[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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 79. . and not a FUCKING word from so the called CONSTITUTIONAL and TRADITIONAL "CONSERVATIVES" meme here. Ah yes. Affectation as opposed to natural honesty. Bullshit is the language. Self is the true cause. "Send lawyers guns and money, the sh!t has hit the fan!"
#2. To: Mad Dog (#1) I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this. The only outrage I've heard has come from Democrats, unless I've just missed it.
#6. To: We The People (#2) I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this. The only outrage I've heard has come from Democrats, unless I've just missed it. The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs Congressional approval.
#25. To: lucysmom (#6) (Edited) The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs Congressional approval. That is not true. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[citation needed] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
#26. To: We The People (#25) That is not true. Not so fast. What does that little "[citation needed]" following the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. mean?
#27. To: lucysmom (#26) (Edited) Not so fast. We both know what it means, but let's not play games. Let's forget the wiki site and go straight to the text of the resolution... www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001541----000-.html
(a) Congressional declaration It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. (b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof. (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001542----000-.html
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. There is no way around it, facts are facts. Obama has violated the US Constitution as well as the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
#31. To: We The People (#27) (2) specific statutory authorization, or Not knowing what that means, I looked it up. Here's what I found: Section 8(b) states that further specific statutory authorization is not required
to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
This section was added by the Senate to make clear that the resolution did not prevent U.S. forces from participating in certain joint military exercises with allied or friendly organizations or countries. The conference report stated that the "high-level" military commands meant the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, (NATO), the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the United Nations command in Korea.
www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html It kinda looks like Obama is covered by "specific statutory authorization". (not that that makes any difference)
#35. To: lucysmom (#31) It kinda looks like Obama is covered by "specific statutory authorization". I'm sorry, but it doesn't. A 'joint military exercise' is not actively engaging in hostilities against another country. A 'joint military exercise' is a training mission.
#37. To: We The People (#35) I'm sorry, but it doesn't. He's covered because he commands the biggest military in the world that backs him up. Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?
#40. To: Rek (#37) Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for? They like that power over everything stuff when in power and still think its their birth right when out of power.
#42. To: lucysmom, Rek (#40) Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for? Conservatives haven't been 'in power' for decades, neoconservatives or the left have. Is that what this discussion is reduced to? Irrefutable facts have been presented, clearly outlining an unconstitutional and criminal act by a President of the United States, and all you two have is insults for conservatives who have had nothing to do with any of this middle eastern adventurism.
#46. To: We The People (#42) Irrefutable facts have been presented, clearly outlining an unconstitutional and criminal act by a President of the United States, and all you two have is insults for conservatives who have had nothing to do with any of this middle eastern adventurism. Are you kidding? This is being done to obtain energy and security for that center piece of conservativism......"Free Markets"
#51. To: Rek (#46) 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.
#55. To: We The People (#51) Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening. He's playing to HIS audience.
#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.
#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.
#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?
#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.
#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?
#79. To: Rek (#73) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5)
Replies to Comment # 79. (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) I don't understand your reply.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 79. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|