Presidential lawlessness, RE: Libya

[George Costanza]

If I'm not mistaken, congress hasn't formally declared war since WWII. So, while this move is shameful and disgusting, it isn't the first time a president overstepped their bounds.

You are not mistaken. As I said - the moves by BOTH presidents were out of bounds.

 

[BenNatuf]

If I'm not mistaken, congress hasn't formally declared war since WWII. So, while this move is shameful and disgusting, it isn't the first time a president overstepped their bounds.

You are not mistaken. As I said - the moves by BOTH presidents were out of bounds.

I see you haven't read the OP either. Do you think your unfounded opinion counts more than Than SCOTUS opinions on the subject? I think not. There is nothing out of bounds about a President seeking and getting congressional authorization to make war, it's exactly what they're supposed to do if they think it the right thing to do. Bush's actions were authorized and lawfull, I know it's hard to get that passed your BDS driven mental block, but thats the way it is. That you disagreed with the action has no bearing on its lawfullness and your claim that it was out of bounds (legally I presume) only serves to expose you as a partisan hack.

Me? I have no problem admitting I'm partisan, but I don't let that effect my well founded opinions of Presidential powers based on the constitution and law. Whether it's a D or an R in the WH is meaningless and has no bearing on what they can lawfully do and not lawfully do.

 

[George Costanza]

There is nothing out of bounds about a President seeking and getting congressional authorization to make war

Yes, but there is something out of bounds about a president LYING TO CONGRESS about the true state of things, in order to get that authorization.

That you disagreed with the action has no bearing on its lawfullness and your claim that it was out of bounds (legally I presume) only serves to expose you as a partisan hack.

Not much point in continuing this conversaton then, is there?

 

[BenNatuf]

There is nothing out of bounds about a President seeking and getting congressional authorization to make war

Yes, but there is something out of bounds about a president LYING TO CONGRESS about the true state of things, in order to get that authorization.

1. Giving the best information you have and being wrong is not lying
2. The lying claim just exposes you even more as a BDS afflicted partisan hack.
3. If you want an example of flat out lying to get an authorization... try LBJ.

That you disagreed with the action has no bearing on its lawfullness and your claim that it was out of bounds (legally I presume) only serves to expose you as a partisan hack.

Not much point in continuing this conversaton then, is there?

guess not, because this thread is about the clear unlawfullness of the libya action, not your deranged opinion about clearly lawful presidential actions you happen to disagree with.