• 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

GPS_Flex said:
Then we are done. You have an IQ problem or a political hack problem. I think it is the latter.
Click to expand...

Quote the section where he addresses a NATO action if you can.
 
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. 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...

If Congress doesn't vote on authorization, then Obama doesn't have authorization, by default. Vote, or no vote, if Congress doesn't authorize him to continue operations, then he will be in violation of the War Powers Act if he were to proceed with any operations that may be going on.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

The Prof said:
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!
Click to expand...

thats a joke right?

On topic, he can get away with just about anything with his media puppets spinning the story..

until the polls open that is
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
LOL! While it is most refreshing to see the new GOP political forum support of Kucinich and his positions, I am willing to bet you that Congress doesn't take Kucinich's push for them to take a stand! :sun
Click to expand...

If they don't they certainly should because the law appears to be broken.

But of course there are others beside Kucinich, who is, of course, a member of the Democrat Congressman.
 
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...
A NATO, rather than unilateral, action does not relive the CinC of his responsibilities under the WPA, and does not modify the substance of The Obama's statement.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Catawba said:
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...
Nothing requires a vote.
The WPA requires a positive action by Congress - an issuance of authorization - for the CinC to continue operations.
Absent that issuance, for whatever reason, be it a 'no' vote or no vote at all, means the CinC must desist.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

apdst said:
These government have yet to replaced with anything better. So far, all I see are bad dictators being replaced with really bad dictator. There's the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the pro-AQ clowns in Libya and there's no telling who is going to take over Syria, if there is the successful overthrow of that government.

I believe anyone that foresees a warm, peaceful democratic movement in the ME is living in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...

1. The Arab Spring is not yet over, we will have to wait until the dust settles to see what really occurs.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood isn't even in power in Egypt and isn't running a candidate, so you've got that wrong.

3. I agree with you on Libya, there the West is supporting the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group who have strong ties to AQ.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

GPS_Flex said:
What are you talking about Boo? Bush got authorization from Congress and the UN has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Presidential use of force.

As for Obama not breaking his oath, did you read what he wrote to the Boston Globe before he became President?
Click to expand...

He did not get a declaration of war. Passing the buck is not equal to a declaration of war. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

shades said:
of course its a definition of war, and he knows it too.

My point concerning media bias, is that attacking another country should be page 1, top of page, every day page 1 top of page until Obama acts in a manner the office requires he acts.

he is kiling people under our flag, youd think that following the rules is the least he could do..

I am preparing myself for more liberal "hes our man, if he cant do it nobody can" for an entire campaign cycle from the media.. because its going to happen, I'm just praying to God, our creator, the same God that the people that started this great country believed in nd openly worshipped, that the GOP puts up the right candidate, thereby making it easy to knock clown boy back to a community leader or whatever it is an ousted president goes and does in his late 40's. write books I suppose about how racism cost him his second term...

theres a change a comin, change and hope to quote an ex president.
Click to expand...

Again, it was page one. Has been several times. You simply are not getting the biased effort you want. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
He did not get a declaration of war.
Click to expand...
No matter how many times you say this, as has been deomstrated, you're still wrong.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Yes. You use it because it suits you and the postion you have chosen to take.
As I said - you have a conclusion and have found 'facts' to support it.
Click to expand...

I use it because it is the definition. That is a fact. We use dictionaries to define words. I would say you deny this fact to suit you. You don't want words defined because this means you can believe anything.

A dictionary defintion is not a binding legal defintion, especially of concern when discussing constitutional and legal issues, as we are here.
There is, as you have admitted, no constitutional or legislative specification as to the contents of a declaration or war, and so the condtiitons and requirements you have tried to place here have absolutely no constitutional or legal basis to them.

As such, while your definion has meaning to you, it is in no way compelling to anyone who posesses a clue.
Click to expand...

I admit this is funny, but the issue is definition of the word. The legality is in who declares war (congress in case you forget). Definition is about what declaring war means. It is silly to think you have to have these words defined by law. Reminds me of Clinton silliness when he behaved as if he didn't know the meaning of the word is.

You may try again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
Click to expand...

A declaration of war states clear that we are now at war. Not later, maybe, if someone else wants to be. It is making the legal declaration that we are now at war. This is what congress is charged with doing. They are not allowed to say this is too hard for us, and we do't want the blame, so I'm going to let the president decide whenever he wants to. Kerry is not allowed to say I don't support him going to war outside the UN, but I'll vote for this because he promiesed not to, yet there won't be anythign legal to stop him from doing so.

To pretend that you don't understand this is a bit dishonest. You have been answered.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
No matter how many times you say this, as has been deomstrated, you're still wrong.
Click to expand...

Self pronouncements are also not equal to fact. ;) :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
Self pronouncements are also not equal to fact.
Click to expand...
Yes... like your constitutionally and legislatively meaningless prescription as to what constitutes a valid declaration of war.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
I use it because it is the definition.
Click to expand...
Not according to the Constitution or the law surrounding. That is a fact.

I admit this is funny, but the issue is definition of the word.
Click to expand...
Yes... according to the Constitution and the law, not your preference.

A declaration of war states clear that we are now at war.
Click to expand...
Please cite the text of the Constitution, or any legislation pursuant to same, that describes and/or specifies the manner of this declaration.

You have been answered.
Click to expand...
Yes... without effect.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Not according to the Constitution or the law surrounding. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not a dictionary. You're actually expected to knwo the definition of words.

Please cite the text of the Constitution, or any legislation pursuant to same, that describes and/or specifies the manner of this declaration.
Click to expand...

See above, it's not a dictionary. It is assumed you have one and can look up words you don't know.

Now, take the fingers out of your ears, open you eyes, and try agian, :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
The Constitution is not a dictionary. You're actually expected to knwo the definition of words.



See above, it's not a dictionary. It is assumed you have one and can look up words you don't know.

Now, take the fingers out of your ears, open you eyes, and try agian, :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Joe, You believe that what Bush did was illegal? And if so how can Obama continuing these things not be illegal as well?

j-mac
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

he cant answer that, he's lost in libbyland.

the hypocrisy of this administration and its followers will be thier demise
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
The Constitution is not a dictionary. You're actually expected to knwo the definition of words.
Click to expand...
Nothing here negates the soundness of anything that I said.

As anyone with better than a 3rd grade knowledge of legal matters knows, the definition of constitutional and legal terms - THE defintion, not A defintion - comes from the Constitution or the law surrounding it.

Until you cite THE defintion, from the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, you are not working with THE defintion; as such, any arguments you make are, necessarily, unsound.

Nothing can change that. Nothing.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

j-mac said:
Joe, You believe that what Bush did was illegal? And if so how can Obama continuing these things not be illegal as well?

j-mac
Click to expand...

One, he's not doing the same thing. YOu can't comapre apples and tree frogs and pretend they are the exact same. This has been the UN and NATO and not the US going out on their own.

Secondly, while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went to congress. Want to bet republicans would have treated this differently if he had? :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Nothing here negates the soundness of anything that I said.

As anyone with better than a 3rd grade knowledge of legal matters knows, the definition of constitutional and legal terms - THE defintion, not A defintion - comes from the Constitution or the law surrounding it.

Until you cite THE defintion, from the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, you are not working with THE defintion; as such, any arguments you make are, necessarily, unsound.

Nothing can change that. Nothing.
Click to expand...

No, words have meaning. Legal defintions as well. We've muddied the water over the years because we've allowed more. But that's not the issue. The issue is what is a decalration of war. For that, you look in a dictionary. Now if you want to argue that we have abandoned that part of the constitition and have been doing something else, I would agree. But that is why I call on us to go back to what the constitution calls for: a declaration of war.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
One, he's not doing the same thing. YOu can't comapre apples and tree frogs and pretend they are the exact same. This has been the UN and NATO and not the US going out on their own.

Secondly, while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went to congress. Want to bet republicans would have treated this differently if he had? :coffeepap
Click to expand...


Maybe I should be more specific. Joe, do you believe that Obama continuing the operations that the Bush administration started with regards to Iraq, and Afghanistan, neither with actual "Declarations of war" behind them, is illegal, and why any less so for Obama?

j-mac
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

j-mac said:
Maybe I should be more specific. Joe, do you believe that Obama continuing the operations that the Bush administration started with regards to Iraq, and Afghanistan, neither with actual "Declarations of war" behind them, is illegal, and why any less so for Obama?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Now that's another question, but as I told you back when Bush was president, that the real mistake was going in. That once we went in, there was no good way to end this. The mistake and damage was done. Obama has less choice than you guys like to think he has. Iraq is winding down, and it is now up to the Iraqis. Afghanistan, while problematic, is at least more understandable, as that is where we should have been in the first place.

You might also recall I never called on Bush to be impeached or arrested. What he did was illegal in the fact that he broke agreeements we made in good faith and without any of the justifications that would allow him to do that (Obama hasn't btw). I want congress to go back to declaring war, as is there charge, but recognize that they haven't for a long time (a mistake in my view). The argument you have entered into is about what is meant by declaring war. The person I'm speaking to seems to believe in a much broader interpretation that I do, one that ignore the meanings of the words.

But, what was illegal was going in. Bush did that. Now that the damage has been done, the question is more how to move out and not do even more harm.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
No, words have meaning. Legal defintions as well.
Click to expand...
Yes... and, since we are dealing with a legal issue, until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

PzKfW IVe said:
Yes... and, since we are dealing with a legal issue, until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Your distinction is meaningless. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Boo Radley said:
Your distinction is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Only to those with the aforementioned sub-third-grade understanding of the law - such as, obviously, yourself.

Until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom