• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

ItsAProcess said:
Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

We need a different way of handling something so important as our country Going To War when not under direct threat of invasion. Because Congress Cannot. Be. Trusted.
Click to expand...

what would you suggest, poll grunts in basic training?

fact is someone has to decide, the president and his resources present thier case to the congress, who have to answer to their constituants, and thats it.
otherwise I would love to entertain another method if you have one.

Fact is the law is the law, and he is in violation.
if one American man or woman die in Libya, he should be tried for murder.
 
ItsAProcess said:
Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.

Bush and his croneys were just looking for excuses. Stop being a bigot.

Yes, the Removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But it was not, and never will be worth the Thousands of American Lives that it cost!

Especially not when it was NEVER the 'stated goal' of the war in Iraq.

Don't try to tell me whether that war was Justified or not. I spent time in that Sandy Hell.

Ikari: Congress doesn't declare war for the right reasons. They've proved it in the past. Congress should not be the Power Check on the President's ability to deploy troops.

We need a different way of handling something so important as our country Going To War when not under direct threat of invasion. Because Congress Cannot. Be. Trusted.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa. I want a credible link to this clinton 2 trillion dollar surplus. At first it was 500 billion which was bullshyt in itself. Links or you're full of shyt dude.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

I sure don't see a surplus, do you?

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ItsAProcess said:
Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.
Click to expand...
By your statement above would you say you are a politician? Or just a liar? There was no surplus. It was a lie then. It is a lie now. Debt increased under Clinton.
 
ItsAProcess said:
Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.

Bush and his croneys were just looking for excuses. Stop being a bigot.

Yes, the Removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But it was not, and never will be worth the Thousands of American Lives that it cost!
Click to expand...

And did he INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY tell a false statement to Congress regarding the war in Iraq???

And don't call me a bigot. You discredit yourself and have no idea what you are talking about...
 
W00ster said:
Yes, to the whole world through Colin Powell in front of the UN general assembly. There is more then enough recordings of the speech, I even watched it myself.

- No WMD's in Iraq
- Saddam did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda
Click to expand...

So Clinton lied too, huh? You know, your side likes to sidetrack this issue about Obama with false statements about Bush. Why not focus on the topic at hand. Obama is inviolation of the Constitution and the law and you can't admit it or accept the fact...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Thanks for helping me understand the difference.

While I will agree it is not Congress' place to niggle the President to death on the details of what he has the military doing, it absolutely is Congress' place to deny the President the ability to send the military someplace and have them fight someone that doesn't represent a direct threat to the security of our nation.

In other words, Congress doesn't get to tell the President "no" if he's addressing a threat of invasion or attack, but Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President not to send the military in on a police action.
Click to expand...

At the same time, the president needs a little slack to deploy combat forces on a moment's notice, because there's no time to rangle with Congress; hence the War Powers Act. 60 days, without Congressional approval isn't too much to ask, in the event of an emergency.
 
ItsAProcess said:
And my point is that Congress cannot be trusted with that power either. They've proven in recent history that they declare war based on what's good for them. Not based on what is good for the American People.
Click to expand...
Until we throw the power to make war into Mount Doom, someone has to be the ring bearer.

It's more complicated to get 370 people to agree to go to war than it is to get 1 person to decide to. That's the rationale behind vesting that power in the legislature.
 
Councilman said:
I fear you may be right but is a Constitutional issue and it is according to that document it is up to the Supreme Court to settle any issue between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Click to expand...
Impeachment could settle the matter as well.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Until we throw the power to make war into Mount Doom, someone has to be the ring bearer.

It's more complicated to get 370 people to agree to go to war than it is to get 1 person to decide to. That's the rationale behind vesting that power in the legislature.
Click to expand...
And, we want war to be supported by the people. The Executive branch is just too far away from the will of the people.
 
apdst said:
At the same time, the president needs a little slack to deploy combat forces on a moment's notice, because there's no time to rangle with Congress; hence the War Powers Act. 60 days, without Congressional approval isn't too much to ask, in the event of an emergency.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is asking too much. A moment's notice implies immediate action. If action must be taken immediately, Congress can be informed well before 2 months time. 3 working days, 5 tops.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, it is asking too much. A moment's notice implies immediate action. If action must be taken immediately, Congress can be informed well before 2 months time. 3 working days, 5 tops.
Click to expand...

3 working days?

1) That may be too long and 2) Which Congress are we talking about? :rofl
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Impeachment could settle the matter as well.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere yesterday that the former Director of the Library of Congress said that going to war without authorization is the most impeachable offense there is.
 
stealthy said:
I read somewhere yesterday that the former Director of the Library of Congress said that going to war without authorization is the most impeachable offense there is.
Click to expand...

I would completely agree with that assessment. Of course, that brings up the question of what is 'war'? Frankly, President Obama's claim that there are no 'hostilities' in Libya is a bald faced lie. And the same people who defend him are the ones who accuse G.W. Bush of lying, without knowing, apparently, what the verb (or noun) 'lie' truly means in English.
 
shades said:
exactly, how else would you explain 70% of the country screaming at the top of their lungs, NO OBAMACARE.. and congress doing it anyway.
right in our face..

you will pay the price for such audasity
Click to expand...

