President Obama, indecision, Libya, mistakes, random thoughts

Can we just imagine what the left would be saying if Bush had done this? At least Kucinich and a few others are consistent in their beliefs, while we see the Obamatrons spinning for him to make this acceptable. What a collosal glittering fuck up.

Agreed. We can only imagine the hypocrisy of the left, in the hypothetical situation of Bush having done this. Fortunately, we don't have to imagine the hypocrisy of the right, in the very real situation of Bush's wars vs this fight.
 
Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?

I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.

I will give you a shot here. Explain what Obama, as Commander-in-chief, has done without congressional approval, that is not within his constitutional powers?
 
Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?

I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.

I will give you a shot here. Explain what Obama, as Commander-in-chief, has done without congressional approval, that is not within his constitutional powers?
Attacked a foriegn nation

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/160811-presidential-lawlessness-re-libya.html

Pretty much covers it.
 
IMPEACH the OBOMBA?? Will we be hearing that from the usual suspects? Stay tuned.
Kucinich seems headed in that direction.

Personally I think Obama will ask for Congressional authorization before that happens. I however believe the reason why he hasn't is because it would be a tacit admission that his "few days to a week" talk is a lie, and was a lie the first time he said it. It's reminicent of every wars "home by Christmas" promise.
 

No, he's within his powers as Commander-in-Chief.
So the extent of your argument is "because I said so"?

Very convincing.

And no he's not. The law regulating our activities in support of UN resolutions is linked in the thread.

The President is empowered to negotiate AR 43 agreements for troops with the UNSC subject to congressional authorization.

(there are no AR 43 agreements)

The President is empowered to use those troops in support of AR 42 resolutions without further authorization.

(There are no AR 43 agreements)

The President is not Authorized to add additional troops to the agreements that were not authorized by the Congress.

(Even if there were any, the troops fighting over Libya would not have been a part of them)

He is SPECIFICALLY NOT AUTHORIZED in the law.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

^^^^that would be what an argument looks like^^^^
 
Last edited:

No, he's within his powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly not on the basis that he is because you say he is.

To be persuasive, you'd have to back that shit up.

You didn't even try.

What part of the Constitutional powers given to the President as CiC gives him the authority to introduce our military into a nation that his not doing ANYthing against us? Don't get me wrong. Kaddaffy-fuck has done shit in the past, but we elected to do nothing. What we are doing now is unrelated to that behavior of his in the past. Which takes us back to it:

On what basis may the CIC introduce our military into a foreign land that is not threatening us or violating any international laws over which we have any actual jurisdiction?
 

No, he's within his powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly not on the basis that he is because you say he is.

To be persuasive, you'd have to back that shit up.

You didn't even try.

What part of the Constitutional powers given to the President as CiC gives him the authority to introduce our military into a nation that his not doing ANYthing against us? Don't get me wrong. Kaddaffy-fuck has done shit in the past, but we elected to do nothing. What we are doing now is unrelated to that behavior of his in the past. Which takes us back to it:

On what basis may the CIC introduce our military into a foreign land that is not threatening us or violating any international laws over which we have any actual jurisdiction?
That would be covered here

(c) 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.
The deffinition of an "attack" is expanded under international law to include "imminent attack".

War Powers Resolution of 1973
 
BTW,

LIABILITY,

I don't know if you noticed but I corrected my link of who the rebels are that we are supposed to be acting in support of.
 
IMPEACH the OBOMBA?? Will we be hearing that from the usual suspects? Stay tuned.


Hey Libo......what the fcukk is he going to say in the address tonight?


"Well..........were in............but we're really out!!!"

And this as well...................

"Let me be clear", "Held Accountable", "Historic", "Make no mistake", "I've said time and again", "Uhh, I, um, uh", "crisis", "Saved or created", "Pahk-ee- stahn", "game changer", "There are those who say", "previous administration", "inherited" , "back from the brink", "unprecedented", "i, me, my', "transparent", "Global response", "that's simply not true", "Restore our reputation", "brutal dictator", "Unified effort".

Ummmmm, Yeah. Different dunce. Same old empty suit. ~BH
 
BTW,

LIABILITY,

I don't know if you noticed but I corrected my link of who the rebels are that we are supposed to be acting in support of.

Not only did I see the correction, but I read with real interest your detailed analysis of the President's Constitutional authority as CiC.

As you may recall, I am very real fan of Mark Levin. He takes the position that the President HAS powers, as CiC, that are not dependent on prior Congressional approval. I think that's true as far as it goes. To repel an attack, for instance, it might be necessary for him to act first and then go to Congress. The War Powers Act is a legislative statement along much those very lines.

However, as your analysis suggests, it might be better to think of his Constitutional authority as being QUITE limited outside of Congressional authority.

The current President didn't even engage in serious consultation with Congress before committing our military might to the Libya problem. He unilaterally waged war in deference to what? To JUST the UN decision to act?

Again, that's pretty clearly NOT sufficient. This might be one of the VERY rare times I disagree with Mark Levin. The President DOES have a right to act without Congressional authorization but ONLY under very narrow circumstances -- and none of those circumstances are present here. Kaddaffy-fuck might be in need of urgent "attention," but the right to take such action does not reside solely in the hands of President Obama.
 
So, let's be clear, Bush goes to Iraq with UN resolutions and 2 Congressional votes in support.... Bush Bad.

Obama involves the U.S. in a Libyan civil war with no Congressional support whatsoever... OK.
 
IMPEACH the OBOMBA?? Will we be hearing that from the usual suspects? Stay tuned.


Hey Libo......what the fcukk is he going to say in the address tonight?


"Well..........were in............but we're really out!!!"

And this as well...................

"Let me be clear", "Held Accountable", "Historic", "Make no mistake", "I've said time and again", "Uhh, I, um, uh", "crisis", "Saved or created", "Pahk-ee- stahn", "game changer", "There are those who say", "previous administration", "inherited" , "back from the brink", "unprecedented", "i, me, my', "transparent", "Global response", "that's simply not true", "Restore our reputation", "brutal dictator", "Unified effort".

Ummmmm, Yeah. Different dunce. Same old empty suit. ~BH

Yup. It's sad.
 
So, let's be clear, Bush goes to Iraq with UN resolutions and 2 Congressional votes in support.... Bush Bad.

Obama involves the U.S. in a Libyan civil war with no Congressional support whatsoever... OK.

Not to mention that the dunce Obama voted against The Iraq War. I guess The Freedom of the Libyan people is more important than The Freedom of The Iraqi people? Or maybe it's that he's just another puppet now that he's made his way into the Oval office. = FRAUD. :eusa_shhh: ~BH
 
BTW,

LIABILITY,

I don't know if you noticed but I corrected my link of who the rebels are that we are supposed to be acting in support of.

Not only did I see the correction, but I read with real interest your detailed analysis of the President's Constitutional authority as CiC.

As you may recall, I am very real fan of Mark Levin. He takes the position that the President HAS powers, as CiC, that are not dependent on prior Congressional approval. I think that's true as far as it goes. To repel an attack, for instance, it might be necessary for him to act first and then go to Congress. The War Powers Act is a legislative statement along much those very lines.

However, as your analysis suggests, it might be better to think of his Constitutional authority as being QUITE limited outside of Congressional authority.

The current President didn't even engage in serious consultation with Congress before committing our military might to the Libya problem. He unilaterally waged war in deference to what? To JUST the UN decision to act?

Again, that's pretty clearly NOT sufficient. This might be one of the VERY rare times I disagree with Mark Levin. The President DOES have a right to act without Congressional authorization but ONLY under very narrow circumstances -- and none of those circumstances are present here. Kaddaffy-fuck might be in need of urgent "attention," but the right to take such action does not reside solely in the hands of President Obama.
I agree that what we are doing is the "right" thing to do. I reccognize however that there are constitutional limitations on what the President can do alone. It's interesting that in the case of the Barbary wars Jefferson had an AUMF in hand. He however did not think it was enough to do what he planned so he went back to congress and got FURTHER authorization.

Here, even if someone were to argue the President has the authority to act outside of the WPR (which this action is), he clearly is limitted by the UN authorization act of 1945. I simply do not see any authority on the part of the President to act without Congressional authorization unless it be to repel invasion, put down an insurection or rebelion, respond to an attack, or prevent an imminent attack. Taken together the Constitution, Bas v Tingy, the WPR, and the UN Authorizing act clearly limit his authority. And, while parts of the WPR are I believe unconstitutional, sec 2 is not.
 
Democrats Opted Not to Impeach Reagan After He Failed to Consult with Congress before Invading Grenada in 1983.

Leaving aside the merits of bombing Libya, the case for impeaching the president on these grounds is precarious. For one thing, there are numerous precedents that did not lead to impeachment, starting in 1950 when Pres. Truman invaded Korea without prior notification to Congress.

Pensito Review » Democrats Opted Not to Impeach Reagan After He Failed to Consult Congress before Invading Grenada in 1983
 
Democrats Opted Not to Impeach Reagan After He Failed to Consult with Congress before Invading Grenada in 1983.

Leaving aside the merits of bombing Libya, the case for impeaching the president on these grounds is precarious. For one thing, there are numerous precedents that did not lead to impeachment, starting in 1950 when Pres. Truman invaded Korea without prior notification to Congress.

Pensito Review » Democrats Opted Not to Impeach Reagan After He Failed to Consult Congress before Invading Grenada in 1983
Why would they? Reagan was acting to rescue American Students who had been taken hostage or were imminently going to be, by a foriegn power... that would be an attack. There were no grounds to impeach.

However, aside from that how does one person getting away with acting unlawfully make the next person to do it lawful? Thats a pretty weak argument.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the networks will be prominently featuring any anti-war protesters outside of Obama's speech explaining why he has the authority to unlawfully attack soveriegn nations? Think Cindy wil be there?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top