Obama thinks permission for US War in Syria comes from UN/NATO and not Congress

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress

I've been sitting on this article a couple of months b/c it astounds me how Obama so blatantly ignores The Constitution.

 

[occupied]

For all intents and purposes he is right. Permissions to use bases and airspace for attacks comes from other countries and are a lot more important to a military action than congress, at least in the short term. If they don't like it then change the law to make it harder for the president to command the military, they are not going to do shit.

 

[WillowTree]

Dick Morris wrote a book called "Screwed" I heard today it's a must read..

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

For all intents and purposes he is right. Permissions to use bases and airspace for attacks comes from other countries and are a lot more important to a military action than congress, at least in the short term. If they don't like it then change the law to make it harder for the president to command the military, they are not going to do shit.

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Congress declares war for the United States of America; not Nato; not the UN; not any other faction.

 

[occupied]

For all intents and purposes he is right. Permissions to use bases and airspace for attacks comes from other countries and are a lot more important to a military action than congress, at least in the short term. If they don't like it then change the law to make it harder for the president to command the military, they are not going to do shit.

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Congress declares war for the United States of America; not Nato; not the UN; not any other faction.

We have not declared a war since 1940 but fought a bunch of them, congress is out of that decision making process for good. The anti-war left has had a big problem with the president's unilateral war powers for years, do republicans plan to join with them to change the law or are they just going to attempt to impeach the president leaving powers the way they are for a future Republican president to enjoy without complaint?

 

[occupied]

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress

I've been sitting on this article a couple of months b/c it astounds me how Obama so blatantly ignores The Constitution.

You should also be more specific and say that the bill is dying in committee.

 

[rdean]

Obama is sensible. Republicans let Bin Laden go. Obama didn't.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

For all intents and purposes he is right. Permissions to use bases and airspace for attacks comes from other countries and are a lot more important to a military action than congress, at least in the short term. If they don't like it then change the law to make it harder for the president to command the military, they are not going to do shit.

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Congress declares war for the United States of America; not Nato; not the UN; not any other faction.

We have not declared a war since 1940 but fought a bunch of them, congress is out of that decision making process for good. The anti-war left has had a big problem with the president's unilateral war powers for years, do republicans plan to join with them to change the law or are they just going to attempt to impeach the president leaving powers the way they are for a future Republican president to enjoy without complaint?

You might want to check your history son.

 

[occupied]

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Congress declares war for the United States of America; not Nato; not the UN; not any other faction.

We have not declared a war since 1940 but fought a bunch of them, congress is out of that decision making process for good. The anti-war left has had a big problem with the president's unilateral war powers for years, do republicans plan to join with them to change the law or are they just going to attempt to impeach the president leaving powers the way they are for a future Republican president to enjoy without complaint?

You might want to check your history son.

Might want to check yours, every crappy little diplomatic war since the end of WW2 has required us to team up, and yes, get permission from a lot of countries to fight a little war and keep it confined to the shit-hole we are making shittier. War has a diplomatic side that republicans like to ignore for some reason, it's the part that shuts it off.

 

[francoHFW]

"Pure Pubcrappe"- basically it takes both for a "war" like this, or he has 60 days to use forces in combat, like Libya.

At least he doesn't lie like BOOOSH, nor is he in the least bit incompetent....Pub dupes! Stupid, most propagandized voters in the modern world, a disgrace.

 

[occupied]

All congress is asked to do in these limited shows of force is to fund it, which they have done quite reliably, get them involved and any measured response to a threat goes out the window. Nothing gets porked up like war funding.

 

[ladyliberal]

Despite the sympathetic reportage, it's the Congressional Republicans who seem to be ignorant (or at least playing ignorant) in regards to Constitutional law. The article quotes Sessions as saying

The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution

In fact, of course, that of the Constitution alone, and not of Congress, is all that a President needs to deploy the military. If Sessions feels otherwise he should pursue a suit in the federal courts, which I expect would be dismissed promptly.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

All congress is asked to do in these limited shows of force is to fund it, which they have done quite reliably, get them involved and any measured response to a threat goes out the window. Nothing gets porked up like war funding.

The president is authorized to make quick decisions when national defense is on the line. War is the purview of the Congress. Other presidents have violated the Constitution. I'm not looking to bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.

 

[SFC Ollie]

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (?) Gives the President 60 days before he has to get permission from congress or start a 30 day withdrawal..... If i remember right............

 

[Unkotare]

"Pure Pubcrappe"- basically it takes both for a "war" like this, or he has 60 days to use forces in combat, like Libya.

At least he doesn't lie like BOOOSH, nor is he in the least bit incompetent....Pub dupes! Stupid, most propagandized voters in the modern world, a disgrace.

Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, troll.

 

[occupied]

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (?) Gives the President 60 days before he has to get permission from congress or start a 30 day withdrawal..... If i remember right............

That is correct and republicans would sooner cut off their arm than change it to something more restrictive which is the reason that this thing is nothing but a stunt.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (?) Gives the President 60 days before he has to get permission from congress or start a 30 day withdrawal..... If i remember right............

That is correct and republicans would sooner cut off their arm than change it to something more restrictive which is the reason that this thing is nothing but a stunt.

It is a bit of a stunt by them. But they are also highlighting the fact that Obama is pushing a new world order narrative.

 

[occupied]

War Powers Resolution of 1973 (?) Gives the President 60 days before he has to get permission from congress or start a 30 day withdrawal..... If i remember right............

That is correct and republicans would sooner cut off their arm than change it to something more restrictive which is the reason that this thing is nothing but a stunt.

It is a bit of a stunt by them. But they are also highlighting the fact that Obama is pushing a new world order narrative.

What the hell is new about bombing the hell out of the middle east? It's the same old NeoCon crap that we are already sick of and that no republican would have the slightest problem with from a republican president, in fact, Boehner and the rest would be lining up to patriotically support any military action anywhere for any reason. The only difference here is a democratic president having the nerve to use the republican's military.

 

[mudwhistle]

For all intents and purposes he is right. Permissions to use bases and airspace for attacks comes from other countries and are a lot more important to a military action than congress, at least in the short term. If they don't like it then change the law to make it harder for the president to command the military, they are not going to do shit.

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Congress declares war for the United States of America; not Nato; not the UN; not any other faction.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Obama plans on signing a treaty that gives away our sovereignty to a world court, our mineral rights in the sea, our ability to launch missiles in space, and our ability to wage war.

 

[occupied]

For all intents and purposes he is right. Permissions to use bases and airspace for attacks comes from other countries and are a lot more important to a military action than congress, at least in the short term. If they don't like it then change the law to make it harder for the president to command the military, they are not going to do shit.

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Congress declares war for the United States of America; not Nato; not the UN; not any other faction.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Obama plans on signing a treaty that gives away our sovereignty to a world court, our mineral rights in the sea, our ability to launch missiles in space, and our ability to wage war.

Sure he will.