• 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!

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

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

Checklist:

1) Has Libya attacked us?

2) Are they an imminent threat?

3) Is there a US interest there?

4) Are we involved in a civil war?

5) Is there Congressional approval?

6) Is it in contravention of actual, codified US law?

The Obama comes up on the wrong side of each one of those questions -- keep in mind, of course, that it wasHIS side who created the checklist to begin with.

Just another of the many issues regarting The Obama that will seperate the Liberals from the partisan bigots.

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

j-mac said:
I am a humble man Joe.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you. But you likely know better as well. ;)
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

American said:
You're mincing words, Congress supported the war. That's an undeniable fact. Have another cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

no, I'm stating fact. There was no declaration of war. And support is questionable, for example Kerry voted to pass the buck but stated clearly if Bush invaded outside the UN he would oppose it. Not sure that is support. However, factually, all of them merely passed the buck.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
A resolution of force by Congress is a de facto delclaration of war.
The Constitution does not specify how a declaration need be made, and so the effect, not the text, of the resolution is all that matters.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the kind. And they did not dictate that he use force, but instead merely allowed him to decide whether to use force or not. This is a very different animal.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
no, I'm stating fact. There was no declaration of war. And support is questionable, for example Kerry voted to pass the buck but stated clearly if Bush invaded outside the UN he would oppose it. Not sure that is support. However, factually, all of them merely passed the buck.
Click to expand...

If you feel that Congress only 'passed the buck' to George Bush don't you think it wise that Obama get Congressional approval to pass the buck to him?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
It's nothing of the kind.
Click to expand...
Because....?

And they did not dictate that he use force, but instead merely allowed him to decide whether to use force or not.
Click to expand...
The exact same thing can be said for the declarations of war against, say, Japan and Germany.

This is a very different animal.
Click to expand...
As different as 'de facto' and 'actual'.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Because....?
Click to expand...

I gave you the because.

The exact same thing can be said for the declarations of war against, say, Japan and Germany.
Click to expand...

No, that can't be. A declaration of war is much more specific, and puts us at a state of war.

As different as 'de facto' and 'actual'.
Click to expand...

No, as different as an apple and a tree frog. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
If you feel that Congress only 'passed the buck' to George Bush don't you think it wise that Obama get Congressional approval to pass the buck to him?
Click to expand...

We ahven't invaded nor occupied any country here. As an element of UN support, I'm not sure it is needed. But, I ahve stated I would have prefered he asked for a specific mission and got that mission approved, and not a blanket passing of the buck.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
I gave you the because.
Click to expand...
Ah. Then your premise is unsound.

No, that can't be.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes it can. Nothing dictates the content of a declaration of war.

A declaration of war is much more specific...
Click to expand...
In what terms? What necessitates this?

and puts us at a state of war.
Click to expand...
As does any declaration of war, however worded.

No, as different as an apple and a tree frog.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, as has been shown.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
That's true, but I don't think the strategy of hoping they never get their **** together is a winner. The revolutions we're seeing, now, is another attempt at uniting all the Arab states.
Click to expand...

That's completely ridiculous and ignores reality. The reason that the Arab Spring is occurring is because people are tired of dealing with crappy, oppressive governments that only care about themselves.

If things go as I hope, which now look quite iffy, the people of the Middle East will be functioning democracies.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Ah. Then your premise is unsound.
Click to expand...

You won't mind if I completely disagree. :coffeepap

Yes, yes it can. Nothing dictates the content of a declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Only if you creatively redefine words like some do with socialism. A declaration of war is much more specific, mythical could bes aside.


In what terms? What necessitates this?
Click to expand...

DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
2. This power is vested in congress by the constitution, art. 1, s. 8. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act. A manifesto, stating the causes of the war, is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes effect. It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction. Potter, Antiquities of Greece, b. 3, c. 7; Dig. 49, 15, 24. But that is not the practice of modern times. In some countries, as England, the, power of declaring war is vested in the king, but he has no power to raise men or money to carry it on, which renders the right almost nugatory.
4. The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, which is named, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy, is also called a declaration of war.

declaration of war legal definition of declaration of war. declaration of war synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

This is legal, binding, and states congress' position. Saying you do what you want is not specific, is not laid out by the Constitution.




As does any declaration of war, however worded.
Click to expand...

Ummm, do whatever you want isn't a declaration of much of anything.

Incorrect, as has been shown.
Click to expand...

You are much easier on youself and praise you own abilites far more than I would be. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
You won't mind if I completely disagree
Click to expand...
This just means you've chosen to be wrong.

Only if you creatively redefine words like some do with socialism.
Click to expand...
There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constituttes a declaration of war.
This is absolute fact - as your sorce says: "There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act"
Anything pased to that effect is a declaration of war; the intention, not the words, are what matters.
Thus, the de facto declaration of war in the "Resolutions of Force", in that they declare Congress's approval of making war on, say, Iraq.

DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
This is legal, binding, and states congress' position.
Click to expand...
Your defintion isn't binding on anyone. Its a "legal" defintion, but not one derived from the Constitution, or any laws passed under its auspices.

Ummm, do whatever you want isn't a declaration of much of anything.
Click to expand...
Except a declaration of war.

