Congress Asks Obama, "Why No Declaration Of War?

[AmericasBrave58]

March 23, 2011

An unusual congressional alliance is taking President Obama to task for failing to seek a declaration of war in Libya. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R.-Md., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., both say the president is out of line, despite most members of their parties backing the no-fly zone.


This i don't understand!! Other President's went through Congress. What makes Obama think that he is above the law, and not follow the rules of Declarations of War.?

 

[Oddball]

It's that (D) by his name.

 

[G.T.]

Oh, Oddball, I'm sure that you can easily cite where he's breaking the Law followed by supporting case law and everything. Not just another cynical spout/pout off.

 

[G.T.]

March 23, 2011

An unusual congressional alliance is taking President Obama to task for failing to seek a declaration of war in Libya. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R.-Md., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., both say the president is out of line, despite most members of their parties backing the no-fly zone.


This i don't understand!! Other President's went through Congress. What makes Obama think that he is above the law, and not follow the rules of Declarations of War.?

Is enforcing a no fly zone under the jurisdiction of the U.N. a War?>

 

[Oddball]

Oh, Oddball, I'm sure that you can easily cite where he's breaking the Law followed by supporting case law and everything. Not just another cynical spout/pout off.

See what I mean?

Were this BOOOOOOOOOSH! you'd have messed your pants several times by now.

 

[G.T.]

Oh, Oddball, I'm sure that you can easily cite where he's breaking the Law followed by supporting case law and everything. Not just another cynical spout/pout off.

See what I mean?

Were this BOOOOOOOOOSH! you'd have messed your pants several times by now.

Lean back on that defense all you want, fuck boy. I see you.

No real answer to the question posed, just another boohoo opportunity due to your inherent jealousies and cynicism.

 

[AmericasBrave58]

Oh, Oddball, I'm sure that you can easily cite where he's breaking the Law followed by supporting case law and everything. Not just another cynical spout/pout off.

That's a Lib for YA!!! always finding ways to avoid following the Law. I am a Non Partisan, and i see it like this, if they can get away with breaking the law and still hold office at the same time, then there is something awful sneaky about this Government.

 

[G.T.]

Oh, Oddball, I'm sure that you can easily cite where he's breaking the Law followed by supporting case law and everything. Not just another cynical spout/pout off.

That's a Lib for YA!!! always finding ways to avoid following the Law. I am a Non Partisan, and i see it like this, if they can get away with breaking the law and still hold office at the same time, then there is something awful sneaky about this Government.

You're a non partisan but you call anyone whom you know nothing about a Lib when they take the opposite position? ahhh kay.

Cite the law. Cite the precedents. Make your case. Or else, fluff.

 

[G.T.]

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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

The War Powers Act of 1973

 

[G.T.]

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

 

[G.T.]

I don't see where he's breaking the Law as the OP suggests.

 

[RogueTrader]

when was the last time we declared war? it seems like every president gets us into a military conflict w/o declaring war.

 

[G.T.]

when was the last time we declared war? It seems like every president gets us into a military conflict w/o declaring war.

wwii

 

[Oddball]

Where does the war powers act say that American forces can be farmed out to act under the flag of the UN and/or NATO?

 

[G.T.]

eta: we've only formally declared war 5 times, ever.

 

[G.T.]

Where does the war powers act say that American forces can be farmed out to act under the flag of the UN and/or NATO?

Do you know what a Treaty is and means? Also, while we're at it, it doesn't matter why we're using the force, the fact is it's LEGAL for the President to do so. Keep huffing.

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[bodecea]

March 23, 2011

An unusual congressional alliance is taking President Obama to task for failing to seek a declaration of war in Libya. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R.-Md., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., both say the president is out of line, despite most members of their parties backing the no-fly zone.


This i don't understand!! Other President's went through Congress. What makes Obama think that he is above the law, and not follow the rules of Declarations of War.?

A very good question. Maybe that declaration of war is filed next to the ones for Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They should look there.

 

[G.T.]

That doesn't answer the question.

Get to your point: has he broken the Law? Show how. You cannot. That's why you're shifting the argument.

 

[The T]

Where does the war powers act say that American forces can be farmed out to act under the flag of the UN and/or NATO?

War Powers Act In a nutshell...

§ 1541. Purpose and policy


(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.

_______________________

Funny...I don't see it either...

SOURCE