Page 25 of 51 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 503

Thread: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

  1. #241
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I rather doubt that foreign treaties supersede American laws.

    Can you support this claim with any documentation?
    Treaties are the law of the land.

  2. #242
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I'm not saying any of that. What I am saying, is that unless American combat units have been in theater for the past 90 days, without Congressional approval, Obama isn't in violation of the law.

    And, anyone that can't tell us what units are currently deployed to the TO and still insists that Obama is breaking the law, is talking out they booty.

    The next step in this debate should be to find out which--if any--units are operating in Libya and then debate whether, or not, Obama broke the law.
    You meant to say 60 days above right? If not, where do you come up with the 90 days?

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  3. #243
    Advisor ADG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Purple Mountains Majesty
    Last Seen
    07-02-11 @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    399

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    This is where I part company with the President. They are dressing up their actions just like every administration before them since the WPA was enacted. This is a violation of the WPA and of the constitution. If, as a liberal, you thought that the Iraq invasion was illegal, then you need to say the same thing about this issue. I find it distressing that Dems are largely silent on this, but not surprising. And I find it amusing that many members of the GOP have now found new respect for the constitution now that a Dem President is abusing it and not their own anymore.
    "Action expresses priorities."
    ~Mohandas Gandhi

  4. #244
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

    ABC NEWS LINK: HERE




    In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said BOSTON GLOBE LINK

    In the above article he goes on to say “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

    Candidate Obama seemed to think that it was important that the American people knew what his positions were and went so far as to speak about the trust the American people must have in someone whom they might elect President. Here are his words again:



    In lite of the fact that he started a war Libya, what has changed since then, other than the fact that he is now President and there aren’t any real anti-war protests anymore? President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.

    Obama is not alone in his flip-floppery either. Vice President Biden, then Senator and Presidential candidate Biden, threatened to impeach then President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites claiming that the President has no Constitutional authority to take America to war unless we are attacked or there is proof that we are about to be attacked (see videos below).





    What has changed? Why aren’t the American people outraged? I suspect it is because the majority of Americans want to support this President and want to see him succeed so badly that they allow him to lull them into utter ignorance by twisting words and coming up with phrases like “non-kinetic operations” and “reduce spending in the tax code”. If you plan to raise taxes and you call it “to reduce spending in the tax code”, you aren’t being honest and real with the American people.

    However, when you take the country to war and claim that it isn’t a war because we are now only performing “non-kinetic operations”, you are basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was never at war with the US because he only engaged in “non-kinetic operations” aren’t you?

    I would agree there should be Congressional approval, however I've not heard of any kind of Congressional statement that they even want to decide the question. How would you go about forcing Congress to vote on it?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #245
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I rather doubt that foreign treaties supersede American laws.

    Can you support this claim with any documentation?
    Treaties don't supersede federal law but they do become federal law. If there is a federal law on the books prior to a conflicting treaty being signed, the existing law supersedes. Congress can revise or repeal treaties ass well.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  6. #246
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I would agree there should be Congressional approval, however I've not heard of any kind of Congressional statement that they even want to decide the question. How would you go about forcing Congress to vote on it?
    It isn’t a question of forcing a vote. The President needs to stop the conflict or be impeached for violating the law.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  7. #247
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    It isn’t a question of forcing a vote. The President needs to stop the conflict or be impeached for violating the law.
    What if Congress doesn't want to vote on whether to participate in the NATO action, which appears to be the case since they have not demanded they vote on it?

    Congress has been invited to decide on continued support for the UN action -

    "President Obama asked congressional leaders late Friday for a resolution of support for continuing the military involvement."



    It will be interesting to see if they decide to vote on it or stay safely non-committal as they have been up to this point!
    Last edited by Catawba; 05-23-11 at 06:43 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #248
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Treaties are the law of the land.
    In terms of actions by the states, yes, as per th Eastablishment clause, which specifies as much.
    Treaties are, constitutionally, not binding on the US government and carry no force of law regarding same.

  9. #249
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Treaties don't supersede federal law but they do become federal law. If there is a federal law on the books prior to a conflicting treaty being signed, the existing law supersedes. Congress can revise or repeal treaties ass well.
    Congress, unless specifically given the power to do so, cannot repeal or revoke treaties.

  10. #250
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    Congress, unless specifically given the power to do so, cannot repeal or revoke treaties.
    In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.
    See the Head Money Cases: 112 U.S. 580

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

Page 25 of 51 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •