• 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!

10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers is suing President Barack Obama for taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress.

The lawmakers say Mr. Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize military force.

The lawmakers want a judge to issue an order suspending military operations without congressional approval. They said they were filing their lawsuit Wednesday against Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes - CBS News



This will go exactly nowhere. Even the highest court has proven to be extremely reluctant to get in the middle of an argument between the President and Congress.
 
10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes - CBS News



This will go exactly nowhere. Even the highest court has proven to be extremely reluctant to get in the middle of an argument between the President and Congress.

The highest court was created in part to get in the midle of an argument between the President and Congress. Congress has ceded too much of its power and destroyed the checks and balances which are meant to be in place, particularly where the military is concerned. I damned well hope that more lawmakers join in and that we put the proper restraints on the power of the President. The President is 1 guy, he wasn't meant to have all the power. It needs to be handled and this has to result in lessening the Presidents power to use our military any way he sees fit.
 
The President is 1 guy, he wasn't meant to have all the power. It needs to be handled and this has to result in lessening the Presidents power to use our military any way he sees fit.

and this is especially true in matters of sending my son or daughter in harms way, one man can not make that call, under any circumstance short of immediate national security,
and especially not under the premise that its different because its a UN operation.
 
The highest court was created in part to get in the midle of an argument between the President and Congress. Congress has ceded too much of its power and destroyed the checks and balances which are meant to be in place, particularly where the military is concerned. I damned well hope that more lawmakers join in and that we put the proper restraints on the power of the President. The President is 1 guy, he wasn't meant to have all the power. It needs to be handled and this has to result in lessening the Presidents power to use our military any way he sees fit.

I agree with you, except that the problem of Congress ceding power to the President needs to be fixed by Congress and not by the courts.
 
I agree with you, except that the problem of Congress ceding power to the President needs to be fixed by Congress and not by the courts.

Once they ceded the power, the only way they are likely to get it back is to use the courts. Regardless, what we really should enforce is that we've split the powers the way they are on purpose. Congress does not have the authority to cede any of its power to any other branch. We told it to do X, it has to do X. No one else gets to do X. In this case, it's purse and declaration of war and we need to abide by these.
 
The problem isn't that the courts are Congress' only recourse.

The problem is that Congress lacks the political will to check the President where it really counts.
 
The problem isn't that the courts are Congress' only recourse.

The problem is that Congress lacks the political will to check the President where it really counts.

Well, yeah. They've ceded a lot of responsibility so they could focus on...I don't know, sending pics of their dicks to people on Twitter I suppose. Lazy jerks. If I were Congress, hell I'd be going after the President for using EO's to legislate. The President should have zero powers of legislation. The President needs to know his role. He's the head of state, and the bitch of Congress and the Courts. He does what they tell him to do and no more.
 
The problem isn't that the courts are Congress' only recourse.

The problem is that Congress lacks the political will to check the President where it really counts.

exactly, how else would you explain 70% of the country screaming at the top of their lungs, NO OBAMACARE.. and congress doing it anyway.
right in our face..

you will pay the price for such audasity
 
Well, yeah. They've ceded a lot of responsibility so they could focus on...I don't know, sending pics of their dicks to people on Twitter I suppose. Lazy jerks. If I were Congress, hell I'd be going after the President for using EO's to legislate. The President should have zero powers of legislation. The President needs to know his role. He's the head of state, and the bitch of Congress and the Courts. He does what they tell him to do and no more.

Hell. Yeah.
 
exactly, how else would you explain 70% of the country screaming at the top of their lungs, NO OBAMACARE.. and congress doing it anyway.
right in our face..

you will pay the price for such audasity

It also explains the Department of Homeland Security and a LOT of other things.
 
But I bet none of them had any problems with the outright lies the Bush administration used to invade Iraq nor any problems with the amount of Americans killed as a result of their lies. Nor do they seemingly have any issues with the 6.6 billion tax payer dollars stolen in Iraq. Nope, the #1 killer of Americans over the past decade is living peacefully in Crawford, Texas. The #2 killer, Bin Laden was not so lucky!
 