Your numbers are wrong, the split is actually around 50/50 for or against CongressCare

shades said:
and this is especially true in matters of sending my son or daughter in harms way, one man can not make that call, under any circumstance short of immediate national security,
and especially not under the premise that its different because its a UN operation.
Click to expand...

Actually, what the Obama administration defense is in the case with Libya is that we are supporting our NATO allies and are only operating in a support capacity. It may prove to be a valid argument since treaties become the law of the land according to the constitution and if it proven that no Americans are being put in harms way.


ludahai said:
I would completely agree with that assessment. Of course, that brings up the question of what is 'war'? Frankly, President Obama's claim that there are no 'hostilities' in Libya is a bald faced lie. And the same people who defend him are the ones who accuse G.W. Bush of lying, without knowing, apparently, what the verb (or noun) 'lie' truly means in English.
Click to expand...

Actually, what Obama claims is that America isn't involved in the hostilities directly. Providing equipment, using spy drones, providing refueling, air carries for launch pads etc is what Obama is claims our role has been in Libya since NATO has taken over. During the first week or so, is when America bombed the **** out of Libya
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The highest court was created in part to get in the midle of an argument between the President and Congress. Congress has ceded too much of its power and destroyed the checks and balances which are meant to be in place, particularly where the military is concerned. I damned well hope that more lawmakers join in and that we put the proper restraints on the power of the President. The President is 1 guy, he wasn't meant to have all the power. It needs to be handled and this has to result in lessening the Presidents power to use our military any way he sees fit.
Click to expand...

Congress ratified the U.N. Charter, the POTUS has a U.N. Mandate, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Libya operation unless you haven't actually read the Supremacy Clause which makes treaties the "Supreme Law of the Land", now if you want to challenge the Constitutionality of the U.N. Charter that's one thing, but as it stands the POTUS is acting completely within the current law, if it is found that Article 42 of the U.N. Charter is unconstitutional remember that so too is ex post facto prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Time Lord said:
Congress ratified the U.N. Charter, the POTUS has a U.N. Mandate, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Libya operation unless you haven't actually read the Supremacy Clause which makes treaties the "Supreme Law of the Land", now if you want to challenge the Constitutionality of the U.N. Charter that's one thing, but as it stands the POTUS is acting completely within the current law, if it is found that Article 42 of the U.N. Charter is unconstitutional remember that so to is ex post facto prosecution.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the UNSC resolution that MANDATES member states to attack Libya? If there were, then EVERY UN member state would be involved in the operation.
 
ludahai said:
There is nothing in the UNSC resolution that MANDATES member states to attack Libya? If there were, then EVERY UN member state would be involved in the operation.
Click to expand...

The POTUS has a UN Mandate, I didn't say he was mandated by the UN to act, the UNSC resolution granted him authorization to act with military force under article 42 of the UN Charter which was ratified by the Senate and signed by the POTUS, the Presidents choice to act was completely within current U.S. law.
 
Time Lord said:
The POTUS has a UN Mandate, I didn't say he was mandated by the UN to act, the UNSC resolution granted him authorization to act with military force under article 42 of the UN Charter which was ratified by the Senate and signed by the POTUS, the Presidents choice to act was completely within current U.S. law.
Click to expand...

But Congress has NOT given him the authorization to act. It is Congress he serves, NOT the UNSC... This action is NOT within U.S. law...
 
And if the SCOTUS rules that the president acted in accordance with the War Powers Act and NATO treaty since direct hostile action in the Libyan ended after the first week?
 
xpiher said:
And if the SCOTUS rules that the president acted in accordance with the War Powers Act and NATO treaty since direct hostile action in the Libyan ended after the first week?
Click to expand...

If?? It won't happen as SCOTUS is about to go on its summer recess and won't return for another close to four months.
 
Ikari said:
The highest court was created in part to get in the midle of an argument between the President and Congress. Congress has ceded too much of its power and destroyed the checks and balances which are meant to be in place, particularly where the military is concerned. I damned well hope that more lawmakers join in and that we put the proper restraints on the power of the President. The President is 1 guy, he wasn't meant to have all the power. It needs to be handled and this has to result in lessening the Presidents power to use our military any way he sees fit.
Click to expand...

Very good point. However, history of the Supreme Court in dealing with issues concerning US military involvement shows the Court avoids them. They would prefer for Congress and the President to work it out. I completely agree that Congress has seeded entirely too much of its power and made essentially made the checks and balances meaningless.
 
ludahai said:
I would completely agree with that assessment. Of course, that brings up the question of what is 'war'? Frankly, President Obama's claim that there are no 'hostilities' in Libya is a bald faced lie. And the same people who defend him are the ones who accuse G.W. Bush of lying, without knowing, apparently, what the verb (or noun) 'lie' truly means in English.
Click to expand...

I defend the Libya action and I believe that Bush relied on faulty intelligence and truly believed that their were WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I don't believe he intended to deceive the American public.
 
Time Lord said:
I defend the Libya action and I believe that Bush relied on faulty intelligence and truly believed that their were WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I don't believe he intended to deceive the American public.
Click to expand...

I actually largely agree with the current action in Libya, but my devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution trumps that and in a few hours, Obama will be in technical violation of both.
 
ludahai said:
I actually largely agree with the current action in Libya,
Click to expand...
Why? What is our goal? How is the achievement of that goal in our national interest? Does the goal have a reasonable chance of accomplishment? What measures should we use to determine if we are on track to succeed or to fail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom