
Serendipper insisting the US Constitution is ‘toilet paper’ indicate his ignorance of the Principle of Contract Law.
Note re your link:
The U.S. Constitution vests the president with “executive power” and provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,” while it endows Congress with the power “To declare War.”
These provisions have given rise to two major questions about presidential war powers: first, what should be the president’s role in taking the country to war, and, second, what are the president’s powers to direct its conduct.
lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
First the above recognize the existence of the terms of a contract, i.e. the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-and-war-powers
Obama ordered the killing of suspected terrorists who were american citizens. They got no trials. That is against the constitution
Regardless of what Obama did which is contentious, your point confirmed my intention, i.e. the existence of the US Constitution as a term of the contract.
If what Obama did was seriously against the US Constitution, he would have been charged in court, but he was not, thus no case against him from the legal standpoint. The way out is to revise the terms and make them more precise to avoid ambiguity.
Note Main Point;
For any one to be a Christian there is a contract or covenant between the Christian and his God via certain initiation processes.
The terms of the contract or covenant between a Christian and his God is stipulated or implied within the Gospels.
The US Constitution is a side point to support the Principles of Contract Law as the essential terms in any agreed contract.
It is intellectually irrational to insist the US Constitution [as terms of a contract] is “toilet paper”. If it is true there would be total anarchy in that plot of land between Canada and Mexico.
Ultimate Point;
A Muslim or Islamist is one who has entered into a covenant [contract] with Allah with its terms stipulated in the Quran.
All evil and violent acts by evil Islamists are traceable to the terms of contract of being a Muslim, i.e. terms stipulated in the Quran - words of Allah.
Therefore to prevent all terrible evil and violent acts by Islamists, humanity must direct focus on the terms within the Quran that compelled Muslims to commit certain acts [as a divine duty] which result in terrible evil and violent acts on non-Muslims.