Then we are done. You have an IQ problem or a political hack problem. I think it is the latter.
Who has charged Obama with a violatation of the war powers act? No one that I am aware of. And unless Congress takes a stand on being opposed to our involvement in the NATO action (and he continues anyway), I see little likelyhood that any charges will be brought against Obama.
sure, it's not united states military, it's nato
it's not war, it's limited
it's not days, it's weeks
vote obama, 2012!
he knows what he's doing!
LOL! While it is most refreshing to see the new GOP political forum support of Kucinich and his positions, I am willing to bet you that Congress doesn't take Kucinich's push for them to take a stand! :sun
A NATO, rather than unilateral, action does not relive the CinC of his responsibilities under the WPA, and does not modify the substance of The Obama's statement.Could you provide a link to this 2007 Obama response you refer to about the US joining in a NATO action?
Nothing requires a vote.Regardless of whehter it is or not to me doesn't relieve Congress from taking a stand on our involvement in the NATO action. I think it is cowardly that they have not taken a vote before now.
These government have yet to replaced with anything better. So far, all I see are bad dictators being replaced with really bad dictator. There's the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the pro-AQ clowns in Libya and there's no telling who is going to take over Syria, if there is the successful overthrow of that government.
I believe anyone that foresees a warm, peaceful democratic movement in the ME is living in a fantasy world.
What are you talking about Boo? Bush got authorization from Congress and the UN has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Presidential use of force.
As for Obama not breaking his oath, did you read what he wrote to the Boston Globe before he became President?
of course its a definition of war, and he knows it too.
My point concerning media bias, is that attacking another country should be page 1, top of page, every day page 1 top of page until Obama acts in a manner the office requires he acts.
he is kiling people under our flag, youd think that following the rules is the least he could do..
I am preparing myself for more liberal "hes our man, if he cant do it nobody can" for an entire campaign cycle from the media.. because its going to happen, I'm just praying to God, our creator, the same God that the people that started this great country believed in nd openly worshipped, that the GOP puts up the right candidate, thereby making it easy to knock clown boy back to a community leader or whatever it is an ousted president goes and does in his late 40's. write books I suppose about how racism cost him his second term...
theres a change a comin, change and hope to quote an ex president.
No matter how many times you say this, as has been deomstrated, you're still wrong.He did not get a declaration of war.
Yes. You use it because it suits you and the postion you have chosen to take.
As I said - you have a conclusion and have found 'facts' to support it.
A dictionary defintion is not a binding legal defintion, especially of concern when discussing constitutional and legal issues, as we are here.
There is, as you have admitted, no constitutional or legislative specification as to the contents of a declaration or war, and so the condtiitons and requirements you have tried to place here have absolutely no constitutional or legal basis to them.
As such, while your definion has meaning to you, it is in no way compelling to anyone who posesses a clue.
You may try again:
How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
No matter how many times you say this, as has been deomstrated, you're still wrong.
Yes... like your constitutionally and legislatively meaningless prescription as to what constitutes a valid declaration of war.Self pronouncements are also not equal to fact.
Not according to the Constitution or the law surrounding. That is a fact.I use it because it is the definition.
Yes... according to the Constitution and the law, not your preference.I admit this is funny, but the issue is definition of the word.
Please cite the text of the Constitution, or any legislation pursuant to same, that describes and/or specifies the manner of this declaration.A declaration of war states clear that we are now at war.
Yes... without effect.You have been answered.
Not according to the Constitution or the law surrounding. That is a fact.
Please cite the text of the Constitution, or any legislation pursuant to same, that describes and/or specifies the manner of this declaration.
The Constitution is not a dictionary. You're actually expected to knwo the definition of words.
See above, it's not a dictionary. It is assumed you have one and can look up words you don't know.
Now, take the fingers out of your ears, open you eyes, and try agian, :coffeepap
Nothing here negates the soundness of anything that I said.The Constitution is not a dictionary. You're actually expected to knwo the definition of words.
Joe, You believe that what Bush did was illegal? And if so how can Obama continuing these things not be illegal as well?
j-mac
Nothing here negates the soundness of anything that I said.
As anyone with better than a 3rd grade knowledge of legal matters knows, the definition of constitutional and legal terms - THE defintion, not A defintion - comes from the Constitution or the law surrounding it.
Until you cite THE defintion, from the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, you are not working with THE defintion; as such, any arguments you make are, necessarily, unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
One, he's not doing the same thing. YOu can't comapre apples and tree frogs and pretend they are the exact same. This has been the UN and NATO and not the US going out on their own.
Secondly, while not as illegal as Bush's actions, nor as costly, I would still have prefered Obama went to congress. Want to bet republicans would have treated this differently if he had? :coffeepap
Maybe I should be more specific. Joe, do you believe that Obama continuing the operations that the Bush administration started with regards to Iraq, and Afghanistan, neither with actual "Declarations of war" behind them, is illegal, and why any less so for Obama?
j-mac
Yes... and, since we are dealing with a legal issue, until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.No, words have meaning. Legal defintions as well.
Yes... and, since we are dealing with a legal issue, until you show THE defintion as per the Constitution or the law that surrounds it, your argument is unsound.
Nothing can change that. Nothing.
Only to those with the aforementioned sub-third-grade understanding of the law - such as, obviously, yourself.Your distinction is meaningless.
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?