View Poll Results: Do you think that the Libyan intervention is constitutional?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 50.00%
  • No

    6 42.86%
  • Other (Please explain)

    1 7.14%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

  1. #1
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    Currently there is a lot of debate about whether or not the Libyan intervention is constitutional or not. I am here to say that the Libyan intervention is not constitutional.
    I cover the issue here. (The blog belongs to me).

    The main flaw of those who say that President Obama can use the US military for 60 days is that it is a misunderstanding of the War Powers Resolution as the President can only do that under certain circumstances which are specifically described in the War Powers Resolution.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  2. #2
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Currently there is a lot of debate about whether or not the Libyan intervention is constitutional or not. I am here to say that the Libyan intervention is not constitutional.
    I cover the issue here. (The blog belongs to me).

    The main flaw of those who say that President Obama can use the US military for 60 days is that it is a misunderstanding of the War Powers Resolution as the President can only do that under certain circumstances which are specifically described in the War Powers Resolution.
    The President had a Senate Resolution to act. Passed unanimously.

    (1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Qadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

    (2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

    (3) calls on Muammar Qadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

    (4) calls on the Qadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained; to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists; to ensure civilian safety; and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

    (5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court; imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; freezing the assets of Qadhafi and family members; and banning international travel by Qadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

    (6) urges the Qadhafi regime to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

    (7) Urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

    (8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the "disproportionate use of force in Libya" and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council resolution 1970, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

    (9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council; and

    (10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights.

    (11) Welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible and transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.
    When the Senate supported the U.N. going forward, that gave the President the authority he needed.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2ch...esolution.html
    Last edited by MaggieD; 04-04-11 at 11:45 PM.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #3
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  4. #4
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,691
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    It is constitutional. However, I thought it was interesting that the President was more interested in getting advisement from the UN than our own Congress.
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  5. #5
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    This appears to be the crux of the debate:

    No Congressional Authorization

    While Secretary Clinton has continued to refer to S. Res. 85 as a Senate endorsement of the President’s establishment of a no-fly zone, I’d like to point out to the American people that this talking point is very misleading.

    Senate Resolution 85 received the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office; it was ‘hotlined’ and there was no debate allowed on this issue and no legislative language provided to consider. There was no vote.

    S. Res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a “possible” course of action for the U.N. Security Council’s consideration. It did not instruct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation.

    Using the hotline process for S. Res. 85 as a congressional endorsement for the President’s policy is simply not an adequate use of Congress’ role in authorizing military action.

    The Administration unilaterally developed, planned and executed its no-fly zone policy. President Obama consulted the UN, NATO and Arab League, but did not consult what is mandated under our laws and Constitution. There was no Congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

    S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

    That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force.
    What a bunch of bull****. Republicans!!!! WTF????

    (7) Urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
    So, what? They're saying they didn't read the darned thing? Unbelievable.

    More on that Senate resolution “authorizing” the Libya war - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  6. #6
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    This appears to be the crux of the debate:



    What a bunch of bull****. Republicans!!!! WTF????



    So, what? They're saying they didn't read the darned thing? Unbelievable.

    More on that Senate resolution “authorizing” the Libya war - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online
    What do you mean? Obama's Libyan intevervention is unconstitutional.

    The article you quoted states "S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

    That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force." Thus aiding me in proving that the intervention is unconstitutional. If by voting on S. Res. 85 it gave the President permission to intervene in Libya, I ask once again, why are leaders of both parties debating as to whether or not they should vote in Congress to give Obama permission to intervene in Libya.

    If the Se
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  7. #7
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    What do you mean? Obama's Libyan intevervention is unconstitutional.

    The article you quoted states "S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

    That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force." Thus aiding me in proving that the intervention is unconstitutional. If by voting on S. Res. 85 it gave the President permission to intervene in Libya, I ask once again, why are leaders of both parties debating as to whether or not they should vote in Congress to give Obama permission to intervene in Libya.
    The article I posted outlines the controversy. I do not agree with the article. This statement is clear as day:

    (7) Urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
    When Congress "urged" the UN Security Council to take further action as necessary, that was the okay. It doesn't say, after all, "up to and including a no-fly zone," it says "further action as necessary."

    IMO, Congress should tackle this problem once and for all passing some legislation to specifically cover our seemingly endless interventions into other countries' business.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #8
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,298
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    Well...

    If we're going to find what Obama did to be unconstitutional.

    We better go lock up Bush Senior, Clinton and Bush Junior as well.

    ggkbythxlolz.

    I'd be up for it.

  9. #9
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    The Libyan intervention is unconstitutional, as well as pretty much ever post WW2 conflict. Unfortunately congress is just as complicit as the executives and thus there is little to be done. Ideally we'd impeach everyone, but realistically that means it becomes the status quo.

  10. #10
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Constitutionality of the Libyan intervention

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Well...

    If we're going to find what Obama did to be unconstitutional.

    We better go lock up Bush Senior, Clinton and Bush Junior as well.

    ggkbythxlolz.

    I'd be up for it.
    So, according to that logic, if multiple presidents do something unconstitutional, it suddenly becomes constitutional.

    That's the equivalent of saying if multiple people break the same law, then suddenly it becomes legal.

    Maggie D, you said

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I actually think that President Obama is trying to be true to his word...that this is a UN mission; not a US mission. That's what the Senate Resolution gave authority to -- the UN, not the US. Let's see if it's possible. If it's not, then he needs further Congressional approval, imo.
    If the resolution is for the UN, but not the US, then President Obama needs Congressional approval to carry out his intervention as he is currently violating the War Powers Resolution.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •