Obama has 1 week

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Obama has one week before the 60-days provided for executive discretion on military activity by the War Powers Act expires.​
​
​
​
Will he end his African adventure, or will Congress authorize an imperialist intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?


​
 
The War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Only the President has the authority to determine the deployment of military forces, and congress has zero constitutional authority to interfere. Congress only has the authority to declare war, which is a political act, not a military act. The President can (and has, innumerable times) activate and use military force without declaration of war. Conversely (though it has never happened and is doubtful it ever would) it is theoretically possible that Congress could declare war, and the President could refuse to deploy the military against the declared enemy.

This was settled by SCOTUS at the start of the Civil War, when Lincoln was challenged on his authority to send out naval forces to form a blockade of the South before hostilities had been officially declared. The ruling was that the President has absolute authority to deploy military forces as he sees fit to meet national security needs. This ruling has been unsuccessfully challenged several times - most of them coming during Vietnam. With an initial ruling backed by several subsequent challenges pretty much sets the presidential authority over military deployment in stone.

The only reason WPA still exists is congress has never actually tried to use it to end a deployment against the will of the President. Therefore it has never been challenged in the courts. For WPA to have any real authority, congress would have to turn it into a Constitutional amendment.
 

Congressman Dennis Kucinich says "Obama violated the Constitution by pursuing war against Libya without a Constitutionally-required authorization for the use of military force or declaration of war from Congress".



Senator Richard Lugar says "Extended engagements in military action abroad, and the costs and risks they entail, must be undertaken only with the full support of the American people. If the Administration seeks to continue our military involvement in Libya, it is incumbent that they seek and secure Congressional authorization".



In 2007, Obama himself said "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".

 
I would say, while I obviously hate the WPA, that the quote from Obama back in 2007 is pretty accurate as to how the conduct of the president should be. In the case of Obama deploying forces to counter an obvious or potential threat to the US, Congress should not be able to interfere at all. Libya is merely a foreign humanitarian crisis, so Obama may be treading on shallow water here. Of course, in recent history, the Congress has been pretty cowardly, so he may be able to get his way, regardless.
 
Was RINO Paul for impeachment before he was against it?




​
​
​
​
​
​
​
 
"Sometimes I talk generically"...RINO Paul


RINO Paul’s spokeswoman Rachel Mills confirmed to The Daily Caller via email that Paul shares Kucinich’s point of view on the severity of the constitutional breach.


“Yes, he thinks it is an impeachable offense,” Mills wrote.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/22/ron-paul-believes-libya-intervention-an-impeachable-offense/


If, as the Dalai Damocles declares, Obama is neglecting his duties as president because his campaign is selling t-shirts and mugs, how does Damocrat explain this statement by RINO Paul's spokeswoman?


Video of RINO Paul saying "I think they are" when asked if Obama's African adventures are impeachable at http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1411005/pg1
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
"Sometimes I talk generically"...RINO Paul


RINO Paul’s spokeswoman Rachel Mills confirmed to The Daily Caller via email that Paul shares Kucinich’s point of view on the severity of the constitutional breach.


“Yes, he thinks it is an impeachable offense,” Mills wrote.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/22/ron-paul-believes-libya-intervention-an-impeachable-offense/


If, as the Dalai Damocles declares, Obama is neglecting his duties as president because his campaign is selling t-shirts and mugs, how does Damocrat explain this statement by RINO Paul's spokeswoman?


Video of RINO Paul saying "I think they are" when asked if Obama's African adventures are impeachable at http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1411005/pg1
Click to expand...

So, you didn't hear when he said, "If we spent our time impeaching Presidents for every time they breach the constitution we'd be pretty busy..." and "I've certainly not spent any time on this or think we should actually work to impeach him." It somehow means that he actually wants to impeach him?

I think your trolling is cute, but it isn't very difficult to see through. Maybe you could work on somebody who might get upset or something. This one is rather boring.
 
Seems to me, people - including most congress critters, our sitting president, and a vast majority of the general public - need to educate themselves on the division of powers. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress is not. Period.

