Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4048495051 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 503

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

  1. #491
    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 ManofthPeephole View Post
    based on what, exactly?



    I see absolutely nothing in this quote that lends credence to your interpretation, especially considering that the UN charter specifically denotes that military action, on behalf of the UN, must comply with each nations domestic code
    There are links earlier in the thread, and actually part of the justification being used. Now, you may say this is an incorrect reading of the law, and I'm willing to let lawyers settle it, but let's not pretend there isn't a disagreement on this.

    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. #492
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattillac View Post
    Nobody remembers the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric?
    Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.

    Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."

    Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.

    "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."

    THE AXIS PANDEMIC

    International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

    Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.

    With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.

    "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

    While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

    Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
    ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA, SYRIA FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL*|*SatireWire | dot.com.edy

  3. #493
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-06-11 @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,006

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

    1) do you remember the page number?

    2) rereading the quote I provided, I still see absolutely no basis for your claim that it referred to only operations outside of the UN. In fact, it makes absolutely no mention of it. So regardless of what the specific law says, or what someone's interpretation of it is, there is no basis to say there was such a caveat contained in the remark under discussion

  4. #494
    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 ManofthPeephole View Post
    1) do you remember the page number?

    2) rereading the quote I provided, I still see absolutely no basis for your claim that it referred to only operations outside of the UN. In fact, it makes absolutely no mention of it. So regardless of what the specific law says, or what someone's interpretation of it is, there is no basis to say there was such a caveat contained in the remark under discussion
    No, I don't. Might even have been on the other thread on this issue. but, I'd state with Articles 43 and 45 of the UN charter. These are things we've agreed to, hence the law.

    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.

  5. #495
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-06-11 @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, I don't. Might even have been on the other thread on this issue. but, I'd state with Articles 43 and 45 of the UN charter. These are things we've agreed to, hence the law.
    you mean the article that states "The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and ***shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.***"?

    again, clearly being a UN action does not grant the president the power to ignore his constitutional requirments

    *secondly*, you have provided nothing lending any credence to your interpretation of Obama's remarks, concerning the POTUS's power to wage war
    Last edited by ManofthPeephole; 06-06-11 at 04:09 PM.

  6. #496
    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 ManofthPeephole View Post
    you mean the article that states "The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and ***shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.***"?

    again, clearly being a UN action does not grant the president the power to ignore his constitutional requirments

    *secondly*, you have provided nothing lending any credence to your interpretation of Obama's remarks, concerning the POTUS's power to wage war
    More this one:

    Article 45: In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


    However, let me quote someone who agrees with you:

    In the President's favor is that he did brief Congressional leaders about this matter, thus substantially complying with the disclosure provisions of the WPA. (See Section 1543 of the Act requiring the President to issue a "report, in writing" to Congress within 48 hours of the introduction of U.S. military forces into hostilities.) In addition, at least one portion of the War Powers Act – the provision in Section 1544 authorizing Congress to order the President to remove troops by adopting a "concurrent resolution" is almost certain unconstitutional under the principles set forth in the case of INS v. Chadha (1983).

    There is a further consideration. The War Powers Act is probably not enforceable in the courts. The dispute over the constitutionality of the President's action is probably a political question, not a legal question. No court is going to order the withdrawal of the armed forces from a theater of war nor will the F.B.I. arrest the President for conducting an illegal war. Instead, the War Powers Act is on the books to justify impeachment. Violation of the War Powers Act would certainly constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" justifying removal from office.

    In short, the War Powers Act is not so much a law as it is a declaration of poltical power – a warning to Presidents not to start unpopular wars. It was enacted so that Congress could more easily justify removing a President from office if the President should commit acts of war that are not supported by the American people. In this case the majority of Congress and the American people seem to support the military action in Libya. There has been no serious attempt to oppose our involvement. If Congress or the people should turn against the President on this issue, however, the President would proceed at his own risk.

    The Constitutionality of Military Action Against Libya | theConstitutional.org

    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.

  7. #497
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-06-11 @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    More this one:

    The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43
    again, from resolution 43: "The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and ***shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.***"

    secondly, you have, again, failed to cite anything from Obama's statement that lends *any* credibility to your interpretation of it

  8. #498
    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 ManofthPeephole View Post
    again, from resolution 43: "The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and ***shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.***"

    secondly, you have, again, failed to cite anything from Obama's statement that lends *any* credibility to your interpretation of it
    Allow me to continue now that I'm back:

    ....When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes.

    The War Powers Resolution: An Unnecessary, Unconstitutional Source of "Friendly Fire" in the War Against International Terrorism? Publications The Federalist Society

    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.

  9. #499
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-06-11 @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Allow me to continue now that I'm back:

    ....When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes.

    The War Powers Resolution: An Unnecessary, Unconstitutional Source of "Friendly Fire" in the War Against International Terrorism? Publications The Federalist Society
    So you're claiming that despite any actual legislation defining the presidents power as such, that various opinions of congressional committees amount to actual law?

    Seems rather weak, to say the least

    PS you still haven't quoted anything lending legitimacy to your interpretation Of Obama's statement

  10. #500
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I choose that one, and refer to the WPA.
    Nice. But the Congress did not authorize it.

Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4048495051 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
  •