• 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

Actually it is. If the Congress approves the use of force and funds the effort that is equal to a declaration.

Actually it's not. All congress did was say we're nto going to decide. Instead, we'll leave it up to the president. That is not in any way equal to a declaration of war. It is congress not doing their job.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Treaties are the law of the land.
Treaties have the force of law. They do not supersede anything. In the event of a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution the Constitution sure ought to win in court. But with the state of the courts there is no telling...
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Treaties have the force of law. They do not supersede anything. In the event of a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution the Constitution sure ought to win in court. But with the state of the courts there is no telling...

Just to be clear, no such conflict existed concerning Iraq. There is a place for hypotheticals, but they should be in the context of what we're speaking of. Nothing in the constitution demanded we invade Iraq. Nothing in terms of threat or national interest demanded we invade Iraq. As such, there was nothing that would validate breaking our agreements.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Actually it's not. All congress did was say we're nto going to decide. Instead, we'll leave it up to the president. That is not in any way equal to a declaration of war. It is congress not doing their job.
Ho Boo, I think I have read all of your responses along the way. I am sorry I even bothered. It is my opinion that you are unteachable on this subject. Perhaps there are other things to discuss.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ho Boo, I think I have read all of your responses along the way. I am sorry I even bothered. It is my opinion that you are unteachable on this subject. Perhaps there are other things to discuss.

So, the only way anyone can be right is if they believe what you believe. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There was no declaration or way and congress did nothing more than pass the buck to the president. Those are facts. If you have to read into it, make it seem equal when it isn't, then you are the one needing education.

Just saying . . . :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

First, let me note that I fully support Obama's actions and feel he did not go far enough...

Gaddafi bombed his own people with his air force and employed international mercenaries (because the army, at first, balked) to execute martial law, killing thousands.

What about this makes it our problem to solve? Oil? We don't get much from Libya, do we? Doesn't most of it go to Europe?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Anyway, Obama has not broken any rules. He'll leave it to NATO, except funding by congress, soon enough.

Obama violated the Constitution of the United States when he attacked Libya without Congressional approval. It really is that simple.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Ho Boo, I think I have read all of your responses along the way. I am sorry I even bothered. It is my opinion that you are unteachable on this subject. Perhaps there are other things to discuss.

Boo isn’t interested in an honest debate of the issue. He is only interested in confusing the real issues with contrived and indefensible opinions followed by throwing out more contrived and indefensible opinions rather than answering any real questions.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

What about this makes it our problem to solve? Oil? We don't get much from Libya, do we? Doesn't most of it go to Europe?


Then in your infinite wisdom (not) explain to me why we are there. Mister Truth is certainly a misnomer, even an oxymoron. Son't give up though, just answer the question... Clue-it is not about preventing the death of civilians. It is not about freedom and democracy. It is not about human rights. We have invaded the number one country in Africa, economically and human well being. Your drummer has lost his cadence.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Then in your infinite wisdom (not) explain to me why we are there.
Does anyone have infinite wisdom?
Mister Truth is certainly a misnomer, even an oxymoron.
Explain why you think it is an oxymoron. Do you mean this, a true oxymoron is "something that is surprisingly true, a paradox" (from Wikipedia).
Son't give up though, just answer the question... Clue-it is not about preventing the death of civilians. It is not about freedom and democracy. It is not about human rights. We have invaded the number one country in Africa, economically and human well being. Your drummer has lost his cadence.
Which question? The one I posed and you did not answer? Or your question, "why are we there?"
You began to ramble in that last little bit. You might want to tighten up your thinking just a bit.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Your drummer has lost his cadence.

I'm pretty sure that's a code and a secret agent, somewhere, has sprung into action.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo isn’t interested in an honest debate of the issue. He is only interested in confusing the real issues with contrived and indefensible opinions followed by throwing out more contrived and indefensible opinions rather than answering any real questions.

Try asking a real question. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Obama violated the Constitution of the United States when he attacked Libya without Congressional approval. It really is that simple.

I know you believe that, but others are not as convinced. Now information has been presented that show there is real doubt on the matter, as this was a UN opperation. I know you don't want to hear that, it being real information and all, but the fact is it isn't as simple as you try to paint it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Try asking a real question. :coffeepap

Is there a chance that Obama's long form has been altered so as to change the facts?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Is there a chance that Obama's long form has been altered so as to change the facts?

No. Not likely. ;)
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The correct answer was: That's not a real question. Hence, I question your ability to identify one.



Just havin' fun, Boo.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The correct answer was: That's not a real question.

True. I stand corrected. ;)
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Try asking a real question. :coffeepap

You don’t answer real questions but in the off chance that you have decided to answer them, I’ll ask again.

Did candidate Obama claim that 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?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I know you believe that, but others are not as convinced. Now information has been presented that show there is real doubt on the matter, as this was a UN opperation. I know you don't want to hear that, it being real information and all, but the fact is it isn't as simple as you try to paint it.

Actually it is as simple as I paint it. The fact that it is a UN operation has nothing to do with the constitutionality of this war considering the US wasn’t attacked by Libya, wasn’t about to be attacked by Libya and there was no Congressional approval for the President to start a war with Libya.

Obama agreed with me until he became President. Clinton agreed with me until she became Secretary of State, Biden agreed with me until he became Vice President etc. Now that they are in power, they aren’t interested in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Obama needs to face impeachment to bring his sorry ass under control
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Obama needs to face impeachment to bring his sorry ass under control

The WPR clearly states that the President’s power to use force is limited to a declaration of war, Congressional authorization or an attack upon the United States.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The WPR clearly states that the President’s power to use force is limited to a declaration of war, Congressional authorization or an attack upon the United States.

IIRC it allows limited use of force for upto 60 days.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

IIRC it allows limited use of force for upto 60 days.

Only if the US, its territories or possessions, or armed forces have been attacked or are about to be attacked.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Only if the US, its territories or possessions, or armed forces have been attacked or are about to be attacked.

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

That's not what it says.

(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.


I don't know what you are reading but this is what it says on the first page called “Purpose and Policy”. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541

Get a clue apdst.
 
Back
Top Bottom