• 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!

Power outage: Libya war shows limits of War Powers Act

This has nothing to do with the UN or NATO and anyone who mentions either of these organizations is trying to raise a smoke screen in order to hide the facts.

The law is clear, and it is being broken. Congress is powerless to stop the President, apart from the provisions of the WPA, and it is he who is breaking the law.
Congress can defund the President. They can defund the effort. They can prohibit the expenditure of any further funds. And they can bring impeachment proceedings.
 
But we're not exempt from international law, or more specifically from the agreements we made and signed and ratified through congress.

But the President still must act within the Constitution and U.S. law

No it really was not according to international law. By our agreements would could only invade with the consent of the security council or if faced with an imminent threat. Neither condition existed. We broke our agreement.

You didn't read the UNSC resolutions very closely, did you?
 
Which takes us right back to both the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945 and the War Powers Act of 1973. IMO, the UNPA is that "statutory clause" the President can use to invoke the War Powers Act of 1973 when he has a U.N. Resolution calling for U.S. military action on peace keeping or humanitarian grounds. Based on my interpretation of these laws, it does not mean that the President can "go to war" with any nation he pleases. ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR AGAINST ANOTHER NATION. But both the UNPA and the WPA gives the President some latitude in using armed forces abroad in a limited capacity.

I have already commented on that act. It required the ratification of Congress. And as the WPA comes afterward, if there are any contradictory provisions, the WPA supercedes it...
 
links?

LOL!

from sydney?

meanwhile, today:

At least three NATO bombing runs shook the Libyan capital late Thursday. The targets were not immediately known and there was no report of casualties.

NATO launched its air campaign nearly three months ago under a United Nations resolution to protect civilians. What started as a peaceful uprising inside the country against Gadhafi and his more than four-decade rule has become a civil war.

Fighting between government forces and the rebels had reached a stalemate until last week when NATO launched the heaviest bombardment of Gadhafi forces since the alliance took control of the skies over Libya.

Tunisian army official Mokhtar Ben Nasr said the number of Libyans fleeing has mounted in recent days, with 6,330 Libyan refugees crossing into Tunisia earlier this week.

In Washington, the White House insisted Wednesday that President Barack Obama has the authority to continue U.S. military action in Libya even without authorization from lawmakers in Congress.

Its 32-page report to Congress argues that because the U.S. has a limited, supporting role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya and American forces are not engaged in sustained fighting, the president is within his constitutional rights to direct the mission on his own.

NATO hits Gadhafi compound, diplomacy heats up - CTV News

no "hostilities" since april 7, anyone?

refugees?

party on, peaceniks

enjoy obama's other war
 
do you KNOW the senior senator from illinois and current WHIP?

today:

The Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said the White House is wrong to claim that U.S. involvement in the conflict does not require the authorization of Congress.

Despite his support for U.S. engagement in Libya, Durbin said Congress needs to approve the mission.

“I think the president is right in what he is doing, but we have a responsibility … to decide that this offensive use of military force, even for a good humanitarian purpose, is one that requires the authorization of the American people through their members of Congress,” Durbin said from the floor Thursday.

Durbin was reacting to a 32-page report released by the White House on Wednesday that argues the Libya mission does not need congressional authorization because it doesn’t amount to “hostilities.”

“I believe that what we are engaged in with Libya is a matter that should come under the War Powers Resolution,” Durbin said. “I believe that we should, as a Congress, consider it under the War Powers Resolution.”

Durbin: Libya conflict requires authorization by Congress - The Hill's Floor Action

if you can't see the seeds of congressional rebellion sprouting, and from whence, you must be as outta touch as barack the slasher himself

what do you think the durbins and woolseys are gonna be saying in a month
 
Replacing an *evil* regime with one that is worse does not count as righteous, Mr President

Exactly where do we get the right to intervene in Libya?
 
Replacing an *evil* regime with one that is worse does not count as righteous, Mr President

Exactly where do we get the right to intervene in Libya?

UN Security Council.

Now, it is a debatable point. And I really don't like interfering much. The only real reason I can see is trying to stop large deaths of civilians, like what we saw in Rwanda and Sudan (where we wrongly did not act). But the line is not as clear as I would like, and we have no business deciding leadership of another country.
 
If you believe our word means nothing, that no nation should expect us to keep our agreements as they are meaningless, what do you think that says about us?


BTW, the invasion of Iraq wasn't really in our interest, which makes it all the more confusing.

It's not confusing at all. When Bush became president, the Democrats rediscovered the Constitution. When Obama became president, The Republicans rediscovered the Constitution.
 
UN Security Council.

Now, it is a debatable point. And I really don't like interfering much. The only real reason I can see is trying to stop large deaths of civilians, like what we saw in Rwanda and Sudan (where we wrongly did not act). But the line is not as clear as I would like, and we have no business deciding leadership of another country.


It is not a debatable point. Who or what gave you that idea? Did you not read the law, or do you still not understand it?

Why are the leftists not complaining about the "quagmire", it's "another Vietnam", "it's all about oil"?

Just when they have something real to complain about they fall silent.
 
It's not confusing at all. When Bush became president, the Democrats rediscovered the Constitution. When Obama became president, The Republicans rediscovered the Constitution.

Bush followed the Constitution, Obama did not. There is no comparison.
 
It's not confusing at all. When Bush became president, the Democrats rediscovered the Constitution. When Obama became president, The Republicans rediscovered the Constitution.

But at least Bush sought AND received authorization from Congress. Still waiting for Obama to receive his...
 
Limits of War Powers Act? WTF?!?! The War Powers Act happens to be the law. What seems to have limits here is Obama's willingness to obey the law. And, according to the law, Obama is committing a criminal act.

