Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 503

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

  1. #361
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Scary? You? Nah...I'd say with the ever moving goalposts and 1000 shades of gray to hide you having to admit your constant inaccuracy, that would be more like frustration. But you are fun to bat around.

    J-mac
    J, you not understanding or not wanting to really no isn't a changing goalpost. Sorry.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #362
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    J, you not understanding or not wanting to really no isn't a changing goalpost. Sorry.
    Lol. Now that is funny.

    J-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #363
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Lol. Now that is funny.

    J-mac
    True though j. Sadly. I do so wish it weren't.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #364
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Often asking a simple question is code for I only want the answer I want and don't really want to know what think. I have come to understand this. And this tactic is a lot easier than trying to actual understand and address a topic.
    You don't even need to explain with these answers. All you need to do is say you agree or dissagree.

    1. Candidate Obama submitted a written response to the questions so it would be reasonable to expect that he was clear and complete on his positions/opinions. Agree or disagree?

    2. Candidate Obama was clearly asked to assume that the theoretical bombing was not a situation that involved stopping an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?

    3. Candidate Obama clearly stated that the President does not have the power “under the Constitution” to “attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. Agree or disagree?

    4. Candidate Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard University so it would be reasonable to expect that he understands that the War Powers Resolution can’t supersede the Constitution unless it is an actual amendment to said Constitution. Agree or disagree?

    "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.

  5. #365
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    not wanting to really no
    he doesn't want to no?

    LOL!

    i guess he's not a dept chair

  6. #366
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    You don't even need to explain with these answers. All you need to do is say you agree or dissagree.

    1. Candidate Obama submitted a written response to the questions so it would be reasonable to expect that he was clear and complete on his positions/opinions. Agree or disagree?
    Agreed.

    2. Candidate Obama was clearly asked to assume that the theoretical bombing was not a situation that involved stopping an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?
    Disagree. I have no idea what theoretical bombing you're referring to. Please explain, as well as, outline how such a bombing fits with the issue at hand as it applies to envoking the Constitution.

    3. Candidate Obama clearly stated that the President does not have the power “under the Constitution” to “attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. Agree or disagree?
    Correct, and I agreed with you.

    4. Candidate Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard University so it would be reasonable to expect that he understands that the War Powers Resolution can’t supersede the Constitution unless it is an actual amendment to said Constitution. Agree or disagree?
    As Congress has the power to write laws they deem "necessary and proper" for the good of the Nation, and the War Power's Act was approved by Congress over Presidential Nixon's veto, President Obama and ever succeeding president who comes after him can do exactly what he did concerning committing armed forces to Libya.

    You understand this and I'll make it very clear to you and everyone else who believe the President has violated the Constitution concerning Lybia: CONGRESS, using their veto power under Article 1, Section 7, made the War Powers Act a law.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be [COLOR="red"][B]presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
    So, if Congress overroad a sitting President's veto and made a bill a law by 2/3's majority vote, and no one from Congress has brought the matter before the Supreme Court who per the Constitution has the power to interpret the law, don't you think the President would envoke the very power Congress gave him as he sees fit?

  7. #367
    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

    I said:
    2. Candidate Obama was clearly asked to assume that the theoretical bombing was not a situation that involved stopping an imminent threat. Agree or disagree?
    You replied:
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Disagree. I have no idea what theoretical bombing you're referring to. Please explain, as well as, outline how such a bombing fits with the issue at hand as it applies to envoking the Constitution.
    I thought you read the OP. Let me go over it again for you.

    Question the reporter posed to candidate Obama:
    In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
    And Obama replied by saying "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

    I guess that resolves #2 agreed?

    I said:
    4. Candidate Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard University so it would be reasonable to expect that he understands that the War Powers Resolution can’t supersede the Constitution unless it is an actual amendment to said Constitution. Agree or disagree?
    You replied:
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    As Congress has the power to write laws they deem "necessary and proper" for the good of the Nation, and the War Power's Act was approved by Congress over Presidential Nixon's veto, President Obama and ever succeeding president who comes after him can do exactly what he did concerning committing armed forces to Libya.

