RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

RacerJim -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 9:05:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’


Unilaterally ... done or undertaken by one person.

I do not believe he, in any way, changed his mind.

Unilaterally ... done or undertaken by the President alone (without Congressional approval).

You do not believe he, in any way, has ever done anything illegal.



mnottertail -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 9:15:36 AM)

Congressional approval is not constitutionally required simultaneously.
It may be a unilateral act at the outset.
You don't think W, or Reagan, or Nixon did anything illegal.

And, .......................... so?

I mean is there supposed to be a point in there.
 



flcouple2009 -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 9:23:56 AM)

My biggest concern is that the Libyan forces will just settle and hold tight.  They won't be able to attack the rebels nor will the rebels be able to force them out.

Now we will be enforcing a no fly zone for years as we did in Iraq.



mnottertail -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 9:31:41 AM)

Ja, dirty, dirty gamboo.

If Saudi forces can go to Bahrain to quell the dissent, can they go to Libya and foment it?

Herein lies the great question of the day.

I see a vast velleity on the part of the Arab neighbors to assist in the liberation, and  for good reason, they are each alike in policy. 



tazzygirl -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 10:20:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’


Unilaterally ... done or undertaken by one person.

I do not believe he, in any way, changed his mind.

Unilaterally ... done or undertaken by the President alone (without Congressional approval).

You do not believe he, in any way, has ever done anything illegal.


In this case, he hasnt.

He notified Congress, per the Wars Power Act.

He didnt "act" unilaterally... there are other countries involved, or did you forget Britian and France?

Unitalerally... done or undertaken by one person.

The definition doesnt fit.

[8|]

Put your racism aside, jim.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 3:49:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl



He didnt "act" unilaterally... there are other countries involved, or did you forget Britian and France?



LMAO. Yeah, the Constitution really gives a fuck whether the POTUS has the support of Britain and France. Weak, even for you.



tazzygirl -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 4:25:50 PM)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20046013-503544.html

Nearly 7 in 10 support air strikes in Libya, CBS News poll finds

Real weak. [:D]



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 8:38:55 PM)

similar to the poll numbers we attacked in Iraq... both times...which  both btw...had overwhelming Congressional approval.



tazzygirl -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/22/2011 8:53:15 PM)

Bush was required to make a report to Congress no later than 48 hours after exercising the authority that it was "his determination" that:

1."Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;" and
2."Acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [3]
Congress also explicitly stated that the AUMF did not cede any of its powers under the War Powers Resolution and required reports every 60 days on actions related to the exercise of the AUMF, including "the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." [4]

This is what you are referring too, yes?



Sanity -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 6:04:28 AM)


I posted this on the other thread, from Drudge and it addresses the OP directly in this thread as well:

Video:

BIDEN FLASHBACK: 'If he gives authorization to war... without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him!'



CreativeDominant -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 7:01:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Bush was required to make a report to Congress no later than 48 hours after exercising the authority that it was "his determination" that:

1."Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;" and
2."Acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [3]
Congress also explicitly stated that the AUMF did not cede any of its powers under the War Powers Resolution and required reports every 60 days on actions related to the exercise of the AUMF, including "the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." [4]

This is what you are referring too, yes?

Actually, the War Powers act is one of those things that Congress did to make itself feel important. Constitutionally, the President...Truman, Dubya, Obama...has the right to wage war with or without Congressional approval. If Congress does not like it, all they have3 to do is withhold the funding. Who knows?
this may finally be the time that the War Powers Act goes before the Supremes...

Actually, I am waiting for the "die-ins"...



tazzygirl -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 8:26:50 AM)

The above, that you quoted from my post, is the agreement Bush gained from Congress. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is what is stated in the War Powers Act as his requirement to do.



rulemylife -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 9:04:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

I will remind you that Obama campaigned on the premise of getting us out of foreign wars where we have no business being there. This is none of our business. It's an attempted revolution, and when people attempt revolutions they have to expect there will be consequences. Which means innocent people will sometimes get killed. The national news is even asking the question 'if the basis for our attack on Libya is to protect civilians, then why aren't we doing the same in Bahrain, and Yemen?'


