[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: President Obama Goes to War - Without Congress Regardless of one's inclination toward the "freedom fighters" and the "monster" in Libya, or the wisdom of United States military intervention, there are certain formalities that are required, and that President Obama and his administration, including Secretary of State Clinton, appear determined to ignore, in violation of both the Constitution and United States Law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that it is the Congress that has the power to declare war. United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), the War Powers Act, specifically states that the president may undertake the use of military force only in the case of "... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." It further states that the President must consult with Congress, "...in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ..." Membership in the United Nations does not grant the Security Council the authority to order U.S. forces into action, and being the President does not permit Obama to violate the Constitution and the Law, to commit an act of war without the authorization of the People, through their Congress. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-50) not displayed.
Are you kidding? This is being done to obtain energy and security for that center piece of conservativism......"Free Markets" Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening.
#52. To: lucysmom (#48) Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so. Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US?
#53. To: We The People (#49) Okay. Again, what is your point? Obama explained his reason for acting as he did. That explanation fulfills his War Powers Act requirements. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #54. To: lucysmom (#53) (Edited) Obama explained his reason for acting as he did. That explanation fulfills his War Powers Act requirements. Come now. You're an intelligent person. You can't possibly believe that statement. If that's the case, then ANY president can take this nation into hostilities or war and his only requirement is to explain his actions?
#55. To: We The People (#51) Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening. He's playing to HIS audience. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #56. To: We The People (#52) Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? I would say that Libya is the same level, if not greater threat to the US as Grenada was when Reagan invaded. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #57. To: Rek (#55) Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening. I'd much rather discuss the facts of this issue, rather than your feelings or hunches. Unless you're privy to some high level communications that the rest of us aren't privy to, your comments are mere speculation and poor attempts at justification.
#58. To: We The People (#54) Come now. You're an intelligent person. You can't possibly believe that statement. For the moment, yes. It ain't done yet. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #59. To: lucysmom (#56) I would say that Libya is the same level, if not greater threat to the US as Grenada was when Reagan invaded. You're trying to justify an illegal act. Neither Libya or Granada is or was a threat to the US.
#60. To: lucysmom (#58) For the moment, yes. My hunch about your intelligence was correct. And, that was meant as a compliment, not an insult.
#61. To: We The People (#59) You're trying to justify an illegal act. Neither Libya or Granada is or was a threat to the US. I'm not sure the act is illegal. It will be debated. Don't confuse a call for consistency with an attempt at justification. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #62. To: lucysmom (#61) Don't confuse a call for consistency with an attempt at justification. To be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing that consistency. I see you hesitating to accept facts about one president that you readily accept about others, concerning the same issue.
#63. To: We The People (#57) I'd much rather discuss the facts of this issue, rather than your feelings or hunches. Unless you're privy to some high level communications that the rest of us aren't privy to, your comments are mere speculation and poor attempts at justification. Maybe selling it to the Tea Baggers would be a better move in your book. Or believing Bush's rationale for two wars years after the true facts came out. One fact that's set in stone is that all politicians lie to get their way. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #64. To: We The People (#60) (Edited) My hunch about your intelligence was correct. Makes me think of the song; I'm Living Up To Her Low Expectations You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #65. To: All (#52) Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and the War Powers resolution. Both require the authorization of Congress. Not simply notification after the fact.
#66. To: We The People (#62) I see you hesitating to accept facts about one president that you readily accept about others, concerning the same issue. I'm saying what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Obama is wrong, than so was the sainted Ronald Reagan. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #67. To: Rek (#63) Maybe selling it to the Tea Baggers would be a better move in your book. Selling what? Your comments make little sense. Or believing Bush's rationale for two wars years after the true facts came out. Who believes Bush's rationale? Me? If that's what you think, then you are so far from correct it's ridiculous. And why are you trying to change the subject of this thread?
#68. To: lucysmom (#66) (Edited) If Obama is wrong, than so was the sainted Ronald Reagan. I don't (think) I'm the one that has a problem with that statement.
#69. To: We The People (#65) His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? Destabilizing the region is not the same as humanitarian reasons. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #70. To: We The People (#67) Who believes Bush's rationale? Me? If that's what you think, then you are so far from correct it's ridiculous. Okay..... you can believe every rationale that politicians give, please be my quest. Especially since they were presented as set in stone facts, very similiar to this situation. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #71. To: lucysmom (#69) (Edited) Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. Bush should also be in prison. Along with his entire cabinet.
#72. To: Rek (#70) Okay..... you can believe every rationale that politicians give, please be my quest. You're making less and less sense with each post.
#73. To: We The People (#72) You're making less and less sense with each post. You don't believe documented facts and you don't like opinion, so why are you here? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #74. To: We The People (#71) That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. But did you believe it to be BS at the time? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #75. To: lucysmom (#64) Makes me think of the song; I'm Living Up To Her Low Expectations Sorry, I don't know the song. I plugged the title into youtube but just got political stuff.
#76. To: Rek (#74) But did you believe it to be BS at the time? My rants against the Iraq war are public record. I believed at the time that, OF COURSE Iraq had WMD's, because WE gave them to Iraq to use against Iran. Still, they had no way to deliver any payload to the US, so they were not a threat. I was wrong, they had no ongoing WMD program. I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. I was never for the Iraq war.
#77. To: Rek (#73) You don't believe documented facts and you don't like opinion, so why are you here? LOL! You're a funny guy. What 'documented facts' are you referring to?
#78. To: We The People (#76) I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. So you were Bush's audience at the time, because there was a lot of opposition to the Afghan War. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #79. To: Rek (#73) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5)
#80. To: We The People (#79) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) I don't understand your reply. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #81. To: Rek (#78) So you were Bush's audience at the time I just explained to you how I was NOT Bush's audience. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. The primary military objective of any military at war is to remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war.
#82. To: Rek (#80) (Edited) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) Sorry, I was waiting not so patiently for your reply. f5 refreshes the page and is easier than clicking 'Bottom/Latest'. I was waiting for your reply to my question, "What 'documented facts' are you referring to?"
#83. To: We The People (#81) (Edited) You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Really? Is that why they continue to kill and maim the troops? When was the last war where we won and just left the country to their own devices afterward without a military presence? Did we do that in Germany, Japan? "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #84. To: We The People (#75) video.ca.msn.com/watch/vi...aryle-singletary/hahivqw9 You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #85. To: Rek (#83) You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? We are now fighting 'insurgents', not any organized military force. We are now fighting insurgents because we are engaged in nation building, not war. Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. When was the last war where we won and just left the country to their own devices afterward without a military presence? Did we do that in Germany, Japan? No, we didn't. That alone shows you how long leftists have controlled this country.
#86. To: We The People (#81) You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Afghanistan never had the ability to wage war in the traditional sense against the US. Neither did Vietnam. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #87. To: We The People (#85) Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. Yeah, I remember when Bush was against nation building. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand #88. To: lucysmom (#86) Afghanistan never had the ability to wage war in the traditional sense against the US. Neither did Vietnam. I agree. But the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda who had just killed 3000 Americans. We asked the Taliban to turn Al Qaeda over and they refused.
#89. To: lucysmom (#87) Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. I do too. In fact he made statements to that fact when he was campaigning. He's a liar as well as a criminal, but I guess the two do go hand in hand.
#90. To: We The People (#85) Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. We have kept our military prsence in most countries we have 'defeated' up until the present. Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny since this was used during the entire history of the 'building' of our own nation. And certainly by the GOP after the Civil War. "http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi" #91. To: Rek (#90) We have kept our military prsence in most countries we have 'defeated' up until the present. And you agree with that policy? Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny since this was used during the entire history of the 'building' of our own nation. You don't understand the term nation building. I'll try to explain. Nation building involves military defeat, regime change to a more palatable government to the victor, and the rebuilding the nation involved, with taxpayer dollars. It is 'making the world safe for democracy'. It is in direct opposition to the advice given to us by the founders of this nation.
. . . Comments (92 - 105) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|