    You understand this and I'll make it very clear to you and everyone else who believe the President has violated the Constitution concerning Lybia: CONGRESS, using their veto power under Article 1, Section 7, made the War Powers Act a law.
    Here is a quote from Article. VI. Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
    Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
    The bold part in the above quote is pretty important. The SCOTUS has overturned laws passed by Congress several times. See Marbury v. Madison.

    Your relply continued:
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    So, if Congress overroad a sitting President's veto and made a bill a law by 2/3's majority vote, and no one from Congress has brought the matter before the Supreme Court who per the Constitution has the power to interpret the law, don't you think the President would envoke the very power Congress gave him as he sees fit?
    This would be a reasonable expectation if the War Powers Resolution didn’t say:

    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541
    § 1541. Purpose and policy
    .....

    (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

    The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

    (1) a declaration of war,
    (2) specific statutory authorization, or
    (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    You see, this is what candidate Obama was referring to when he said it would be unconstitutional for the President to bomb Iran in the article I quoted.


    Now how can you, in all honesty, tell me that candidate Obama hasn’t changed his mind on this issue now that he is President? It is clear that he wasn’t referring to the War Powers Resolution because he didn’t quote it other than the part I just quoted from it.

    "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.

  8. #368
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Sorry GPS, I'm late to the party.

    I haven't bothered to read everyone else's poss, but what I'm most curious about is how THIS fits into the whole picture.

    That being said, it is my opinion that every foreign military intervention requires a declaration of war from Congress. And by all accounts, NATO and the US's actions in Libya amount to war, even if many politicians are too PC to admit it.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  9. #369
    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 StillBallin75 View Post
    Sorry GPS, I'm late to the party.

    I haven't bothered to read everyone else's poss, but what I'm most curious about is how THIS fits into the whole picture.

    That being said, it is my opinion that every foreign military intervention requires a declaration of war from Congress. And by all accounts, NATO and the US's actions in Libya amount to war, even if many politicians are too PC to admit it.
    You are always invited and welcome to my parties StillBallin.

    If you checked out the OP you will see that the main question is “what has changed?”

    A declaration of war isn’t required, according to the War Powers Resolution, if the US is attacked or an imminent threat exists etc.

    This is the position candidate Obama took when running for President in 2007. The discussion now has wrongly changed to whether or not Obama is in compliance with the War Powers Resolution simply because he “informed Congress” and has a 60-90 day time frame to withdraw troops if he can’t get approval from Congress.

    I pointed out that no matter how you interpret the War Powers Act, you can’t deny that Obama has changed his position on the constitutionality of actions such as he has taken in Libya.

    Feel free to jump in.

    Let me clarify: Candidate Obama said it would be unconstitutional for the President to bomb Iran nuke facilities but he now thinks bombing Libya is constitutional. That is it in a nutshell.
    Last edited by GPS_Flex; 05-30-11 at 01:47 AM. Reason: Clarity

    "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.

  10. #370
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,099

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

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-107publ40.htm

    Public Law 107-40
    107th Congress

    Joint Resolution

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
    responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
    States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
    committed against the United States and its citizens; and
    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
    United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
    United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
    policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
    and
    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
    to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
    and
    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
    action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
    the United States: Now, therefore, be it


    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
    States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
    of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
    Military Force''.

    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
    authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
    nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
    committed, or aided
    the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
    2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
    future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
    nations, organizations or persons.


    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
    (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
    section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
    declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
    statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
    the War Powers Resolution.


    [[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

    (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
    resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
    Resolution.

    Approved September 18, 2001.
    The War Power Act sections mentioned above.

    War Powers Resolution of 1973
    SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
    (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution
    SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
    SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
    (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances
    I am no lawyer, but in my novice opinion any nation that could be even remotely linked to future acts of aggression towards the US or is interests abroad could be invaded without congressional authorization according to the legislation above. I think initially that allowed us to invade Afghanistan, it doesn't have a expiration date from what I have read and doesn't mention specific nations etc.

Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •