• 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

shades said:
I'm trying to follow your thought,
SO

we didnt break the 60 day rule, therfore he doesnt have to go to congress.
BUT

his reasoning was to stop innocents from being killed,
SO
either you think he can stop start stop start, resetting the 60 day rule
OR

he FAILED, because last I checked innocent are still getting killed

are you ok?
really?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying any of that. What I am saying, is that unless American combat units have been in theater for the past 90 days, without Congressional approval, Obama isn't in violation of the law.

And, anyone that can't tell us what units are currently deployed to the TO and still insists that Obama is breaking the law, is talking out they booty.

The next step in this debate should be to find out which--if any--units are operating in Libya and then debate whether, or not, Obama broke the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
Except, that I don't think there are any American combat units--air, or land--engaged with the enemy in Libya. Do you know of any?
Click to expand...

OK, so you are saying that all American troops and military left Libya prior to the 60 day limit and that there has been no further military action of any sort since then. Is that correct?

If that's the case then you are absolutely right and BHO has not broken any laws.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
OK, so you are saying that all American troops and military left Libya prior to the 60 day limit and that there has been no further military action of any sort since then. Is that correct?

If that's the case then you are absolutely right and BHO has not broken any laws.
Click to expand...

That's my argument. I'm looking forward to being confirmed, one way, or another.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
That's my argument. I'm looking forward to being confirmed, one way, or another.
Click to expand...

And its a valid one because it hasn't been reported much n the media.

Obama's argument appears to be that since this is a NATO operation he doesn't need Congressional approval. I doubt that will wash though and it might eventually reach the Supreme Court.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Kandahar said:
This is from about a month ago, but I haven't heard anything about it being stopped since then. As far as I know, Predator drones are still being used to strike Libyan targets.
Drones can be used by Nato forces in Libya, says Obama | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Are NATO lead forces covered by the war's power act, or does the NATO treaty superseded it?

Grant said:
And its a valid one because it hasn't been reported much n the media.

Obama's argument appears to be that since this is a NATO operation he doesn't need Congressional approval. I doubt that will wash though and it might eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

You'd have to read the NATO treaty. Treaties typically supersede other laws.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

xpiher said:
Are NATO lead forces covered by the war's power act, or does the NATO treaty superseded it?
Click to expand...

It applies to U.S. forces, no matter what.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
And its a valid one because it hasn't been reported much n the media.

Obama's argument appears to be that since this is a NATO operation he doesn't need Congressional approval. I doubt that will wash though and it might eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a no-go.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
It doesn't state any confirmed information, though. Unless Obama has the media, completely in his pocket--which I wouldn't doubt--then there's no way this would stay quiet.
Click to expand...

So Fox News is in Obama's pocket?

apdst said:
It applies to U.S. forces, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

xpiher said:
Are NATO lead forces covered by the war's power act, or does the NATO treaty superseded it?
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer as I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like it would be fairly easy to abrogate any war-related federal law if that's the case. All a president would have to do is find some pliant country and create a treaty. Then he could do as he pleases, launching any war he wanted under the auspices of the US-Micronesia Alliance (for example) rather than as an action of the US government.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Kandahar said:
I don't know the answer as I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like it would be fairly easy to abrogate any war-related federal law if that's the case. All a president would have to do is find some pliant country and create a treaty. Then he could do as he pleases, launching any war he wanted under the auspices of the US-Micronesia Alliance (for example) rather than as an action of the US government.
Click to expand...

You do realize that treaties are approved of by the senate right? Presidential agreements do not have the force of law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

xpiher said:
You do realize that treaties are approved of by the senate right? Presidential agreements do not have the force of law.
Click to expand...

Well, OK. He could get the US-Micronesia Alliance approved in the Senate, and then do as he pleases under the auspices of that alliance rather than as an action of the US government. The point is that if it's that easy to abrogate the War Powers Act, it might as well not even exist. And we really need the War Powers Act (or something like it) to serve as a check and balance on executive power.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

xpiher said:
You'd have to read the NATO treaty. Treaties typically supersede other laws.
Click to expand...

I rather doubt that foreign treaties supersede American laws.

