• 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

Only to those with the aforementioned sub-third-grade understanding of the law - such as, obviously, yourself.

Until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.

Not true. You're asking for something not needed. The fact is words eman what they mean.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Not true. You're asking for something not needed.
Again, only to those with the aforementioned sub-third-grade understanding of the law - such as, obviously, yourself.

Until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Again, only to those with the aforementioned sub-third-grade understanding of the law - such as, obviously, yourself.

Until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.

Again, you're wrong. You're just seeking a way to ingore the actual defintion.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Again, you're wrong. You're just seeking a way to ingore the actual defintion.
The "actual definition" - the legal defintion of a legal term - can only be found in the Constitution or the law that surrounds it.
Please cite.

Until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

One, he's not doing the same thing. YOu can't comapre apples and tree frogs and pretend they are the exact same. This has been the UN and NATO and not the US going out on their own.

Secondly, while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went to congress. Want to bet republicans would have treated this differently if he had? :coffeepap

Obama, Cameron liken 'Arab spring' to Cold War - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The UN and NATO, eh? Obama is washing his hands of this, is he? Not involved, is he? The US and UK are one, read on!
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The "actual definition" - the legal defintion of a legal term - can only be found in the Constitution or the law that surrounds it.
Please cite.

Until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.

That's not true. The constitution isn't a dictionary and doesn't define words.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That's not true. The constitution isn't a dictionary and doesn't define words.
I cannot help you with your willfull ignorance.
You -choose- to be wrong. Enjoy.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I cannot help you with your willfull ignorance.
You -choose- to be wrong. Enjoy.

I was thinking the same about you. But words that come under dispute are argued, often using things like dictionaries. The Constitution doesn't define these words. You are simply wrong in what you're saying.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

One, he's not doing the same thing. YOu can't comapre apples and tree frogs and pretend they are the exact same. This has been the UN and NATO and not the US going out on their own.

Secondly, while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went to congress. Want to bet republicans would have treated this differently if he had? :coffeepap

That doesn't matter, because the WAP still applies.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That doesn't matter, because the WAP still applies.

I think this applies:

United Nations Actions

U.N. Security Council resolutions provide authority for U.S. action under international law. Whether congressional authorization is required under domestic law depends on the types of U.N. action and is governed by the Constitution, the U.N. Participation Act (P.L. 79-264, as amended), as well as by the War Powers Resolution. Section 8(b) of the War Powers Resolution exempts only participation in headquarters operations of joint military commands established prior to 1973.

For armed actions under Articles 42 and 43 of the U.N. Charter, Section 6 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the President to negotiate special agreements with the Security Council, subject to the approval of Congress, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces and facilities to be made available to the Security Council. Once the agreements have been concluded, further congressional authorization is not necessary, but no such agreements have been concluded. Some Members have sought to encourage negotiation of military agreements under Article 43 of the U.N. Charter. Questions include whether congressional approval is required only for an initial agreement on providing peacekeeping forces in general, or for each agreement to provide forces in specific situations, and how such approvals would relate to the War Powers Resolution.

Section 7 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the detail of up to 1,000 personnel to serve in any noncombatant capacity for certain U.N. peaceful settlement activities. The United States has provided personnel to several U.N. peacekeeping missions, such as observers to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine. In these instances, controversy over the need for congressional authorization has not occurred because the action appeared to fall within the authorization in Section 7 of the Participation Act. Controversy has arisen when forces have been deployed in larger numbers or as possible combatants.

In the 103rd Congress, Members used several vehicles in seeking some control over future peacekeeping actions wherever they might occur. Both the Defense Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-139 (Section 8153), and for FY1995, P.L. 103-335 (Section 8103), stated the sense of Congress that funds should not be used for U.N. peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations unless the President consulted with Congress at least 15 days in advance whenever possible. Section 1502 of the Defense Authorization for FY1994, P.L. 103-60, required the President to submit by April 1, 1994, a report on multinational peacekeeping including the requirement of congressional approval for participation and the applicability of the War Powers Resolution and the U.N. Participation Act.

