2. He fired that Army Chief cause of this

3. Doing normal ops wont do shit to Iran but nukes he can at least pretend he's alpha and Iran shld surrender now

4. He's crazy, dumb, and a retarded violent ape Birdshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49800638)

There isn't/shouldn't be a war unless Congress has declared it. The bullshit they've been doing to delegate their authorities and responsibilities is exactly why we've had so much undeclared war all around the world

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49801102)

I think a fundamental component of our system of government is that government itself can become a tyrannical enemy, and that it is the people, at the end of the day, who have gifted rights to the government and can justly take those rights away if/when warranted. So the people can define the national interest and define what an enemy is or isn't. Like Congress, we've abdicated our responsibilities and have hoped swamp creatures would act in our best interests instead of their own

Where/how to draw the line through definition? I don't have time to sort that out right now. But it simply be whatever/whoever some powerful people say

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49801194)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49801156)

If no war is declared, there is no authority for making war (whether using nuclear arms or otherwise)

If you really mean what you say because the constitution doesn't expressly contemplate nuclear weapons, do you think the second amendment only applies to muskets and bayonets and cannons? Do you deny that the use of nukes would be an act of war if a country used one on us? If "no" to either or both, then just say you are down with arbitrary rules just like people who think mental illness can transform someone from a girl to a boy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49801453)

The fucking constitution itself says that Congress has the power to declare wars. It also says that the President is Commander in Chief when military forces ARE CALLED into the actual service of the United States. That's the extent of his authority as Commander in Chief. Go look it up if you don't believe me

Therefore, if you want to argue that the President has the right to command the military to fight in the absence of a declaration of war, you're going to need to provide some very persuasive evidence that "CALLING" those forces into actual service isn't meant to be pursuant to a declaration (a call) of war

I don't care about what bullshit Congress has been doing and what bullshit the President has been allowed to do. The lack of standards and rules is exactly why we have had the government we've deserved doing all the bad shit we deserve

If you can't agree that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says in the same way that the rest of the constitution means exactly what it says, then you are part of the problem

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49801270)

In standard interpretation, when language is set off between two commas like this, it means it is an aside from or an addition to the initial concept rather than a statement of limitation

Show me you're consistent by parsing the following all caps language in both relevant concepts:

A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, AND OF THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

If you're fucking with me, just say so. Otherwise, if you believe the bullshit you're spewing, seriously fucking think through what you're saying and how to read English

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854611&forum_id=2).#49801409)