So NATO's Taking over Barry's Unconsitutional War in Libya...

[Annie]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Irrelevant... This is Directed at those on the Left who Screamed "UnConstitutional" about what (43) did...

(43) got Congressional Approval... And then waited for 5 Months...

End of Fucking List.

OBAMA called THAT UnConstitutional.



peace...

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

Mal, you aren't really naive enough to hold a politician responsible for what they said before they get in office and are faced with reality are you?

You are correct about GW and 2000 election. From inauguration until 9/11/01 there was nothing to say that he wasn't going to go that route. Indeed, in spite of the spike in dangers throughout 1999-2000 under Clinton, Bush seemed bound and determined to follow the set course.

 

[mal]

Irrelevant... This is Directed at those on the Left who Screamed "UnConstitutional" about what (43) did...

(43) got Congressional Approval... And then waited for 5 Months...

End of Fucking List.

OBAMA called THAT UnConstitutional.



peace...

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

Mal, you aren't really naive enough to hold a politician responsible for what they said before they get in office and are faced with reality are you?

You are correct about GW and 2000 election. From inauguration until 9/11/01 there was nothing to say that he wasn't going to go that route. Indeed, in spite of the spike in dangers throughout 1999-2000 under Clinton, Bush seemed bound and determined to follow the set course.

Exactly...

By Contrast, Barry was Criticizing what (43) had done AFTER 9/11...

And now does the same.

kc, you are better than this.



peace...

 

[8537]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Repealing the War Powers act wouldn't make it unconstitutional - it would simply remove the requirement that the president consult congress within 60 days of military action.

Before the War Powers act, Presidents could start and continue military engagements unilaterally without regard to congress. The War Powers act was an attempt to put some limits on that ability.

And obviously, there is nothing at all unconstitutional about our current actions in Libya. That's just a grossly uneducated rightwing talking point.

It's EXACTLY what the Left was say about Iraq... And some about Afghanistan...

So because some dumbshits on the left were claiming that an engagement violated the constitution, dumbshits on the right should repeat the lie?

That's fucking precious. There are sure a lot of dumbshits....

 

[FuelRod]

This is a load of crap. It's like the off-brand of a car.
A Mercury Mountaineer is a Ford Escape.
This is still Obama's action with the NATO label now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Not that I am opining about your grasp of the English language, but unless the War Powers Act is declared unconstitutional what Obama did is illegal. Even if the War Powers Act is found to be unconstitutional, it does not make what Obama did constitutional.

On second thought, I am opining about your grasp of the language, it sucks.

 

[8537]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Not that I am opining about your grasp of the English language, but unless the War Powers Act is declared unconstitutional what Obama did is illegal.

That's perfectly backwards. The point of the War Powers act was that, previous to the act, the President could commit troops for an endless period to any place in the world. That's how we got Korea and Vietnam.

The War Powers act placed a restriction on that ability - namely, it required the president to get the consent of congress after 60 days of deployment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Repealing the War Powers act wouldn't make it unconstitutional - it would simply remove the requirement that the president consult congress within 60 days of military action.

Before the War Powers act, Presidents could start and continue military engagements unilaterally without regard to congress. The War Powers act was an attempt to put some limits on that ability.

And obviously, there is nothing at all unconstitutional about our current actions in Libya. That's just a grossly uneducated rightwing talking point.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. When did it become constitutional for the president to unilaterally declare war?

BTW, pointing the the UN as justification does not make this a multilateral action. The power of the president comes from the people of the United States, and they are represented by Congress.

Obama essentially decided that I should be at war with a country in Africa. He did this without giving me any warning, any time for debate, and did not even ask how I felt about it. That makes what he did completely unilateral. He made a decision for the entire country without discussing it with us. You can blather all you want, the facts remain the same.

 

[Robert]

As the political saying goes....'You break it you own it' and obama has broken a great deal since his 'election' you on the left with your behavior with the past administrations do you really people are going to allow you to walk away from the responsibility of his actions?

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Not that I am opining about your grasp of the English language, but unless the War Powers Act is declared unconstitutional what Obama did is illegal. Even if the War Powers Act is found to be unconstitutional, it does not make what Obama did constitutional.

On second thought, I am opining about your grasp of the language, it sucks.

 

[8537]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Repealing the War Powers act wouldn't make it unconstitutional - it would simply remove the requirement that the president consult congress within 60 days of military action.

Before the War Powers act, Presidents could start and continue military engagements unilaterally without regard to congress. The War Powers act was an attempt to put some limits on that ability.

And obviously, there is nothing at all unconstitutional about our current actions in Libya. That's just a grossly uneducated rightwing talking point.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. When did it become constitutional for the president to unilaterally declare war?

Only congress has the power to declare war. But the president is the CinC and can deploy the military without congressional approval.

You can blather all you want, the facts remain the same.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not that I'm opining about Action in Libya, but until the War Powers Act is declared unconstituational, then Libya's not unconstitutional. Unless that's done, these are just words.

Not that I am opining about your grasp of the English language, but unless the War Powers Act is declared unconstitutional what Obama did is illegal.

That's perfectly backwards. The point of the War Powers act was that, previous to the act, the President could commit troops for an endless period to any place in the world. That's how we got Korea and Vietnam.

The War Powers act placed a restriction on that ability - namely, it required the president to get the consent of congress after 60 days of deployment.

I do not have anything backwards.

GT quite clearly stated that, unless the WPA is unconstitutional the action in Libya is constitutional. The truth is that, unless it is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

 

[8537]

The truth is that, unless it [the War Powers Act] is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

no, that's not right. It's wrong.

Before the War Powers Act, the president had the right to deploy troops into any military action without congressional approval, and do so indefinitely. The Korean Conflict and Vietnam come to mind.

After the War Powers Act, the president was required to seek consent after 60 days. That's why Reagan didn't need approval to go to Grenada or bomb Libya, and why Bush didn't need approval for Panama.

in neither situation would the current fight in Libya be unconstitutional.

 

[G.T.]

Not that I am opining about your grasp of the English language, but unless the War Powers Act is declared unconstitutional what Obama did is illegal.

That's perfectly backwards. The point of the War Powers act was that, previous to the act, the President could commit troops for an endless period to any place in the world. That's how we got Korea and Vietnam.

The War Powers act placed a restriction on that ability - namely, it required the president to get the consent of congress after 60 days of deployment.

I do not have anything backwards.

GT quite clearly stated that, unless the WPA is unconstitutional the action in Libya is constitutional. The truth is that, unless it is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

Hey, not to be a dick or anything, but before you go criticizing someone's understanding of something.......you might want to, you know...READ IT.

The War Powers Act gives the President 60-days of Deployment before he must seek Congressional Approval. Has it been 60-days? No? I guess your response to my initial post was ignorant, then. Douche.

 

[G.T.]

The truth is that, unless it [the War Powers Act] is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

no, that's not right. It's wrong.

Before the War Powers Act, the president had the right to deploy troops into any military action without congressional approval, and do so indefinitely. The Korean Conflict and Vietnam come to mind.

After the War Powers Act, the president was required to seek consent after 60 days. That's why Reagan didn't need approval to go to Grenada or bomb Libya, and why Bush didn't need approval for Panama.

in neither situation would the current fight in Libya be unconstitutional.

I love it when douchebags are flat out wrong and still have the tenacity to be calling anyone stupid. Fucking schmucks in this country, christ.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's perfectly backwards. The point of the War Powers act was that, previous to the act, the President could commit troops for an endless period to any place in the world. That's how we got Korea and Vietnam.

The War Powers act placed a restriction on that ability - namely, it required the president to get the consent of congress after 60 days of deployment.

I do not have anything backwards.

GT quite clearly stated that, unless the WPA is unconstitutional the action in Libya is constitutional. The truth is that, unless it is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

Hey, not to be a dick or anything, but before you go criticizing someone's understanding of something.......you might want to, you know...READ IT.

The War Powers Act gives the President 60-days of Deployment before he must seek Congressional Approval. Has it been 60-days? No? I guess your response to my initial post was ignorant, then. Douche.

Actually, your response proves you did not read the WPA, you just read the part you like. He did not follow Section 4 of the act which requires 48 hours notice any time he does anything, even if it is simply to forward deploy in preparation for an attack.

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

War Powers Resolution of 1973

In other words, he does not have 60 days, he has 48 hours, and he missed that deadline. That makes the actions in Libya illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The truth is that, unless it [the War Powers Act] is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

no, that's not right. It's wrong.

Before the War Powers Act, the president had the right to deploy troops into any military action without congressional approval, and do so indefinitely. The Korean Conflict and Vietnam come to mind.

After the War Powers Act, the president was required to seek consent after 60 days. That's why Reagan didn't need approval to go to Grenada or bomb Libya, and why Bush didn't need approval for Panama.

in neither situation would the current fight in Libya be unconstitutional.

Wrong. He has 60 days to seek approval, but he still has to notify the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate within 48 hours. That did not occur until Monday, and the war started on Friday.

I still do not know what I supposedly got backwards, but thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The truth is that, unless it [the War Powers Act] is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal, which is exactly what I said. What, in your infinite stupidity, do you think I have backwards?

no, that's not right. It's wrong.

Before the War Powers Act, the president had the right to deploy troops into any military action without congressional approval, and do so indefinitely. The Korean Conflict and Vietnam come to mind.

After the War Powers Act, the president was required to seek consent after 60 days. That's why Reagan didn't need approval to go to Grenada or bomb Libya, and why Bush didn't need approval for Panama.

in neither situation would the current fight in Libya be unconstitutional.

I love it when douchebags are flat out wrong and still have the tenacity to be calling anyone stupid. Fucking schmucks in this country, christ.

You know what I love?

People who focus on a single part of the law in question, point out that he has plenty of time to do that, and ignore the part of the law that I have repeatedly pointed to as the source of the problem.

Then you have the gall to call me a douche bag.