• 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!

If The Obama does not follow the War Powers Act

If He does not follow the law, will you support a call for His impeachment?


  • Total voters
    18

PzKfW IVe

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
See:

Under the War Powers Act, President Barack Obama had until Friday to get congressional authorization to continue U.S. military operations in Libya. But the day passed without his even asking for it, which means he has to disengage within 30 days. Obama may not heed that requirement either.

Obama is on the horns of a dilemma. As a candidate, he said the president does not have the power to go to war on his own except in cases of actual or likely attack. But if he were to ask Congress to authorize the Libyan intervention, he would probably be rebuffed. So he's chosen to simply ignore the law
President Barack Obama's war in Libya, and Congress' inaction, show War Powers Act is not effective - chicagotribune.com

Remember, The Obama. Himself, said, specifically:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya


If He does not follow the law, will you support a call for His impeachment?
 
I doubt seriously the Radical Liberals in the Senate would never convict Obama ans a single charge would not be enough to oust him, however it might shut down some of his arrogance.


Obama doesn't obey the the Constitution or the Laws on the books, let alone the War Powers Act.
 
No, but I would support a lawsuit so that the Supreme Court can order him to cease and desist immediately.
 
No, but I would support a lawsuit so that the Supreme Court can order him to cease and desist immediately.
Why would you not support impeachment?
 
Can you imagine the nightmare if Obama were impeached? It'd be called a witch hunt and people would defer back to Clinton's own impeachment issues and all of a sudden conservatives are out to make criminals of every democrat president, and liberals had more respect for Bush than for Obama, and blah, blah, blah...

I'm not sure of the rules myself. If he is in violation of law I'd have to consider the process...but is anybody in the house or senate calling for procedure to be followed? Is Obama going to justify this by saying he's more focused on the economy and budget? Will the legislature use the same excuse?
 
Can you imagine the nightmare if Obama were impeached? It'd be called a witch hunt...
Only by those that will do anything to defend Him, regardless of what He does.
If Congress refuses to hold The President accountable for not following the law, then the law has no meaning.
 
I think Obama should be help accountable to the law and his own words. Someone needs to challenge him on his hypocrisy.
 
I am not very well informed about the situation in Libya in re what we're actually doing over there.

I am against the War Powers as they exist currently. I think they need some serious limitations that they don't currently have. To me it makes no sense that they can be used for a war that lasts years. I think the President's "war powers," as such, should be limited to 90 or 180 days.

What are our guys doing over there exactly?
 
I am not very well informed about the situation in Libya in re what we're actually doing over there.

I am against the War Powers as they exist currently. I think they need some serious limitations that they don't currently have. To me it makes no sense that they can be used for a war that lasts years. I think the President's "war powers," as such, should be limited to 90 or 180 days.
The WPA gives the CinC broad powers for 60 days, and then must go to Congress for continuing authority to act.
 
The WPA gives the CinC broad powers for 60 days, and then must go to Congress for continuing authority to act.
Yeah, but what exactly are our guys doing over there?

And what exactly is "imminent involvement in hostilities"? Has there been any case law or other to go by? If Congress wants to establish that by legislation or through impeachment hearings, I'm all for it.
 
The White House telling us the White House doesn't need to get a WPA authorization is supposed to settle the issue?

Sure, show me a prominent politician that is actually complaining. Oh wait, they are all on board and are actually helping further our goals in getting Libya through this and us out asap:
The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”

The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”
 

Below, just to clarify.

Questioned by Charlie Savage: Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The parenthetical comment in the question apparently was not part of the actual question.
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
 
bty, who is the US at war with? Not Libya if we recognise the 'new government'.
 
I am not very well informed about the situation in Libya in re what we're actually doing over there.

What are our guys doing over there exactly?

killing innocent civilains, while in the act of trying to assasinate thier leader,
other than that?
 
Why would you not support impeachment?

Because 1) A Supreme Court injunction would be sufficient to get him to stop, 2) My goal is to end the war in Libya, not to get rid of Obama, and 3) I'm sick and tired of people wanting to impeach every single president that they don't like. That's not healthy for our republic. For an impeachment of the president, you better have virtually no controversy whatsoever about the meaning of the law.
 
Below, just to clarify.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

this is exactly right.

if the threat is iminent, or percieved iminent, like it was in Iraq, then the president has the right, and obligation to act alone if need be. in the case of Iraq Bush went a step further and got approval from congress.

Obama on the otherhand has no intention of consulting with anyone outside of his inner circle.
which, as we are finding, is comprised of half wits and rookies.

pretty dangerous situation given the stakes
 
Because 1) A Supreme Court injunction would be sufficient to get him to stop
In theory. If He refused?

2) My goal is to end the war in Libya, not to get rid of Obama,
That's fine, but the question as if He should be removed for willfully refusing to follow is still valid.

3) I'm sick and tired of people wanting to impeach every single president that they don't like.
The issue doesn't revolve around liking Him or not, it revolves around Him willfully refusing to follow the law.

In this regard, what would The Obama have to do for you to call for His removal?
 
Question: If the polls show that the majority feel like Obama should get authorization from the legislature to continue in Lybia, do you think he'll go after it at that point? That is, will he wait it out until it's politically expedient to do so?
 
I started reading the war power act and a bunch to go. It is not a simple document. It has a lot of ‘ifs’ and not well defined terms. No wonder it’s been hard to stop any president from taking any military action. An example is the 1st bush action in Kuwait.
 
In theory. If He refused?

Well, maybe then. If he defied the Supreme Court, he'd be guilty of contempt. But I see no reason to expect it to come to that. Obama has no desire to stake the entire future of his presidency on an ill-conceived gamble in Libya. If the matter is brought to the court, they'll probably order him to cease and desist, he will do so, and that will be the end of it.
 
Well, maybe then. If he defied the Supreme Court, he'd be guilty of contempt.
What's he guilty of if He fails to conform to the specifications of the WPA?
How is that not similarly impeachable?
 
What's he guilty of if He fails to conform to the specifications of the WPA?
How is that not similarly impeachable?

Because I think that presidential impeachment should be reserved for the most blatant abuses when there is no alternative. Contempt of court would qualify under certain circumstances. Violating the WPA, although a power grab for which Obama should be ashamed, need not merit impeachment when a court injunction telling him to stop will suffice. Obama hasn't done anything nearing the level of impeachment yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom