• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Say it ain't so Joe

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oh, that's nothing.

Here's one from the Magic Negro himself:

I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I am not sure why this is coming up again,...

for our political leaders to insinuate it matters NOW is ridicules.

or insane in the very least... if the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again and still expecting a different result... then the politicians complaining about this issue NOW are insane..

they went over this before Lydia.. and when Obama went ahead anyways.. they just grumbled and that is about it...
Obama administration: Libya action does not require congressional approval

The Obama administration argued Wednesday that its nearly three-month-old military involvement in Libya does not require congressional approval because of the supporting role most U.S. forces are playing there.

The White House reasoning, included in a 32-page report to Congress, is the administration’s first detailed response to complaints from lawmakers of both parties, who say President Obama has exceeded his authority as commander in chief by waging war in Libya without congressional authorization.

The report came on the same day a bipartisan group of lawmakers filed suit in federal court against Obama seeking to end the U.S. participation in Libya, pushing what has been a slow-moving confrontation over the power of the president at a time of war toward the center of the political debate.

What began as a complaint from those mostly on the partisan fringes of Congress has attracted more lawmakers with each passing week of the Libya operation, which the Obama administration has said is making significant progress in forcing Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi from power. The demand that Obama secure congressional approval to continue the Libya operation has brought together House Republicans and liberal Democrats. Some lawmakers have raised the legal question in the hope of stopping the war on principle.

The United States has spent $715.9 million in Libya, the vast majority of it on military operations, according to the report. The administration estimates that the cost will rise to $1.1 billion through September, although it does not plan to request additional funds from Congress to pay for the mission.

The report also says that “there has not been a significant operational impact on United States activities in Iraq and Afghanistan” as a result of the Libya campaign.

On the legal question, which the report spends a single paragraph addressing, the administration states that Obama believes he has participated in the Libya operation in a way “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973 in an attempt to constrain a president’s war-making capabilities after the undeclared conflicts in Vietnam and Korea.

The report says that “because U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution,” the deadlines for congressional approval or force withdrawal do not apply.

“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops,” said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. “None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”

In the case of Libya, that deadline expired last month with the Obama administration failing to do either. The House voted June 3 to give Obama two weeks to comply with the resolution, a deadline that expires Friday.

In a letter to Obama on Tuesday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote that “the ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your administration.”

At the heart of the administration’s argument is the nature of the U.S. role in Libya, which has changed since Obama announced March 19 the start of operations meant to protect Libyan civilians from forces loyal to Gaddafi, who had threatened reprisals against the residents of the rebellious city of Benghazi.

After taking the lead in destroying Gaddafi’s air-defense capabilities in the early days, U.S. military commanders turned over day-to-day control of the operation to NATO.

and by keeping this to a short attack that will only distract from the current scandals, I doubt any of our politicians would do much more then speak out on a few assorted cable news shows..


President Obama: Don't Strike Syria Without Congressional Approval

In past cases where an administration has deployed force without congressional authorization, and which supporters of military action without congressional authorization cite as precedents -- Kosovo and Libya -- the administration cited international action as justification: NATO action in the former case, UN action in the latter case.

Now, in fact, there's nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that says that the administration can act without congressional approval because there's a UN resolution or a NATO agreement. But because administrations have argued in the past that a UN resolution or NATO action can help justify U.S. military action in the absence of congressional authorization, it matters that there is no UN resolution and no NATO action -- the administration's legal case for unilateral action is even weaker than in the Kosovo case or the Libya case.

Unfortunately, the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are not self-enforcing when it comes to protecting congressional war powers, democracy, and the rule of law. The enforcement is political. The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are enforced when Members of Congress insist that they be enforced, and Members of Congress insist that the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution be enforced when they hear from the public that they want the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution to be enforced.

That's why it's important for the public to speak up. Tell President Obama and Congress to comply with the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution: no military intervention in Syria without prior congressional approval.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/president-obama-dont-stri_b_3817398.html

the fact is.. we no longer have a representative goverment.. nor a separation of powers..

Just a king who argues that laws he likes are laws of the land,.. and those he doesn't like are not relevant..
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
At the heart of the administration’s argument is the nature of the U.S. role in Libya, which has changed since Obama announced March 19 the start of operations meant to protect Libyan civilians from forces loyal to Gaddafi, who had threatened reprisals against the residents of the rebellious city of Benghazi.

That sure worked out well for us. :roll:
 
Top