I was all over Bush for going into Iraq. Yes, I know, I know, he gave Congress misleading information, but even Bush obeyed the law by seeking congressional approval. And, while Obama was a candidate, he made the following statement:



Where the hell is all this hope and change Obama supporters are talking about? Looks like it is all down the toilet, along with Obama's integrity.

Article is here.

He also said he was against the war in Iraq from day one and how long are the your troops still there. Me think's it's time to get the peace prize back.
 
Obama has shown that he has little regard for the Constitution, the Laws or his Oath of office.


He is acting more and more like he's a Dictator and is challenging Congress to do something about it.

He knows that even if he is impeached, the Senate will being controlled by Reid and Liberals will never vote to remove him from office.

If that happens we will have even more trouble.
Well Bush didn't give a crap about your Constitution either.
 
Red herring.
You're simply trying to deflect the issue away from The Secular Messiah because you know His actions cannot be defended, and you're too much of a blind partisan fool to call Him on it.

Aside from that:
All of these actions were taken in full accordance with the WPA.


Yes -- and those people are willfully ignorant, partisan bigots.
His actions can't be defended. But precedent has been set.
 
Just an FYI for those interested...

From C-SSPAN today (remarks parsed for emphasis):

Speaker Boehner rejected a report sent by President Obama earlier this week as incomplete and lacking justification for bypassing Congressional approval.

Speaker Boehner was not satisfied and rejected the President’s notion that the U.S is not involved in “hostilities.” “We're part of an effort to drop bombs on Qadhafi's compounds,” Boehner said, “it doesn't pass the straight face test, in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities.”

Speaker Boehner said the report fails to meet the requirements Congress passed on June 3rd that says the President must give the legislative body a full and detailed report and legal justification within 14 days, which is today.

Boehner said “the House has options” on next steps. One of the major tools in lawmakers’ toolbox is to cut funding.

Translation: Speaker Boehner "I'm not budging on this Libya issue until I get more spending cuts."

In short, more political posturing. I mean, really, folks. If the Speaker of the House honestly believed the President hasn't adhered to the law, don't you think he would have called for the immediate withdraw of U.S. armed forces from the region especially since he said he was not satisfied with the report the President provide justifying having armed forces there? C'mon, folks!!!

Congress has the power to end this here...NOW! But they won't because it's not about whether or not the President has violated the law or the Constitution. It's about "one-upsmenship"....political posturing. Look at what Boehner says is his biggest issue with having our military in the area, “it doesn't pass the straight face test, in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities.”

Not that the President has missed reporting deadlines per the WPA, not that he has violated the Constitution but "it doesn't pass the straight face test...that we're not in the midst of hostilities."

Either pass a resolution demanding the immediate withdraw of our military from the air, land and sea around Libya or give the President the authority to try and finish this NATO mission within a specific timeframe, but STOP :censored AROUND PLAYING STUPID POLITICAL GAMES!!! :censored
 
The reporting deadlines in the WPA are not clear in regard to his report to congress for continuing past 60 days. I presume said report must be submitted within 30 days of the approval deadline (in line with the required withdrawl of units), but this is not explicit in the WPA.

If something doesn't happen this weekend, he will be in violation on Monday for employing units over 90 days. I suppose the deadline on the report is debatable.
 
more posturing, one-upsmanship and game playing:

Durbin: Libya conflict requires authorization by Congress - The Hill's Floor Action

actually, by now, the slasher is facing a pretty serious and growing congressional revolt over his ridiculous and wrong minded offensive in libya

and it's certainly not republican

ask brad sherman, ask kucinich, ask conyers, ask the senate WHIP

ask maverick mccain and limp wristed lindsey graham, anti ghadafi hawks

except they've turned, the slasher's absurd avowal that whatever-he's-doing-over-there doesn't amount to "hostilities" didn't pass their straight-face test either

Congressmen criticize Obama's stand on Libya - The Washington Post
 
Congress just needs to make a decision. The President has complied with the WPA in every way. It's now up to Congress to either tell the President to stop military action and send our armed forces home or allow them to stay for whatever timeframe they specify in order to complete the NATO-led mission. It's just that simple.

more posturing, one-upsmanship and game playing:

Durbin: Libya conflict requires authorization by Congress - The Hill's Floor Action

actually, by now, the slasher is facing a pretty serious and growing congressional revolt over his ridiculous and wrong minded offensive in libya

and it's certainly not republican

ask brad sherman, ask kucinich, ask conyers, ask the senate WHIP

ask maverick mccain and limp wristed lindsey graham, anti ghadafi hawks

except they've turned, the slasher's absurd avowal that whatever-he's-doing-over-there doesn't amount to "hostilities" didn't pass their straight-face test either

Congressmen criticize Obama's stand on Libya - The Washington Post

Did anyone say it was just Republicans who had a problem with this? No. But I DID comment on Speaker Boehner's remarks directly. To which, he is the Speaker of the House and, as such, one of two people the President must report to per the WPA. As such, the Speaker bears the responsibility to lead Congress in this matter. So, I say either the House Speaker calls the President on this matter and pushes through a Congressional Resolution to end military involvement in Libya in the air, land or sea or he gives the President what he needs to get the job done. Either way - STOP THE FOOLISHNESS! It's political posturing, nothing more. You know it, I know it. Only you won't admit it. At least I'm brave enough to call BS when I see it.
 
Last edited:
It's just that simple.

no, the war will continue but no resolution will be forthcoming

it's obama's war, it's his prerogative, he has no backing

days not weeks, anyone?

"limited" war, sans "hostilities?"

nato, not us?

nation building?

party on, peaceniks
 
Back
Top Bottom