Congress Asks Obama, "Why No Declaration Of War?

[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?

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

Look harder. We have a treaty with the UN. That's the Statutory Authorization.

 

[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

Look harder. We have a treaty with the UN. That's the Statutory Authorization.

However He is still required to CONSULT with the Congress.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Back to enumerated powers....If it's not spelled out where the CiC may act, it's presumed that he cannot.

But, like I said, since the warmonger has that (D) by his name, it's all good.

Met the new boss.....

 

[G.T.]

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

Look harder. We have a treaty with the UN. That's the Statutory Authorization.

However He is still required to CONSULT with the Congress.

Yes, once every 6 months. Says so right in your link. And, he has 60 days initially to do so.

 

[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.

Back to enumerated powers....If it's not spelled out where the CiC may act, it's presumed that he cannot.

But, like I said, since the warmonger has that (D) by his name, it's all good.

Met the new boss.....

It's spelled out in the War Powers Act because it WASNT previously spelled out and so after Vietnam that issue was addressed.

 

[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.

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.

it was not intended for the Gent, who responded to this Post, It was directed to Obama, and he is a Lib.

 

[G.T.]

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.

it was not intended for the Gent, who responded to this Post, It was directed to Obama, and he is a Lib.

Understood, and thanks.

Although, he did not break the Law so the post was inane.

 

[jillian]

Don't you guys ever look at how many threads there are on a subject BEFORE you post?

The answer remains the same...

read the war powers act.

*yawn*

 

[Oddball]

 

[G.T.]

This makes it right for you to now be the same? Fuck kinda standards as a man do you have?

 

[jillian]

hacks... the last time we had a declaration of war was WWII.

d'oh!

 

[G.T.]

hacks... the last time we had a declaration of war was WWII.

d'oh!

$1, 000 pay pal to the first hack who can find a post by me ever anywhere calling Bush a War criminal or saying he acted illegally and blah blah blah. Use your googles peeps. There's a cash prize.

 

[The T]

Right now, the only recourse for Congress is to DEFUND any further actions in this. And I hope that they DO.

 

[Salishan]

I think that the real question is was this Libya bombing necessary?

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,"

Obama

I can't post URL's yet but it is from the LA Times. Google "Obama won't send men into harm's way"

 

[G.T.]

I think that the real question is was this Libya bombing necessary?

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,"

Obama

I can't post URL's yet but it is from the LA Times. Google "Obama won't send men into harm's way"

And we won't know the deal with this until all of the Classified debriefings Obama gets are disclosed. So....never, and prejudging is for ass holes and psychics.

 

[Salishan]

I think that the real question is was this Libya bombing necessary?

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,"

Obama

I can't post URL's yet but it is from the LA Times. Google "Obama won't send men into harm's way"

And we won't know the deal with this until all of the Classified debriefings Obama gets are disclosed. So....never, and prejudging is for ass holes and psychics.

Judging may be that. However, before going into Iraq and Afghanistan the case of national security interests was presented. Obama never even tried to do that. I don't know what makes Libya "special" to bomb over when Sudan is sitting down the block. The reason we have no idea what's going on is because the president isn't even trying to make a case for launching an attack.

 

[G.T.]

I think that the real question is was this Libya bombing necessary?



Obama

I can't post URL's yet but it is from the LA Times. Google "Obama won't send men into harm's way"

And we won't know the deal with this until all of the Classified debriefings Obama gets are disclosed. So....never, and prejudging is for ass holes and psychics.

Judging may be that. However, before going into Iraq and Afghanistan the case of national security interests was presented. Obama never even tried to do that. I don't know what makes Libya "special" to bomb over when Sudan is sitting down the block. The reason we have no idea what's going on is because the president isn't even trying to make a case for launching an attack.

No, it's because you didn't read the UN resolution, which makes the case for Libya. But I don't blame you for not knowing it existed, just don't sit there and play even handed attacking Obama on the point when it *does* exist, is all. You can find the case. Google sees everything. G'luck. I won't expect a retraction if you find it. It's not you, personally, it's these boards.

 

[Salishan]

And we won't know the deal with this until all of the Classified debriefings Obama gets are disclosed. So....never, and prejudging is for ass holes and psychics.

Judging may be that. However, before going into Iraq and Afghanistan the case of national security interests was presented. Obama never even tried to do that. I don't know what makes Libya "special" to bomb over when Sudan is sitting down the block. The reason we have no idea what's going on is because the president isn't even trying to make a case for launching an attack.

No, it's because you didn't read the UN resolution, which makes the case for Libya. But I don't blame you for not knowing it existed, just don't sit there and play even handed attacking Obama on the point when it *does* exist, is all. You can find the case. Google sees everything. G'luck. I won't expect a retraction if you find it. It's not you, personally, it's these boards.

I never said that someone somewhere shouldn't have done something in Libya. But that can be said for a lot of places. My concern (and others) is that Obama didn't properly make a case for the attacks. We are now invested in the outcome. Its not so much the attacks its what happens down the road. We attacked Libya once and then we got Pan Am. If Gaddafi is left in power and isolated like he was before, what might happen next time? The UN certainly isn't going to protect us from a new terrorist attack formulated by Gaddafi in Tripoli.

 

[G.T.]

Judging may be that. However, before going into Iraq and Afghanistan the case of national security interests was presented. Obama never even tried to do that. I don't know what makes Libya "special" to bomb over when Sudan is sitting down the block. The reason we have no idea what's going on is because the president isn't even trying to make a case for launching an attack.

No, it's because you didn't read the UN resolution, which makes the case for Libya. But I don't blame you for not knowing it existed, just don't sit there and play even handed attacking Obama on the point when it *does* exist, is all. You can find the case. Google sees everything. G'luck. I won't expect a retraction if you find it. It's not you, personally, it's these boards.

I never said that someone somewhere shouldn't have done something in Libya. But that can be said for a lot of places. My concern (and others) is that Obama didn't properly make a case for the attacks. We are now invested in the outcome. Its not so much the attacks its what happens down the road. We attacked Libya once and then we got Pan Am. If Gaddafi is left in power and isolated like he was before, what might happen next time? The UN certainly isn't going to protect us from a new terrorist attack formulated by Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Like I said, I'm 100% positive our President has much more inside info on the situation than you, or I, and so you'd be opining here without really knowing fully what you're talking about.

We have a responsibility to the U.N., and people may not like that but it's a fact and imho, it probably keeps the World safer be that as it may.

 

[Salishan]

No, it's because you didn't read the UN resolution, which makes the case for Libya. But I don't blame you for not knowing it existed, just don't sit there and play even handed attacking Obama on the point when it *does* exist, is all. You can find the case. Google sees everything. G'luck. I won't expect a retraction if you find it. It's not you, personally, it's these boards.

I never said that someone somewhere shouldn't have done something in Libya. But that can be said for a lot of places. My concern (and others) is that Obama didn't properly make a case for the attacks. We are now invested in the outcome. Its not so much the attacks its what happens down the road. We attacked Libya once and then we got Pan Am. If Gaddafi is left in power and isolated like he was before, what might happen next time? The UN certainly isn't going to protect us from a new terrorist attack formulated by Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Like I said, I'm 100% positive our President has much more inside info on the situation than you, or I, and so you'd be opining here without really knowing fully what you're talking about.

We have a responsibility to the U.N., and people may not like that but it's a fact and imho, it probably keeps the World safer be that as it may.

I'm sure that he does. However, I don't see the national security threat from Libya pre-bombing. Whether or not Qaddafi remains in power there is enormous potential for a new national security threat. Obama liked to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were recruiting tools for terrorists. Another battlefield in a new Muslim nation is certainly adding to that list.