I will remind you that you that Bush campaigned on a platform opposing "nation building".

How did that work out?



Real0ne -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 10:39:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’


I guess he changed his mind huh?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde


It all depends on how you want to define : "President"
and :  "Does'
and : "Not"
and : "Have"
and : "Power"
and : "Under"
and : "Constitution"
and : "to"
and : "Unilaterally"
and : "Authorize"
and : "a"
and : "Military"
and : "Attack"


just a small free lesson in modern law



popeye1250 -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 11:41:13 AM)

Most people don't know why we're even shooting missles at Libya.
First, it was something vague about helping the rebels, then a couple days later it was to get Gadafy out of power, then last night on the news they used the terms "human rights" "prevent a slaughter" etc. Seems it's "not" ok if the rebels get slaughtered but it "is" ok if Gadafy's guys get slaughtered? Then they said that many of the rebels sympathize with al quada and the muslim brotherhood so we should save them?
What will they say next? Will they start using the terms, "ethnic cleansing" and "peace keepers?" In hopes that the American People will "feel sorry" for Libyans? Good luck with that one! Remember the Libyans *dancing in the streets after 9-11?* Fuck 'em! We should be airdropping in AK-47's, machetes, and poison gas for them to use on eachother.
This is one of those things that the U.S. needs to give "a good leaving alone."
Let's see some "hope and change" for once; "I'm not getting the U.S. involved in Libya's internal affairs."
Obama won't even get involved in most of *our* internal affairs!
I wonder if Joe Biden has said; "Ghadafy is not a dictator! And he's a personal friend!"
And what has Hillary Clinton said? She seems to be unusually quiet after all her conflicting comments on Egypt last month!
I watched Bill O'Reilly last night and normally I agree with him about 75% of the time but he sounded like a war hawk during Vietnam!
And he said that many on the left are against getting involved in Libya. Well, many of us Independants can be counted with the left as well on that.
They said that we've spent $800 million so far just on Tomahawk missiles at $600,000 per copy.
Plus all the other costs that a Carrier Battle Group generates daily. One sortie can cost $25k and up!
But, imagine that you applied for Social Security Disability and got turned down. Twelve or fourteen hundred a month would keep a roof over your head and food on the table but Social Security wants to, "keep costs down."
Then you turn on the news to see that *your government* has given $2 Billion of the Taxpayer's money that we had to borrow from China to Haiti!
On all the radio talk shows I listen to (Howie Carr, Dr. Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle and a few others) there is one recurring theme, "Washington needs to start taking care of *our* problems in the U.S. and let foreign countries take care of their own!"
It costs us about $2-$3 billion a year just to keep Troops in S. Korea. This has been going on for about *60* years!
How many people do you know that want the U.S. to be "the world's leader?" I don't know any. None. Not one.
I was at the American Legion post yesterday and the recurring theme there was "Don't get US involved in that bullshit!"
We only seem to hear that kind of tripe from Washington.
When is Washington going to start *listening* to The People instead of big corporations and lobbyists?
It's like we've lost control over *our government*.
Now, I'm going to e-mail and call my congressman's office and tell him not to fund anymore of this Libya nonsense.



tazzygirl -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 2:10:31 PM)

While you are at it, tell him to defund Iraq and Afghanistan and bring those boys and girls home as well.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 2:32:11 PM)

Tazz... again... Obama's words.

Look... that's how he ran... not me, not Bush, not Palin.... HIM Barrak Obama said this.

He's the one that promised a different standard, not me.



mnottertail -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 2:38:37 PM)

I am still lost everybody is circlejerking here near as I can tell.

He does not have unilateral authority, but it does not require the collateral authority be simultaneous.

He was big inside the law, and the rest is theater.



tazzygirl -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 2:45:07 PM)

He also stated, in the same interview, that he, as President, could not ignore the human right treaties that were signed.

And, if Im not mistaken, that was the whole point of being asked to help Libya.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack (3/23/2011 4:08:39 PM)

Bush's actions were entirely consistent with his campaign positions:

"... I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it’s in our best interests." Oct 2000 on Somalia



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875