What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan now?
the President has not invoked the Constitution to take military action in Libya.
I googled your link, I couldn't find any non-conservative biased media reporting on this.
Nation building. No one told you?
Libya's next, but I think the Euros are gonna own that one.
he invoked the constitution on january 20, 2009
days not weeks, anyone?
"limited" war?
nato's china shop, not ours?
are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?
he invoked the constitution on january 20, 2009
days not weeks, anyone?
"limited" war?
nato's china shop, not ours?
are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?
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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”
If you can't be bothered to re-post your points, I can't be bothered to read them.I bring to the reader's attention posts #428 and #429 from the thread. The combined commentary from those posts along with that of my post #71 in this thread should put an end to this nonsense.
The President has not violated the War Powers Act nor the Constitution in any way. What we're seeing from members of Congress equates to political posturing, nothing more.
If you can't be bothered to re-post your points, I can't be bothered to read them.
GPS_Flex said:You are joking right? You aren’t seriously claiming that Congress was referring to the United Nations when it said “specific statutory authorization” are you?I bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
In short, the UNPA gives the president the authority to negotiate peace agreements w/the U.N. Security Counsel in an effort to help establish peace in the face of hostilities abroad provided that a U.N. Resolution has been established concerning such hostilities. However, the President cannot go beyond the limits and scope of the U.N. resolution as mandated.
Bottom Line: The UNPA is that "statutory" authorization per section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Act.
House GOP kills vote on Libya
"House Republicans yanked a resolution from the floor that called for an end to U.S. participation in a NATO military action in Libya after it appeared the measure may have had enough support to pass."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: House GOP kills vote on Libya | Susan Ferrechio | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
w/o getting into the details of the aforementionedVery...Satisfied?
The President has NOT invoked the Constitution concerning Libya.
w/o getting into the details of the aforementioned
So has the UN called? I thought this was a NATO thing.
the constitution does not require invoking
So the answer is....what? Is this a UN mission under Article 42?Simon, of all people I thought you would show alot more intelligence than this. Don't dummy yourself down like this, man.
the constitution does not require invoking
So the answer is....what? Is this a UN mission under Article 42?
From the very little I have learned about law, "in effect" can be radically different than "is".In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s).
The ILA was authorized via the WPA and reports still go to Congress from the WH in re that matter. That's prob'ly the reason why you haven't heard people saying that it violated the WPA--it's actually in compliance with it.It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?