The highest court was created in part to get in the midle of an argument between the President and Congress. Congress has ceded too much of its power and destroyed the checks and balances which are meant to be in place, particularly where the military is concerned. I damned well hope that more lawmakers join in and that we put the proper restraints on the power of the President. The President is 1 guy, he wasn't meant to have all the power. It needs to be handled and this has to result in lessening the Presidents power to use our military any way he sees fit.

the president's power to deploy the military should be left, as is, with the restraints put into place by the war powers act. Instead, people need to become more responsible citizens, by being more informed.
 
But I bet none of them had any problems with the outright lies the Bush administration used to invade Iraq nor any problems with the amount of Americans killed as a result of their lies. Nor do they seemingly have any issues with the 6.6 billion tax payer dollars stolen in Iraq. Nope, the #1 killer of Americans over the past decade is living peacefully in Crawford, Texas. The #2 killer, Bin Laden was not so lucky!

Bush lied? Really?
 
the president's power to deploy the military should be left, as is, with the restraints put into place by the war powers act. Instead, people need to become more responsible citizens, by being more informed.

He should be able to deploy the troops....after he gets Congress's approval.
 
the president's power to deploy the military should be left, as is, with the restraints put into place by the war powers act.
The WPA is poorly designed and begs for abuse.

It needs to be scrapped and redone.
It should not be the case that we can be at war for years and years under the auspices of the WPA. That's not what the intent of the things were and it circumvents the vital checks on the PotUS's powers.
 
Last edited:
He should be able to deploy the troops....after he gets Congress's approval.

Because the last war that congress approved was a great one, right? It did so much for the U.S. And the world. And it was all for a just, honest cause, correct?

The idea that Congress is some sort of moralistic balance on the PoTUS' powers is fallacious. Congress will go to war if it makes them richer and they can spin it into a good thing in the eyes of the American Public, whether or not it's actually good for the rest of America.

Congress is corrupt.

I think the Bush Administration and the Congress while he was in power proved that.

War, actual war, is something that should be voted upon by the American People, just like the election for President.
 
Last edited:
Because the last war that congress approved was a great one, right? It did so much for the U.S. And the world. And it was all for a just, honest cause, correct?

Yeah, what's your point?
 
My point is that you say 'after he gets Congress' approval'. Like Congress approving a war automatically makes the war a justified one, a good one, one that is for the best of America and the American People.


This isn't so.

My point was sarcasm. The 'War on Terror' was terrible for America and for the American People. The only people it really benefited for a surety were the military-industrial complex and politicians with ties to said military-industrial complex.


That was my point.
 
Last edited:
Because the last war that congress approved was a great one, right? It did so much for the U.S. And the world. And it was all for a just, honest cause, correct?
Would removing the requirement for Congress' approval would have...what? Prevented the war? Made teh war mo betta?

The idea that Congress is some sort of moralistic balance on the PoTUS' powers is fallacious.
Sure, it is. And as soon as I see someone making that argument, I will point them to your post.

It's not about a "moralistic balance," w/e that is, it's about the practical issue, not a moralistic one.
 
He should be able to deploy the troops....after he gets Congress's approval.

No, he should be able to deploy troops per the war powers act, as it is now. Employment of our military shouldn't be left to the suits in Congress who have demonstrated that they're willing to endanger the country to win political points.
 
No, he should be able to deploy troops per the war powers act, as it is now. Employment of our military shouldn't be left to the suits in Congress who have demonstrated that they're willing to endanger the country to win political points.

"Employment of our military" meaning what, exactly?
 
My point is that you say 'after he gets Congress' approval'. Like Congress approving a war automatically makes the war a justified one, a good one, one that is for the best of America and the American People.
I don't think anyone suggested that Congress was an arbiter of what is or is not a justified war.
I don't think that's anyone's point.

The argument is that it's their job because it divests the Office of the PotUS of dangerous power.
 
Back
Top Bottom