Along similar lines, the conference report on the Department of State Appropriations Act for FY1994, H.R. 2519 (P.L. 103-121, signed October 27, 1993), called for the Secretary of State to notify both Appropriations Committees 15 days in advance, where practicable, of a vote by the U.N. Security Council to establish any new or expanded peacekeeping mission. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, P.L. 103-236, signed April 30, 1994, established new requirements for consultation with Congress on U.S. Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations. Section 407 required monthly consultations on the status of peacekeeping operations and advance reports on resolutions that would authorize a new U.N. peacekeeping operation. It also required 15 days' advance notice of any U.S. assistance to support U.N. peacekeeping operations and a quarterly report on all assistance that had been provided to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations. To permit Presidential flexibility, conferees explained, the quarterly report need not include temporary duty assignments of U.S. personnel in support of peacekeeping operations of less than twenty personnel in any one case.

The following discussion provides background on major cases of U.S. military involvement in overseas operations in recent years that have raised War Powers questions.

War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That doesn't matter, because the WAP still applies.

Is NATO subject to WPA?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

If Congress doesn't vote on authorization, then Obama doesn't have authorization, by default. Vote, or no vote, if Congress doesn't authorize him to continue operations, then he will be in violation of the War Powers Act if he were to proceed with any operations that may be going on.

Obama has officially requested their decision for our continued participation in the NATO action, if they decide to take the cowardly route and not officially express their approval or disapproval, it simply means they do not have an opinion either way as far as I have been able to determine.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Is NATO subject to WPA?

That is the question:

By Friday, the administration’s legal team is likely to announce that the clock stopped ticking on April 1 — the date when NATO “took the lead” in the bombing campaign. Since NATO is running the show, the argument will go, the War Powers Act no longer applies, and the president doesn’t have to go back to Congress after all.

NATO and the Death of the War Powers Act? | Atlantic Council
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

A NATO, rather than unilateral, action does not relive the CinC of his responsibilities under the WPA, and does not modify the substance of The Obama's statement.

I've not seen proof of your opinion there.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Nothing requires a vote.

I would have thought the dignity of not being seen as a coward by not placing a public vote for the record would have been enough for them to have voted by now. So far, only a few individuals have had the guts to take a stand on their position.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Is NATO subject to WPA?

No, but American units that participate in NATO operations are.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Obama has officially requested their decision for our continued participation in the NATO action, if they decide to take the cowardly route and not officially express their approval or disapproval, it simply means they do not have an opinion either way as far as I have been able to determine.

Actually, if they don't authorize further operations, all combat operations must cease and desist within 30 days.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Actually, if they don't authorize further operations, all combat operations must cease and desist within 30 days.

Thanks for your opinion! :sun
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Thanks for your opinion! :sun

That's not my opinion.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

That's not my opinion.

Please link me to the court decision that ruled as you state on this matter.

And why do you think Congress has not taken a stand on our participation in Libya over the last two months?
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I've not seen proof of your opinion there.
The proof is in the text of the WPA, and The Obama's staement, in that neither makes an exception for military action in concert with treaty partners.
Consider also that nothing in the NATO treaty compells the US to act in concert with her NATO allies in Libya.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I would have thought the dignity of not being seen as a coward...
Of course you would - but your "thought" to this effect isn't compelling in any way.
Congress has every right to choose to not to act; nothing can force Congress to hold a vote.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Game over. Congress approved this yesterday.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Thanks for your opinion! :sun
That's not an opinion; it is, with clarification, a fact.

If Congress refuses to authorize further operations, all combat operations must cease and desist within 30 days, else The Obama will be in violation of the WPA.

This should anger everyone to the Nth degree, although His partisan supporters will continue to defend Him.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Game over. Congress approved this yesterday.

Do you have a link for that news item? I found this from just 2 hours ago -

"Washington (CNN) -- The exact timing of a Senate vote on a resolution to back U.S. military action in Libya is not decided, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday, adding the vote would not come this month.

Specifically, he said the vote would not happen before the Memorial Day recess, which begins when senators leave this week and is scheduled to run through June 5."
Reid: Senate not to vote on Libya resolution this month - CNN.com
 
Back
Top Bottom