• 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

Misterveritis said:
We are already untrustworthy. What is in our interest? That is what controls.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misterveritis said:
It says we are a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

No. A sovereign nation can still honor its agreements and still stay soveriegn. Like other relationahip, breaking an agreement means you're untrustworthy, o be looked upon with scorn, not trusted, mcuh like you would do with a person you know who always breaks agreements he or she makes with you.
 
ludahai said:
Both links are, in reality, pretty simplistic. However, it doesn't change the fact that President Obama's powers as commander in chief of the United States armed forces is governed by the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed by Congress, and not by international law.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
financial times, june 17:

"although it is working under nato, the us is by far the largest contributor to operation unified protector, as of mid may it was conducting 70 per cent of reconnaissance missions, over 75 per cent of refuelling flights and 27% of all air sorties"

FT.com / Middle East & North Africa - Pentagon sees Libya military costs soar

barack the slasher's letter to congress yesterday:

"american forces have not been in 'hostilities' at least since april 7"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=1

limited war, anyone?
 
Prof,

Funny you should provide such links which support the President's statements that we don't have "boots on the ground" in Libya because according to the H.R. 292, the most recent Congressional Resolution concerning retaining armed forces in Libya sponsored by Speaker Boehner, it says NOTHING about removing armed forces from the Libya theater of operations EXCEPT for the non-use or withdrawal of ground troops:

(1) The United States Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the United States.

(2) The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.

(3) The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
Click to expand...

Says nothing about an "immediate withdrawal of armed forces", just that the President has to provide justification for being there within 14 days of passage of the resolution which was on or about June 3, 2011. (By my calculation, that would mean June 17th is the deadline for the President.)

Hmmm...political posturing anyone?
 
Last edited:
posturing?

days not weeks

"limited" war

nato, not us

civilian lives and refugees

"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"

"the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war unless we're attacked or unless there's proof we're about to be attacked, and if he does, i would move to impeach him"

posturing aside, the truth is---

it's obama's war, he's president, he can do what he wants

he's an idiot

nation building, anyone?
 
You don't even need to refer to the War Powers act. The Constitution says it all. Congress controls whether or not the US will enter a war, period. That power cannot be granted or transferred to any other branch without a constitutional amendment. The War Powers Act was an attempt to restore Congress's authority, but it was unncessary because the authority is clearly there already.

Allowing the President to enter a war without Congressional approval for any period of time is simply unconstitutional. You cannot change the constitution through simple legislation like the War Powers act. Even with all that said, the President cannot ignore acts of Congress. Not only has Obama gone against the Constitution, he wont even follow Congressional law. He has the lack of respect for the rule of law that Nixon had, coupled with Bush's nation building, FDR's terrible spending, and empty rhetoric.

Obama probably has the worst traits of nearly all the past presidents combined. He's no change at all.
 
Not only has Obama gone against the Constitution, he wont even follow Congressional law.
Click to expand...

He done went against the constitution and used that there act of congess ta yee-haw all over the place dag-nabbit.
 
kucinich this morning on the floor:

"President Bush came to Congress ... President Obama doesn't feel like he needs to come to Congress," Kucinich said. "That's why we need to go to court... We cannot continue to escalate these wars... the American people by and large want us out of Libya."
Click to expand...

Dennis Kucinich Praises Bush, Slams Obama on Libya - Yahoo! News

party on, peacenicks

powell docrine, anyone?
 
Lakryte said:
You don't even need to refer to the War Powers act. The Constitution says it all. Congress controls whether or not the US will enter a war, period. That power cannot be granted or transferred to any other branch without a constitutional amendment. The War Powers Act was an attempt to restore Congress's authority, but it was unncessary because the authority is clearly there already.

Allowing the President to enter a war without Congressional approval for any period of time is simply unconstitutional. You cannot change the constitution through simple legislation like the War Powers act. Even with all that said, the President cannot ignore acts of Congress. Not only has Obama gone against the Constitution, he wont even follow Congressional law. He has the lack of respect for the rule of law that Nixon had, coupled with Bush's nation building, FDR's terrible spending, and empty rhetoric.

Obama probably has the worst traits of nearly all the past presidents combined. He's no change at all.
Click to expand...

Would explain why CONGRESS overrode a Presidential veto and why NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS has ever gone to the Supreme Court over questioning the legality of the War Powers Act or have even attempted to repeal it. But by all means, let's not allow the facts cloud your judgment.

If Congress truly believed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional THEY and THEY alone have the power to repeal it.

If Congress truly believes President Obama has violated the Constitution concerning Libya, why don't they simply seak to impeach him?
 
because it's obama's war, he's president and he can do what he wants

but 138 house republicans and 110 democrats are certainly having their problems with the dummy's druthers

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll415.xml

good luck with the china shop, barry
 
Objective Voice said:
Would explain why CONGRESS overrode a Presidential veto and why NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS has ever gone to the Supreme Court over questioning the legality of the War Powers Act or have even attempted to repeal it. But by all means, let's not allow the facts cloud your judgment.

If Congress truly believed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional THEY and THEY alone have the power to repeal it.