Congress can declare war. The declaration of war is a POLITICAL action. The President can deploy military forces. That is a MILITARY action. While the two are related, the governmental authority behind them are completely separated by design. This issue was settled over 140 years ago when a split SCOTUS upheld Lincoln's authority to deploy the Navy in a blockade of the South. The owners of several seized ships sued that there was no declaration of war, and therefore the seizing of their vessels was illegal. They lost their petition because SCOTUS upheld the presidential power to deploy military for purposes of national security. The president has full authority to deploy military force wherever he feels it is necessary to national security, and does NOT need a declaration of war to do so.

That said, I would fully support a constitutional amendment which would specify the conditions in which military force can be used without declaration of war. (ie: response to invasion and/or attack, response to armed insurrection, etc.)
 
No reason to go to Congress for approval. Yep, that's what he wrote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

May 20, 2011 7:14 PM

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval...
Click to expand...
 
so, Obama didn't go to Congress because he assumed he was going to be raptured away today and now it didn't happen......what's plan B?......
 
Back on March 20, President Obama notified Congress that U.S. forces had launched Operation Odyssey Dawn.



The resolution has been President Obama’s strongest argument that he has the legal authority to initiate hostilities; the law effectively gives presidents sixty days to use force without congressional authorization.



So Obama now has to fall back on dubious claims of presidential authority based on past practice, which are far weaker than his lawyers admit, or semantic dodges (e.g., it’s NATO and not the United States fighting, small wars and drone strikes don’t count) that don’t withstand scrutiny.



So while Obama once argued that “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,” he is establishing a precedent that future occupants of the Oval Office could use to justify just that.



​




Obama-Warmonger.jpg




http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2011/05/20/friday-file-has-congress-abandoned-its-war-power/
 
Too funny... The Obama basically said "Fuck you bitch!" to the WPA, and libtards in general. My prediction is, they won't hold his feet to the fire on this anymore than extending the Patriot Act, ending rendition, and not closing Gitmo. Who are these idiots who comprise the 49% still supporting Obama?
 
The House wasn't even in session this week. ​
​
​
​
The inaction has raised concern among lawmakers from both parties. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Fox News that a bipartisan House coalition is prepared to move a resolution Monday that would either get Congress to sign off on the intervention or cut off the operation.



Without stating whether or how they might challenge the U.S. military involvement, several other lawmakers called for an explanation from the administration, and fast.



House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., fired off a letter to Obama calling for the president to justify the U.S. military's presence in the country and underscoring the 60-day deadline.



"With America's armed forces in harm's way, it is not my intention to second-guess or undermine your authority as Commander in Chief. However, the War Powers Resolution requires that, within sixty calendar days after a notification is submitted to Congress regarding the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities, the President terminate any use of U.S. forces unless the Congress has acted. As you are aware, we are approaching this critical juncture," McKeon wrote.



Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in a Detroit News op-ed, called on Congress to assert its authority.



"There has been no better time to regain our Constitutional balance and check the president's war powers. Congress is a co-equal branch -- and it should start acting like it," he wrote, conceding that a related bill he introduced in late March is unlikely to get a vote. He also expressed concern about a defense bill he claimed would grant authorization for use of force worldwide.



Six GOP senators earlier this week penned a letter to Obama asking "whether you intend to comply with the requirements" of the war powers law.



A spokeswoman for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who helped organize the letter, said the senator would wait to see how the president responds before making a decision on how to proceed.





​

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/lawmakers-demand-explanation-white-house-libya-deadline-arrives/#ixzz1N17X2vFi​
 
Dixie said:
Too funny... The Obama basically said "Fuck you bitch!" to the WPA, and libtards in general. My prediction is, they won't hold his feet to the fire on this anymore than extending the Patriot Act, ending rendition, and not closing Gitmo. Who are these idiots who comprise the 49% still supporting Obama?
Click to expand...
Somehow it's not you despite Obama doing literally EVERYTHING that Bush did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top