You are much easier on youself and praise you own abilites far more than I would be.
Click to expand...
That's because you came up with a conclusion and then tried to fit facts (or something similar) around it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
This just means you've chosen to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I might say the same to you. :shrug:

There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constituttes a declaration of war.
This is absolute fact - as your sorce says: "There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act"
Anything pased to that effect is a declaration of war; the intention, not the words, are what matters.
Thus, the de facto declaration of war in the "Resolutions of Force", in that they declare Congress's approval of making war on, say, Iraq.
Your defintion isn't binding on anyone. Its a "legal" defintion, but not one derived from the Constitution, or any laws passed under its auspices.
Click to expand...

:lamo Really. Like I said, if you treat language as meaning what you want it to mean, regardless of actual definitions, you can reach the conclusions you do. But if you think words have meanings, then not so much.


Except a declaration of war.
Click to expand...

It's not that.

That's because you came up with a conclusion and then tried to fit facts (or something similar) around it.
Click to expand...

I actually believe that is what you're doing. You're ingorning what those words actually mean, and starting with belief that anything you want to be equal is. Such really isn't the case.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
I might say the same to you.
Click to expand...
And you'd again be wrong.

Really.
Click to expand...
Yes, really.
There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constitutes a declaration of war, or one pursuant to laws passed under its auspices.
Disagree? Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
And you'd again be wrong.


Yes, really.
There's no constitutional declaration or definition of what constitutes a declaration of war, or one pursuant to laws passed under its auspices.
Disagree? Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your it means whatever we want it to mean simply doesn't fly. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but your it means whatever we want it to mean simply doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.
:shrug:
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Cite the text. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

The text is in declaring war. Declaring war has a definition and isn't subject to whatever you want it to mean. Believe it or not, there is an assumption that you look up what words mean. They rarely stop and define words for you for every sentence. The text says congress is charged with declaring war and not that it can pass the buck to the president and let him declare. But hell, he didn't do that either. He just invaded.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
The text is in declaring war.
Click to expand...
I accept your admission that you cannot cite any constitutional or legsilative text that specifies the content of a declaration of war.

Given that:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?

Declaring war has a definition...
Click to expand...
You have already admitted that you cannot cite said defintion; your statement here is amusingly ironic.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
I accept your admission that you cannot cite any constitutional or legsilative text that specifies the content of a declaration of war.

Given that:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?


You have already admitted that you cannot cite said defintion; your statement here is amusingly ironic.
Click to expand...

That's a bit dishonest. I said, you're expected to look up what the words mean. Few documents stop to define all their words for the reader.

And no, saying you can do what you want is not a declaration of war. A declaration of war states that we are at a state of war, not might be at some point if the president decides to do so.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

simply put, this is not a story because the main stream media doesnt want it to be.

We have become a country that lets the media tell us what is important and what isnt.
What matters and what doesnt.

And liberals think its ok, at every turn for Obama to act like the biggest hypocrite that ever held office.

I opine that breaking the law however, has crossed the line of control.
and I also opine that he will be dealt with in 2012..

until then its just embarrasing to watch.

but...patience my fellow Americans
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

shades said:
simply put, this is not a story because the main stream media doesnt want it to be.

We have become a country that lets the media tell us what is important and what isnt.
What matters and what doesnt.

And liberals think its ok, at every turn for Obama to act like the biggest hypocrite that ever held office.

I opine that breaking the law however, has crossed the line of control.
and I also opine that he will be dealt with in 2012..

until then its just embarrasing to watch.

but...patience my fellow Americans
Click to expand...

Or that it has been reported, but your bias has not been prominate, and you want the media to reflect your bais. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
We ahven't invaded nor occupied any country here. As an element of UN support, I'm not sure it is needed. But, I ahve stated I would have prefered he asked for a specific mission and got that mission approved, and not a blanket passing of the buck.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that this action doesn’t fall under the War Powers Act simply because Obama hasn’t sent ground forces into Libya?

If so, Obama obviously disagreed with you prior to being elected President but now that he is President he has changed his mind.

You see, you can’t say it would be unconstitutional for a president to bomb the nuclear facilities of an enemy state (Iran) that is developing weapons that might be used on the US or its allies in the future and then say that it is constitutional to bomb Libya where no threat is even espoused to exist.

Obama has broken his oath of office (preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States) by bombing Libya, with or without congressional approval, according to his own words.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
but your bias has not been prominate
Click to expand...

prominate?

LOL!

what was that again about words and definitions?

dept chair, huh?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
Are you implying that this action doesn’t fall under the War Powers Act simply because Obama hasn’t sent ground forces into Libya?

If so, Obama obviously disagreed with you prior to being elected President but now that he is President he has changed his mind.

You see, you can’t say it would be unconstitutional for a president to bomb the nuclear facilities of an enemy state (Iran) that is developing weapons that might be used on the US or its allies in the future and then say that it is constitutional to bomb Libya where no threat is even espoused to exist.

Obama has broken his oath of office (preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States) by bombing Libya, with or without congressional approval, according to his own words.
Click to expand...

no, I'm saying Obama is working with the UN and as such is different. Bush was both outside the UN and without a declaration of war, giving little to no legitimacy to his actions.

and no, I don't believe Obama has broken his oath even though I would have prefered he went to congress.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
That's a bit dishonest.
Click to expand...
Net effect is the same. You can cite no such defintion, and so your defintion has nothing other than your preference behind it.

A declaration of war states that we are at a state of war...
Click to expand...
Please cite the constitional/legislative text to that effect.

I ask again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom