Congress Asks Obama, "Why No Declaration Of War?

[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

WADR, guys, no it doesn't say it in The War Powers Act.

We are, however, obligated by our commitment to our treaties with the other members of the UN and NATO.



That being said, I am not a fan of this action.
I hope we do let France, Germany, et.al. take the lead. the US doesn't have to be the star each and every time.
It's also weird that we're involved to this extent in Libya but not In Syria or Yemen.
We dive into Iraq and Afghanistan but give Iran a pass.

As much of a debacle Afghanistan/Iraq was/is I see George W garnering a positive footnote in future history books for releasing the "freedom genie".
The oppressed nations in the middle east have gotten a taste of it and it's spreading like wildfire.

Yeah...but we don't need a POTUS that changes his tune on the same subject day-to-day either...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.?

What a crock of shit! We haven't declared war in over 60 years. I agree with the fact that congress should be the war making machine, but they gave that right away with W.

And you don't go to war on an Humanitarian effort especially when it was done with NATO who we are a part of. The USA didn't do this based on false information, it was done to stop killing of Libyans citizens by a ruthless killer.
I believe we had that opportunity in Iraq at one time but chose to do nothing and let him kill upwards of 5,000 Kurds. Then when we had no reason to START a REAL WAR we used false information, selective information, and very piss poor information to invade a country without a WAR proclamation being issued.

I for one don't want any of our soldiers fighting any other country on the ground for any reason other than we were attacked, or we are defending an allied nation whos being attacked.

We should remove Gaddafi by sanctions and other means, but no foot soldiers as far as I am concerned.

Tell me something, do you also think there are pots of gold at the end of rainbows?

Let me tell you now, there are not, and we have declared war numerous times in the last 60 years.

By the way, going to war never saves lives, it kills people, nor is going to war a humanitarian action. Ghandi was a humanitarian, he brought down the worlds largest empire, and he never went to war.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

WADR, guys, no it doesn't say it in The War Powers Act.

We are, however, obligated by our commitment to our treaties with the other members of the UN and NATO.



That being said, I am not a fan of this action.
I hope we do let France, Germany, et.al. take the lead. the US doesn't have to be the star each and every time.
It's also weird that we're involved to this extent in Libya but not In Syria or Yemen.
We dive into Iraq and Afghanistan but give Iran a pass.

As much of a debacle Afghanistan/Iraq was/is I see George W garnering a positive footnote in future history books for releasing the "freedom genie".
The oppressed nations in the middle east have gotten a taste of it and it's spreading like wildfire.

I hate to break it to you, but there are no treaties with the UN that require us to to go to the defense of any member country. Even if there were, we would do so only if that country were attacked from without. NATO treaties only require us to respond if a member nation is attacked. It is a mutual defense pact, and does not require us to go to war so that France will have access to Libyan oil.

Libya is a civil war, and any treaty, even if it existed, would not apply. You should not get your understand of treaties and international law from posters on message boards.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What treaty do we have with the UN that involves us going to war simply because they decide it is a good idea?

There isn't...and he has problems with WAR POWERS ACT...

No one but G.T. is trying to tie this to treaty obligations. I want to know what treaties he thinks exist that obligate us to get involved in civil wars.

 

[The T]

What treaty do we have with the UN that involves us going to war simply because they decide it is a good idea?

There isn't...and he has problems with WAR POWERS ACT...

No one but G.T. is trying to tie this to treaty obligations. I want to know what treaties he thinks exist that obligate us to get involved in civil wars.

There aren't. He thinks because NATO/UN are onboard WE are Obligated, and it gives OBAMA an OUT for whatever happens next...especially if it is BAD since the REBELS are basically al-Queida/Muslim Brotherhood...Railing against a TYRANT Dictator that is Mo-MO...

 

[hortysir]

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

WADR, guys, no it doesn't say it in The War Powers Act.

We are, however, obligated by our commitment to our treaties with the other members of the UN and NATO.



That being said, I am not a fan of this action.
I hope we do let France, Germany, et.al. take the lead. the US doesn't have to be the star each and every time.
It's also weird that we're involved to this extent in Libya but not In Syria or Yemen.
We dive into Iraq and Afghanistan but give Iran a pass.

As much of a debacle Afghanistan/Iraq was/is I see George W garnering a positive footnote in future history books for releasing the "freedom genie".
The oppressed nations in the middle east have gotten a taste of it and it's spreading like wildfire.

Yeah...but we don't need a POTUS that changes his tune on the same subject day-to-day either...

You caught that, too, hunh?!

It is, it isn't, it is, it isn't about getting Quadaffi

It falls right in line with, "I was for the war before I was against it".
Anyone that voted for BamBam should have seen this coming because it's exactly like his "no vote" votes from his Senate days.

 

[The T]

WADR, guys, no it doesn't say it in The War Powers Act.

We are, however, obligated by our commitment to our treaties with the other members of the UN and NATO.



That being said, I am not a fan of this action.
I hope we do let France, Germany, et.al. take the lead. the US doesn't have to be the star each and every time.
It's also weird that we're involved to this extent in Libya but not In Syria or Yemen.
We dive into Iraq and Afghanistan but give Iran a pass.

As much of a debacle Afghanistan/Iraq was/is I see George W garnering a positive footnote in future history books for releasing the "freedom genie".
The oppressed nations in the middle east have gotten a taste of it and it's spreading like wildfire.

Yeah...but we don't need a POTUS that changes his tune on the same subject day-to-day either...

You caught that, too, hunh?!

It is, it isn't, it is, it isn't about getting Quadaffi

It falls right in line with, "I was for the war before I was against it".
Anyone that voted for BamBam should have seen this coming because it's exactly like his "no vote" votes from his Senate days.

And no wonder that boiling Socialists like Dennis Kucinich is calling for Obama's head on a platter... Impeachment even...

 

[hortysir]

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

WADR, guys, no it doesn't say it in The War Powers Act.

We are, however, obligated by our commitment to our treaties with the other members of the UN and NATO.



That being said, I am not a fan of this action.
I hope we do let France, Germany, et.al. take the lead. the US doesn't have to be the star each and every time.
It's also weird that we're involved to this extent in Libya but not In Syria or Yemen.
We dive into Iraq and Afghanistan but give Iran a pass.

As much of a debacle Afghanistan/Iraq was/is I see George W garnering a positive footnote in future history books for releasing the "freedom genie".
The oppressed nations in the middle east have gotten a taste of it and it's spreading like wildfire.

I hate to break it to you, but there are no treaties with the UN that require us to to go to the defense of any member country. Even if there were, we would do so only if that country were attacked from without. NATO treaties only require us to respond if a member nation is attacked. It is a mutual defense pact, and does not require us to go to war so that France will have access to Libyan oil.

Libya is a civil war, and any treaty, even if it existed, would not apply. You should not get your understand of treaties and international law from posters on message boards.

You don't have to hate breaking anything to me. I like different points of view, as long as they're in the spirit of a good debate. We know the ones that are incapable of such....
Libyans are stuck under the thumb of an extremist. Just as the Afghans were with the Taliban. The Iraqis under Saddam.
A coalition of forces converged to put an end to it.
How is this different?

To the last sentence; I'm a grown man with a lifetime of experiences to draw upon. I don't need anyone's words to drive my own.
Thank you for you concern, though.

 

[The Infidel]

All I see in the entire thing is a giant target on Isreal.

The ultimate target is Isreal.... why has the news been so quiet on the latest rocket attacks from Gaza?

Just wait till they retaliate and then the UN can justify a no fy zone over Isreal

 

[The T]

All I see in the entire thing is a giant target on Isreal.

The ultimate target is Isreal.... why has the news been so quiet on the latest rocket attacks from Gaza?

Just wait till they retaliate and then the UN can justify a no fy zone over Isreal

And when that happens? It's *GAME OVER*

 

[The Infidel]

All I see in the entire thing is a giant target on Isreal.

The ultimate target is Isreal.... why has the news been so quiet on the latest rocket attacks from Gaza?

Just wait till they retaliate and then the UN can justify a no fy zone over Isreal

And when that happens? It's *GAME OVER*

I hope I'm wrong

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WADR, guys, no it doesn't say it in The War Powers Act.

We are, however, obligated by our commitment to our treaties with the other members of the UN and NATO.



That being said, I am not a fan of this action.
I hope we do let France, Germany, et.al. take the lead. the US doesn't have to be the star each and every time.
It's also weird that we're involved to this extent in Libya but not In Syria or Yemen.
We dive into Iraq and Afghanistan but give Iran a pass.

As much of a debacle Afghanistan/Iraq was/is I see George W garnering a positive footnote in future history books for releasing the "freedom genie".
The oppressed nations in the middle east have gotten a taste of it and it's spreading like wildfire.

I hate to break it to you, but there are no treaties with the UN that require us to to go to the defense of any member country. Even if there were, we would do so only if that country were attacked from without. NATO treaties only require us to respond if a member nation is attacked. It is a mutual defense pact, and does not require us to go to war so that France will have access to Libyan oil.

Libya is a civil war, and any treaty, even if it existed, would not apply. You should not get your understand of treaties and international law from posters on message boards.

You don't have to hate breaking anything to me. I like different points of view, as long as they're in the spirit of a good debate. We know the ones that are incapable of such....
Libyans are stuck under the thumb of an extremist. Just as the Afghans were with the Taliban. The Iraqis under Saddam.
A coalition of forces converged to put an end to it.
How is this different?

To the last sentence; I'm a grown man with a lifetime of experiences to draw upon. I don't need anyone's words to drive my own.
Thank you for you concern, though.

How is it different?

Saddam killed his people for years, and there were more than 50 UN resolutions, along with months of debate in Congress, before we got involved. For some reason Libya is a lot more important, as it only took 1 UN resolution, and 0 months of Congressional debate. I have no idea why it is different, but it obviously is.

Maybe all those people that think Obama was born in Kenya are wrong, maybe he was born in Libya.

 

[MikeK]

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.?

I might be mistaken but I believe Obama is taking advantage of a loophole in the law created by Bush. Something having to do with a "Unitary Executive" privilege or something like that, wherein he has a thirty or sixty day window in which he can deploy troops before seeking congressional approval.

Again, I'm not certain of that. It's something I vaguely recall reading or hearing somewhere.

 

[The T]

All I see in the entire thing is a giant target on Isreal.

The ultimate target is Isreal.... why has the news been so quiet on the latest rocket attacks from Gaza?

Just wait till they retaliate and then the UN can justify a no fy zone over Isreal

And when that happens? It's *GAME OVER*

I hope I'm wrong

So do I...Prophacy says it's inevitable...

 

[hortysir]

I hate to break it to you, but there are no treaties with the UN that require us to to go to the defense of any member country. Even if there were, we would do so only if that country were attacked from without. NATO treaties only require us to respond if a member nation is attacked. It is a mutual defense pact, and does not require us to go to war so that France will have access to Libyan oil.

Libya is a civil war, and any treaty, even if it existed, would not apply. You should not get your understand of treaties and international law from posters on message boards.

You don't have to hate breaking anything to me. I like different points of view, as long as they're in the spirit of a good debate. We know the ones that are incapable of such....
Libyans are stuck under the thumb of an extremist. Just as the Afghans were with the Taliban. The Iraqis under Saddam.
A coalition of forces converged to put an end to it.
How is this different?

To the last sentence; I'm a grown man with a lifetime of experiences to draw upon. I don't need anyone's words to drive my own.
Thank you for you concern, though.

How is it different?

Saddam killed his people for years, and there were more than 50 UN resolutions, along with months of debate in Congress, before we got involved. For some reason Libya is a lot more important, as it only took 1 UN resolution, and 0 months of Congressional debate. I have no idea why it is different, but it obviously is.

Maybe all those people that think Obama was born in Kenya are wrong, maybe he was born in Libya.

Trust me. I share your confusion.

 

[The 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.?

I might be mistaken but I believe Obama is taking advantage of a loophole in the law created by Bush. Something having to do with a "Unitary Executive" privilege or something like that, wherein he has a thirty or sixty day window in which he can deploy troops before seeking congressional approval.

Again, I'm not certain of that. It's something I vaguely recall reading or hearing somewhere.

So? Is Google your friend...or WHAT?

Your point is meaningless unless you prove it...vaguely...

 

[hortysir]

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.?

I might be mistaken but I believe Obama is taking advantage of a loophole in the law created by Bush. Something having to do with a "Unitary Executive" privilege or something like that, wherein he has a thirty or sixty day window in which he can deploy troops before seeking congressional approval.

Again, I'm not certain of that. It's something I vaguely recall reading or hearing somewhere.

So? Is Google your friend...or WHAT?

Your point is meaningless unless you prove it...vaguely...

********** The "Unitary Executive" theory is really just another name for the ancient "King With Advisors" form of government *********
unitary executive theory - a recipe for dictatorship

Pretty good read, actually

 

[The T]

I might be mistaken but I believe Obama is taking advantage of a loophole in the law created by Bush. Something having to do with a "Unitary Executive" privilege or something like that, wherein he has a thirty or sixty day window in which he can deploy troops before seeking congressional approval.

Again, I'm not certain of that. It's something I vaguely recall reading or hearing somewhere.

So? Is Google your friend...or WHAT?

Your point is meaningless unless you prove it...vaguely...

********** The "Unitary Executive" theory is really just another name for the ancient "King With Advisors" form of government *********
unitary executive theory - a recipe for dictatorship

Pretty good read, actually

And something that needs to be done away with since it is outside the Constitution.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hey i'm just happy they're finally asking this question. They haven't declared War properly since WW II. This current President is just doing what so many other Presidents have done. I do see progress though. More people are now asking this question. It just goes to show what Dr. Ron Paul has done for our Country. He's got people thinking about the Constitution again. And that's much better than being President. So thank you Dr. Paul. More are beginning to get it.