Can you support this claim with any documentation?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
I rather doubt that foreign treaties supersede American laws.

Can you support this claim with any documentation?
Click to expand...

Treaties are the law of the land.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
I'm not saying any of that. What I am saying, is that unless American combat units have been in theater for the past 90 days, without Congressional approval, Obama isn't in violation of the law.

And, anyone that can't tell us what units are currently deployed to the TO and still insists that Obama is breaking the law, is talking out they booty.

The next step in this debate should be to find out which--if any--units are operating in Libya and then debate whether, or not, Obama broke the law.
Click to expand...

You meant to say 60 days above right? If not, where do you come up with the 90 days?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

This is where I part company with the President. They are dressing up their actions just like every administration before them since the WPA was enacted. This is a violation of the WPA and of the constitution. If, as a liberal, you thought that the Iraq invasion was illegal, then you need to say the same thing about this issue. I find it distressing that Dems are largely silent on this, but not surprising. And I find it amusing that many members of the GOP have now found new respect for the constitution now that a Dem President is abusing it and not their own anymore.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

ABC NEWS LINK: HERE




In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said BOSTON GLOBE LINK

In the above article he goes on to say “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

Candidate Obama seemed to think that it was important that the American people knew what his positions were and went so far as to speak about the trust the American people must have in someone whom they might elect President. Here are his words again:



In lite of the fact that he started a war Libya, what has changed since then, other than the fact that he is now President and there aren’t any real anti-war protests anymore? President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.

Obama is not alone in his flip-floppery either. Vice President Biden, then Senator and Presidential candidate Biden, threatened to impeach then President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites claiming that the President has no Constitutional authority to take America to war unless we are attacked or there is proof that we are about to be attacked (see videos below).





What has changed? Why aren’t the American people outraged? I suspect it is because the majority of Americans want to support this President and want to see him succeed so badly that they allow him to lull them into utter ignorance by twisting words and coming up with phrases like “non-kinetic operations” and “reduce spending in the tax code”. If you plan to raise taxes and you call it “to reduce spending in the tax code”, you aren’t being honest and real with the American people.

However, when you take the country to war and claim that it isn’t a war because we are now only performing “non-kinetic operations”, you are basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was never at war with the US because he only engaged in “non-kinetic operations” aren’t you?
Click to expand...



I would agree there should be Congressional approval, however I've not heard of any kind of Congressional statement that they even want to decide the question. How would you go about forcing Congress to vote on it?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Grant said:
I rather doubt that foreign treaties supersede American laws.

Can you support this claim with any documentation?
Click to expand...

Treaties don't supersede federal law but they do become federal law. If there is a federal law on the books prior to a conflicting treaty being signed, the existing law supersedes. Congress can revise or repeal treaties ass well.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
I would agree there should be Congressional approval, however I've not heard of any kind of Congressional statement that they even want to decide the question. How would you go about forcing Congress to vote on it?
Click to expand...

It isn’t a question of forcing a vote. The President needs to stop the conflict or be impeached for violating the law.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
It isn’t a question of forcing a vote. The President needs to stop the conflict or be impeached for violating the law.
Click to expand...

What if Congress doesn't want to vote on whether to participate in the NATO action, which appears to be the case since they have not demanded they vote on it?

Congress has been invited to decide on continued support for the UN action -

"President Obama asked congressional leaders late Friday for a resolution of support for continuing the military involvement."


It will be interesting to see if they decide to vote on it or stay safely non-committal as they have been up to this point! :sun
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

xpiher said:
Treaties are the law of the land.
Click to expand...
In terms of actions by the states, yes, as per th Eastablishment clause, which specifies as much.
Treaties are, constitutionally, not binding on the US government and carry no force of law regarding same.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
Treaties don't supersede federal law but they do become federal law. If there is a federal law on the books prior to a conflicting treaty being signed, the existing law supersedes. Congress can revise or repeal treaties ass well.
Click to expand...
Congress, unless specifically given the power to do so, cannot repeal or revoke treaties.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Congress, unless specifically given the power to do so, cannot repeal or revoke treaties.
Click to expand...

In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.
Click to expand...

See the Head Money Cases: 112 U.S. 580
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom