GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
ABC NEWS LINK: HEREIn 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.
“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
BOSTON GLOBE LINK“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.”
Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.
If Congress presses the issue, how quickly could this get in front of the Supreme Court? They can move their schedule for urgent cases, right? If Congress can stop this, hopefully they will sue the Obama Administration and get an injunction for him to cease and desist this war immediately.
American's will support military action, but when you act like "Our Lord and King" with **** like this, we're gonna rise up.
Like you even care whats going on in libya. Like anyone except 2% of the population knows wtf is going on there. This is just a next step, global policing made easy. Relax, max
President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.
The War Powers Act needs serious revision. It needs to be specifically limited to something like 6 months. Using to justify years of war as it has been recently seems to be a clear violation of Constitutional intent.
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization
ABC NEWS LINK: HERE
In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said BOSTON GLOBE LINK
In the above article he goes on to say “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Candidate Obama seemed to think that it was important that the American people knew what his positions were and went so far as to speak about the trust the American people must have in someone whom they might elect President. Here are his words again:
In lite of the fact that he started a war Libya, what has changed since then, other than the fact that he is now President and there aren’t any real anti-war protests anymore? President Obama NOW seems to think that the United Nations is the legislative body that has the authority to authorize the United States to go to war rather than Congress.
Obama is not alone in his flip-floppery either. Vice President Biden, then Senator and Presidential candidate Biden, threatened to impeach then President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites claiming that the President has no Constitutional authority to take America to war unless we are attacked or there is proof that we are about to be attacked (see videos below).
What has changed? Why aren’t the American people outraged? I suspect it is because the majority of Americans want to support this President and want to see him succeed so badly that they allow him to lull them into utter ignorance by twisting words and coming up with phrases like “non-kinetic operations” and “reduce spending in the tax code”. If you plan to raise taxes and you call it “to reduce spending in the tax code”, you aren’t being honest and real with the American people.
However, when you take the country to war and claim that it isn’t a war because we are now only performing “non-kinetic operations”, you are basically saying that Osama Bin Laden was never at war with the US because he only engaged in “non-kinetic operations” aren’t you?
The US President has gone rogue.
Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?
But if he is then that means the criticisms conservatives lob against him are unfounded and therefore they should be supportive of him.
I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.
However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.
On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.
I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.
Obama's not the first.The US President has gone rogue.
Will the Kool-Aid drinkers ever accept the possibility that this guy is, according to their definitions, seriously right wing?
I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War.
As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place.
Does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation? ..if, so why?
Obama's not the first.
What? There's a transitional government in place that has been recognized by England, France, Italy, Qatar and Kuwait last I checked - as the legitimate government of Libya. They have organized local tribunals in rebel-held areas to demonstrate committment to democracy.
Who said we're gonna pick someone? Do we have the right to take out dictators who use their Air Force against their own people? Yes.
I support American intervention in the Libyan Civil War. However, the War Powers Act is currently the law of the land.
However, every President has challenged Congress' limitations on the executive branch. This has been true since the beginning of our country. So many Presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution since it was passed.
On one hand, Congress has the ability to declare war and also the ability to fund it. However, the President has the power to command the armed forces which he has so that timely military actions can be decided on. This is why the executive is headed by a single person and not be a co-equal committee - they knew that such military decisions would be better if one person was responsible for it all rather than a group of people who may undermine each other.
I don't mind at all Congress starting to re-assert its authority over such things; however, I don't expect an adequate or long-term solution to this issue until the Supreme Court steps up and clarifies the guidelines on how such things should work between the President and Congress.
And who is heading this "transitional government", what are its aims, political philosophies and who are its Libyan supporters?
.
Attacking Libya sans the approval of anyone is hardly 'conservative'. As well, neither BHO or anyone else appears to know who will take Gadaffi's place. That's not a conservative position either.
The point is that BHO is behaving in a manner usually reserved for Left Wing criticisms of the Right, without ever considering that Dr. Strangelove could be a Leftist,
The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 and the only President who broke it previously was Bill Clinton over Kosovao, but at least he presented an argument as to why he was sidestepping the law.
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?