If Congress truly believes President Obama has violated the Constitution concerning Libya, why don't they simply seak to impeach him?
Click to expand...

Quite probably Congress felt there was no need to repeal because they assumed any President would follow the intent of the Constitution and the subsequent War Powers Act, They did not reckon with Barrack Obama, who is proving to be the opposite of who he claimed to be during his election campaign.

The key Section 1541(c) reads:

(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.
Click to expand...

Everything else, such as the 60 day rule, and the 30 day follow-up, flows from that. Without the above the rest is meaningless.

He should be impeached and he should certainly not be seeking re election. Anyone who votes for this guy, apart from the usual dead people, is beyond stupid.
 
Grant said:
Anyone who votes for this guy, apart from the usual dead people, is beyond stupid.
Click to expand...
It just disgusts me that election after election nearly all of the dead people vote for Democrats. Why can't Republicans get any of the dead to vote for them? Talk about a block vote. What has the Democratic party done to deserve the entire dead vote?
 
Wasn't there a town in Ohio during the Bush/Kerry election who had more people vote fopr Bush than lived in the town? :coffeepap
 
Objective Voice said:
Would explain why CONGRESS overrode a Presidential veto and why NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS has ever gone to the Supreme Court over questioning the legality of the War Powers Act or have even attempted to repeal it. But by all means, let's not allow the facts cloud your judgment.

If Congress truly believed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional THEY and THEY alone have the power to repeal it.

If Congress truly believes President Obama has violated the Constitution concerning Libya, why don't they simply seak to impeach him?
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight: Congress hasn't questioned an act they passed, they haven't tried to repeal it, and they haven't asked to impeach Obama. Therefore the act is constitutional?

No. The fact that Congress is so apathetic and willing to disregard the constitution just makes matters more despicable, not more legal.
 
Lakryte said:
So let me get this straight: Congress hasn't questioned an act they passed, they haven't tried to repeal it, and they haven't asked to impeach Obama. Therefore the act is constitutional?

No. The fact that Congress is so apathetic and willing to disregard the constitution just makes matters more despicable, not more legal.
Click to expand...

Our problems are as much with congress as with the president, and have been for a long time. Congress reallydoesn't want to do it's job, so they allow the presidetn to act as he sees fit even when consulted. The constitution calls for congress to declare war, and that is the thinking we need to go back to. Congress needs to have a real say in our actions. The WPA has been a failure for some time now IMHO.
 
Boo Radley said:
Our problems are as much with congress as with the president, and have been for a long time. Congress reallydoesn't want to do it's job, so they allow the presidetn to act as he sees fit even when consulted. The constitution calls for congress to declare war, and that is the thinking we need to go back to. Congress needs to have a real say in our actions. The WPA has been a failure for some time now IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. One could say the founding father's overestimated the Congress's willingness to check the executive, or we the people's willingness to check the Congress. All the government has to do is get the people scared enough to accept blatant violations of the Constitution.

I forget where I read this statistic, so I would fact check it, but apparently Congress has not declared war in the constitutional way since WWII. That is sickening.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Our problems are as much with congress as with the president, and have been for a long time. Congress reallydoesn't want to do it's job, so they allow the presidetn to act as he sees fit even when consulted. The constitution calls for congress to declare war, and that is the thinking we need to go back to. Congress needs to have a real say in our actions. The WPA has been a failure for some time now IMHO.
Click to expand...

Congress. through the War Powers Act, allowed the President to make these decisions in times of emergency and crisis only, and not in cases like Libya. It is not such a bad law if it is adhered to. The current President of the USA is breaking the law. There is really no doubt about it. He'll soon have some real splainin to do.

Those brave Democrats who are daring to stand up to the party machine should be congratulated.
 
Lakryte said:
I agree completely. One could say the founding father's overestimated the Congress's willingness to check the executive, or we the people's willingness to check the Congress. All the government has to do is get the people scared enough to accept blatant violations of the Constitution.

I forget where I read this statistic, so I would fact check it, but apparently Congress has not declared war in the constitutional way since WWII. That is sickening.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not give a method for declaring war. So any way they want to is fine. In most case they authorize the use of force. That combined with continued funding is a declaration of war.

Libya is quite interesting. In this case it seems that the Congress is not declaring war. And that will generate a mini-crisis. If the President continues the Congress can withdraw funding. The can also impeach the one term president Obama. I am hopeful.
 
Grant said:
Congress. through the War Powers Act, allowed the President to make these decisions in times of emergency and crisis only, and not in cases like Libya. It is not such a bad law if it is adhered to. The current President of the USA is breaking the law. There is really no doubt about it. He'll soon have some real splainin to do.

Those brave Democrats who are daring to stand up to the party machine should be congratulated.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a debate on that, as UN actions are aprt of that. I personally would prefer more imput form congress, but as noted congress simply doesn't want to take responsibility.
 
Boo Radley said:
There seems to be a debate on that, as UN actions are aprt of that. I personally would prefer more imput form congress, but as noted congress simply doesn't want to take responsibility.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom