Nah, he's a kook. But don't take my word for it pal, read your own liberal shill for Obama...Politifact.
Let’s start with the fact that as a sitting US Senator and Presidential candidate, Obama clearly stated that the President of the US does not have the Constitutional authority to use force without authorization from Congress unless there is a situation that involves stopping an imminent threat or the US is attacked.
Senator and Presidential candidate Obama’s written response to the Boston Globe:
If you read the above quote and come to any conclusion other than the fact that Candidate Obama was expressing his opinion that the President is required by the Constitution to obtain Congressional approval for strategic bombings where no imminent threat exists and no attack on the US have occurred, we are done talking because these are WRITTEN responses to the Boston Globe and Obama was a Constitutional Professor at Harvard, so it isn’t like he got cut off in his answer or forgot to include something relevant.Question: 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?)
Obama: 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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
Now to the current Libya conflict. Political hacks might try to find a way to claim Libya was an imminent threat to the US but Obama himself hasn’t even tried to make that argument. In fact, he did the exact opposite. He tried to justify his use of force by claiming that if it is in the United States’ interests, he can and will unilaterally authorize the use of force as he did in Libya.
In attempting to explain and justify this war with Libya and in utter and complete contrast to his written comments to the Boston Globe, Obama repeatedly references the United Nations Security Council’s Authorization for the use of force and never once mentions his Constitutional authority to wage war without Congress’s consent. Even the most jello brained koolaid drinking liberals can see that this is an obvious flip-flop from what he promised as Presidential Candidate Obama.
Don’t take my word for it though. View his words and his Press Secretary’s words for yourself. I have even provided you with relevant timeframes and typed the quotes from those timeframes.
March 18, 2011, Obama speech on Libya
EXHIBIT ‘C’3:45 to 4:15 – "The United Nations Security Council has authorized the use of force"
5:15 to 5:30 - "If Gaddafi does not comply, the UN resolution will be enforced through military action"
7:30 to 7:45 – “as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law”
8:45 to 9:00 “the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security”
March 28, 2011, Obama speech on Libya
EXHIBIT ‘D’1:25 to 1:50 – "When our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what’s happened in Libya."
5:00 to 5:20 - "At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that AUTHORIZED a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air and further AUTHORIZED all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people."
6:25 to 7:35 - "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so 9 days ago, after consulting the bi-partisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973."
13:00 to 15:00 - "Some question why America should intervene at all, even in limited ways, in this distant land……It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever oppression occurs. Given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action, but that cannot be an argument for NEVER acting on behalf of what’s right. …….[In Libya, we had] an international mandate for action. ….As President, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
15:30 to 15:45 - "The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security."
16:45 to 17:00 - "The task that I assigned our forces, to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a no-fly zone, carries with it a UN Mandate and international support."
19:05 to 19:45 - "Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power and America’s broader leadership in the world under my Presidency………I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."
20:00 to 21:00 - "There will be times though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are….[common humanity, responding to natural disasters, preventing genocide, keeping the peace] These may not be America’s problems alone but they are important to us, they’re problems worth solving, and in these circumstances we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. In such cases, we should not be afraid to act."
May 20, 2011 – White House Press Briefing
In summary, the above quotes and videos make it very clear to anyone with an IQ above 25 that Obama (and many others in the Democratic Party) held a completely different view on the Presidential power to use military force without Congressional authorization when Bush was in office.16:00 to 17:50 - Q: Libya. War Powers Act. Is there movement on that from your perspective? Will there be consultation with Congress? We are at a deadline on that.
A: As you know, my President has been in consultation with Congress on Libya from the beginning and the President’s actions have been and are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and we have said from the beginning that we would welcome an expression of support from the Congress, in this case similar to the one that has been put forward by Senators McCain & Kerry and again, we have consulted with Congress, will continue to consult with Congress and would welcome their support.
Q: Is there a feeling though that he needs to ask for authorization for a continued operation?
A: I would just say that the President has acted in a way that has been consistent with the War Powers Resolution and would welcome an expression of support by Congress.
Q: Do you have a legal justification that you can share with us that sort of, that like you guys have thought on this just to make sure that you are…(interrupted)
A: Ed, you know. I’m not aware. Look, there is, there has been a long debate in this country about, which we do not need to replicate here, because the amount, stuff written about the War Powers Resolution over the years could fill this room and none of it would be conclusive. We believe the President has acted consistent in a way that’s consistent with the War Powers Resolution and has consulted, he believes that consultation with Congress in matters like these is vital and that’s why he has consulted so, uh, regularly with Congress and will continue to do so and he would welcome support from Congress, of the kind put forward in that resolution that I mentioned.
42:30 to End - Q: Let me follow up on a question about the War Powers Act. I don’t understand how the US is behaving in a way that is consistent with the War Powers Act.
A: I spoke at length about this when you were out of the room. The President …..
Q: I was sitting here but you didn’t say anything. It’s been 60 days and 60 days expires today for Congressional authorization, notification, 60 days expires today so how is this consistent?
A: The President believes that he is acting and has acted consistent with the War Powers Resolution and we can have a debate, which could spend the afternoon, and there’s volumes and volumes written about the application and issues involving the War Powers Resolution. I’m not going to do that from here. The President looks forward to, would welcome support from Congress on this issue and that’s all I’m going to say.
It also makes clear that Obama NOW thinks that UN authorization is more important than Congressional authorization because he throws out his UN Mandate at every opportunity (at least a half dozen times in every speech on Libya) and only says that he would welcome an expression of support from Congress when challenged on the Constitutionality of his actions and the expired 60 day requirement for Congressional approval.
So in spite of your assertion that this has nothing to do with the President setting a precedent by ignoring the War Powers Act while claiming he got authorization from the United Nations for his war, this is exactly what he is doing. He can claim that he is in compliance with the War Powers Act until he is blue in the face but he can’t hide from his own words about the Constitutionality of the actions he has taken as President.
Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible. Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001
Perhaps you are such a tool of the left that you unconditionally believe the tripe they try to pass off as fact without bothering to educate yourself? Only a jackass political homer hack who roots for his/her team till the end, come hell or high waters, as if it were a baseball, football etc. game would read this Senate resolution and interpret it as Congressional authorization for the use of military force. Even then, most sports fan homers have more common sense than this.
I would ask if you have even read the resolution but the mere fact that you claim this is a Congressional authorization for war based upon the article you posted makes clear that you have no respect for the rule of law and are a political “homer” who is incapable of independent thought or you are a political hack who is more interested in getting a “team win” than being real and honest about what is really going on.
For those of you who aren’t political homers/hacks, The first obvious failure with this lame attempt to pretend that Obama sought and received Congressional authorization for this war with Libya is that “Congress” consists of more than just the Senate. Congressional authorization/consultation for war requires passage by both houses of Congress.
Rather than a link to a political hack article, I will provide you a link to the resolution that was referenced. As you will see once you read this resolution, congress was simply condemning violent attacks on protesters. Even the left wing political hack news pundits like the article’s author admit that it was a non-binding resolution and carried no force of law. Only political hacks/homers like Chappy consider this a relevant Senate resolution when considering the War Powers Act or the Constitution of the US so it is a feeble attempt at tricking those of us who care about the law into wrongly thinking that the law has been followed.
I have nothing but virulent disdain for people like Chappy because they make America weak and try to poison people’s minds with untruths like this.
Here is the Senate Resolution. You be the judge.:
SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
Don't take my word for it, read the whole thing.
Everyone in this thread is ignoring the NATO treaty. Look up what the treaty says. It's possible that the NATO treaty makes congressional approval irrelevant