• 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

Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

Then the President is in violation of the War Powers Act, which has already occurred, provided attacks on Libya continued after Friday.

According to the President himself, he was in violation of the Constitution when he dropped the first bomb on Libya but he changed his mind about the Constitution once he became President.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
Then the President is in violation of the War Powers Act, which has already occurred, provided attacks on Libya continued after Friday.

According to the President himself, he was in violation of the Constitution when he dropped the first bomb on Libya but he changed his mind about the Constitution once he became President.
Click to expand...

I have heard of no Court, or Congressional statement to lead me believe that he is in violation of the war powers act, can you reference me to just one?

What is your opinion of Congress for not taking a stand on Libya yet?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
I have heard of no Court, or Congressional statement to lead me believe that he is in violation of the war powers act, can you reference me to just one?
Click to expand...

Congressmen Condemn Obama Attack on Congressional War Powers

Catawba said:
What is your opinion of Congress for not taking a stand on Libya yet?
Click to expand...

It means that Obama has to cease his military action there within 30 days.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Kandahar said:
Catawba said:
I have heard of no Court, or Congressional statement to lead me believe that he is in violation of the war powers act, can you reference me to just one?
Click to expand...
Congressmen Condemn Obama Attack on Congressional War Powers

Catawba said:
What is your opinion of Congress for not taking a stand on Libya yet?
Click to expand...

It means that Obama has to cease his military action there within 30 days.
Click to expand...

The War Powers Act also requires "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" within 60 days even after an attack unless Congress authorizes the ongoing war.
Click to expand...
seems pretty cut and dry to me. also seems that some members of Congress (from both parties) have already taken a stand.

wonder how it plays out....
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Whovian said:
seems pretty cut and dry to me. also seems that some members of Congress (from both parties) have already taken a stand.

wonder how it plays out....
Click to expand...

Yes, some individuals have, but as of this date, Congress has not voted on the issue. I am willing to bet they will not either, despite Obama's request that they do so! :sun
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

xpiher said:
So Fox News is in Obama's pocket?



Prove it.
Click to expand...

The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. No matter what capacity they operate in, he is bound by the War Powers Act. It's just common sense.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
Yes, some individuals have, but as of this date, Congress has not voted on the issue. I am willing to bet they will not either, despite Obama's request that they do so! :sun
Click to expand...

agreed. Unfortunately, the Republicans appear to be the ones blocking the vote on this.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
You meant to say 60 days above right? If not, where do you come up with the 90 days?
Click to expand...

Per Khandahar's post. The president must seek Congressional approval at 60 days, or end operation within 30 days after that. 60 + 30 = 90
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Whovian said:
agreed. Unfortunately, the Republicans appear to be the ones blocking the vote on this.
Click to expand...

Why is that do you think?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
Your article mentions no position taken by Congress. It is my understanding that individual Congressmen do no speak for all of Congress. Can you reference me to Congressional statement of opposition as I requested previously?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one yet. Are you saying that he isn't in violation of the law until Congress acknowledges he's in violation? The law is the law regardless of any congressional resolutions, and the president is not above it.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
Your article mentions no position taken by Congress. It is my understanding that individual Congressmen do no speak for all of Congress. Can you reference me to Congressional statement of opposition as I requested previously?
Click to expand...

U.S.: Congress Pushes for Vote on Libya Intervention - IPS ipsnews.net


Congressman Dennis Kucinich plans to introduce a bill next week in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote on the use of force in Libya.
Click to expand...
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Kandahar said:
I don't think there is one yet. Are you saying that he isn't in violation of the law until Congress acknowledges he's in violation? The law is the law regardless of any congressional resolutions, and the president is not above it.
Click to expand...

Who has charged Obama with a violatation of the war powers act? No one that I am aware of. And unless Congress takes a stand on being opposed to our involvement in the NATO action (and he continues anyway), I see little likelyhood that any charges will be brought against Obama.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
Who has charged Obama with a violatation of the war powers act? No one that I am aware of.
Click to expand...

Violations of the law are not dependent on whether or not he is sued or censured or charged with anything. It just means he might get away with it.

Catawba said:
And unless Congress takes a stand on being opposed to our involvement in the NATO action (and he continues anyway), I see little likelyhood that any charges will be brought against Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about criminal charges, I'm talking about getting a court-ordered injunction demanding he cease and desist. If the president gets away with ignoring the War Powers Act (whether the other branches of government acknowledge it or not), then every future president will ignore it too and cite Obama's involvement in Libya as precedent. That is not healthy for our government's checks and balances.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Kandahar said:
Violations of the law are not dependent on whether or not he is sued or censured or charged with anything. It just means he might get away with it.

I'm not talking about criminal charges, I'm talking about getting a court-ordered injunction demanding he cease and desist. If the president gets away with ignoring the War Powers Act (whether the other branches of government acknowledge it or not), then every future president will ignore it too and cite Obama's involvement in Libya as precedent. That is not healthy for our government's checks and balances.
Click to expand...


If it turns out that it is a violation, I would agree. However, I'm not convinced that our limited involvement in this NATO action is a violation of the war powers act. If it turns out be the case, then by all means require him to cease desist with our support of the NATO action.

Regardless of whehter it is or not to me doesn't relieve Congress from taking a stand on our involvement in the NATO action. I think it is cowardly that they have not taken a vote before now.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
If it turns out that it is a violation, I would agree. However, I'm not convinced that our limited involvement in this NATO action is a violation of the war powers act. If it turns out be the case, then by all means require him to cease desist with our support of the NATO action.

Regardless of whehter it is or not to me doesn't relieve Congress from taking a stand on our involvement in the NATO action. I think it is cowardly that they have not taken a vote before now.
Click to expand...

Ok let me ask you to honestly answer a simple question.

Using Obama’s 2007 written response to the Boston Globe as the criteria for what is/isn’t constitutional, did Obama violate the Constitution by bombing Libya?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

It is official: The attacks continue. Link
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
It is official: The attacks continue. Link
Click to expand...

Yep, it says right in the headline that the NATO strikes continue. And Congress has yet to take an official position.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
Ok let me ask you to honestly answer a simple question.

Using Obama’s 2007 written response to the Boston Globe as the criteria for what is/isn’t constitutional, did Obama violate the Constitution by bombing Libya?
Click to expand...

Could you provide a link to this 2007 Obama response you refer to about the US joining in a NATO action?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

sure, it's not united states military, it's nato

it's not war, it's limited

it's not days, it's weeks

vote obama, 2012!

he knows what he's doing!
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
Could you provide a link to this 2007 Obama response you refer to about the US joining in a NATO action?
Click to expand...

I did in the OP. The fact that you didn't read it says a lot about how serious I should take you.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
I did in the OP. The fact that you didn't read it says a lot about how serious I should take you.
Click to expand...

The OP is about the US attacking another country, it says nothing about a NATO action.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
The OP is about the US attacking another country, it says nothing about a NATO action.
Click to expand...

Then we are done. You have an IQ problem or a political hack problem. I think it is the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom