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

GPS_Flex · May 27, 2011

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

The Prof said:
not as illegal?

illegality by degree?

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

Boo Radley said:
There are aras of gray, yes. Some of Bush's actions, for example, are more in a gray area than others.

The Prof said:
oh, absolutely, sydney

barack the slasher's actions in libya are simply not quite as illegal as w-stands-for-what's-his-name's in iraq

LOL!

good thinking!

I gave up on Boo and Catawba a while ago. Some liberals will always try to find a way to avoid answering simple questions.

I have proven that Obama changed his position on the Constitutionality of Presidential use of force once he became President but they will continue to try to spin it a different way and will never answer the tough questions because they put party before country.

It blows me away that there are so many Americans who have no principals other than principles the party of their choice defines for them. It is this attitude that is destroying our great nation and it isn’t exclusive to democrats either; too many republicans do exactly the same thing.

Boo Radley · May 28, 2011

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

GPS_Flex said:
I gave up on Boo and Catawba a while ago. Some liberals will always try to find a way to avoid answering simple questions.

I have proven that Obama changed his position on the Constitutionality of Presidential use of force once he became President but they will continue to try to spin it a different way and will never answer the tough questions because they put party before country.

It blows me away that there are so many Americans who have no principals other than principles the party of their choice defines for them. It is this attitude that is destroying our great nation and it isn’t exclusive to democrats either; too many republicans do exactly the same thing.

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. :coffeepap

The Prof · May 28, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
Often asking a simple question is code for I only want the answer I want

says the person who links to sydney, australia on behalf of new york public school teachers

and don't really want to know what think

incoherent, chairman

this tactic is a lot easier than trying to actual understand and address a topic

exactly

such as obama's actions in libya being less illegal than w's in iraq

LOL!

Boo Radley · May 28, 2011

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

Being scared isn't good reason to ignore the debate before you Prof. :coffeepap

The Prof · May 28, 2011

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

what's to be scared of?

LOL!

it's only a little illegal

Boo Radley · May 28, 2011

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

The Prof said:
what's to be scared of?

LOL!

it's only a little illegal

I don't think I'm all that scary. But as you avoid actual debate with and instead resort to everything but, I can only conclude that I scare you. Anytime you want to actaully participate and be serious, let me know. :coffeepap

The Prof · May 28, 2011

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

resort to quotebox

Boo Radley said:
while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went (sic) to congress.

LOL!

it's hard to be serious with a hicup

PzKfW IVe · May 28, 2011

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

The Prof said:
what's to be scared of?
LOL!
it's only a little illegal

Its OK to break the law when you have a (D) after your name.

The Prof · May 28, 2011

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

you don't understand

the slasher isn't breaking the law as much

LOL!

cheers!

j-mac · May 28, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
I don't think I'm all that scary. But as you avoid actual debate with and instead resort to everything but, I can only conclude that I scare you. Anytime you want to actaully participate and be serious, let me know. :coffeepap

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

Boo Radley · May 28, 2011

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

j-mac said:
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. :coffeepap

j-mac · May 28, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
J, you not understanding or not wanting to really no isn't a changing goalpost. Sorry. :coffeepap

Lol. Now that is funny.

J-mac

Boo Radley · May 28, 2011

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

j-mac said:
Lol. Now that is funny.

J-mac

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

GPS_Flex · May 29, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
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. :coffeepap

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?

The Prof · May 29, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
not wanting to really no

he doesn't want to no?

LOL!

i guess he's not a dept chair

Objective Voice · May 29, 2011

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

GPS_Flex said:
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 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?

GPS_Flex · May 29, 2011

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:

Objective Voice said:
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:

Objective Voice said:
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:

Objective Voice said:
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.

StillBallin75 · May 30, 2011

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.

GPS_Flex · May 30, 2011

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

StillBallin75 said:
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.

Utility Man · May 30, 2011

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

j-mac · May 30, 2011

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

mattillac said:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

The War Power Act sections mentioned above.

War Powers Resolution of 1973

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.

It should be simple then for you to inform us on whom Lybia "planned, authorized,
committed, or aided" 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." We'll be waiting.

j-mac

Utility Man · May 30, 2011

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

See: Pan Am flight 103.

j-mac · May 30, 2011

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

mattillac said:
See: Pan Am flight 103.

What did that have to do with 9/11? Gaddaffi was cowed into giving up his Nuke program already. We had him under our thumb before the weak ass Obama got in.

j-mac

Grant · May 30, 2011

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

mattillac said:
See: Pan Am flight 103.

Yes, i remember Barrack Obama promising during the election campaign to attack Libya for the bombing of flight 103 and would ignore Congress in order to do so.

Just kidding!

ecofarm · May 30, 2011

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

We had to get the lockerbie bomber. The euros let him go. He wasn't dying fast, it was taking forever. It was getting embarrassing.

What else could we do? Go to Libya and say "Hey, he's not dying, he had alot of time to be with family and all that stuff, give him back".

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

GPS_Flex

Boo Radley

The Prof

Boo Radley

The Prof

Boo Radley

The Prof

PzKfW IVe

The Prof

j-mac

Boo Radley

j-mac

Boo Radley

GPS_Flex

The Prof

Objective Voice

GPS_Flex

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

GPS_Flex

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector

j-mac

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector

j-mac

Grant

ecofarm

global liberation