The "War Powers Act" is unconstitutional

[Quantum Windbag]

This is rich.

Whoever it is that keeps changes rdeans avatar should pt this one up for him.

Congress declares war.
The President is the Commander in Chief
There is a lot of wiggle room between those two positions.

Granada
Serbia
All the other places troops were sent under:
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

and only NOW are house Republicans freaking out?????

Then you have Republican Senators agreeing with the president. Lindsey Graham, McCain, and so on.

How many troops are in Libya??

Zero, oops.

Those troops who are not in Libya are receiving combat pay.

Oops.

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

Taking the lead? Where did they take the lead? Obama is the one that pushed for the intervention in Libya.

All the other places former Presidents sent troops where they actively "engaged" in combat and only now Republicans are SCREAMING.

That is funny.

Dennis Kucinich: Libya Air Strikes Could Be 'Impeachable Offense'

What is SCREAMING is the "Double Standard". They would rather see America suffer economically rather than create a jobs bill that might help this president (no surprise there, no one can say Republicans want to help the middle class, who would believe it, it's just too far out there).

Has anyone found the Democrats budget? Jobs bill? Anything?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXPJNJdSPE"]YouTube - ‪Ferris Bueller: Insane Edition‬‏[/ame]

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

The other times the president either got approval in advance, or ended the operation in a few days. Has either of those things happened in Libya?

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

I am not saying rdean is an idiot, but what else could it be?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The GOP has always perceived the WH as their birthright. Republicans are the patrician upper class, after all – the party of business and industry should clearly be running the country. Indeed, the Executive comports well to Republicans’ fundamental authoritarianism – having an entire branch of government to oneself means no compromise, no consensus building, or any of the other ‘messy’ aspects of democracy.

Republicans flourish in the majesty of the Imperial Presidency – ruling by executive orders, signing statements, and crafting policy for literally hundreds of Federal agencies.

And last but not least – the pièce de résistance – judicial appointments: the ability to effect American society years after a given Republican president’s term ends. It was the power to appoint judges and justices that allowed the GOP to take back the WH in 2001.

So it’s easy to see why the GOP is highly pissed, how desperately they want the WH back, and how they would intensely hate any democrat in the WH, regardless of race.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

I haven't seen anything indicating that 90% of repubs oppose the president because of his color. they're just sore losers. they hated bill clinton when he was in office, too. and last i checked, he's pretty fair skinned.

i was under the impression Jill that Clinton was our first black President....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The GOP has always perceived the WH as their birthright. Republicans are the patrician upper class, after all – the party of business and industry should clearly be running the country. Indeed, the Executive comports well to Republicans’ fundamental authoritarianism – having an entire branch of government to oneself means no compromise, no consensus building, or any of the other ‘messy’ aspects of democracy.

Patrician upper class like Kennedy, Gore, or maybe Kerry? Are you aware that more than half of the top 10 richest politicians in Washington are Democrats?

Your patrician class is so successful at lying to you that you think the other guys are the ones keeping you down.

Republicans flourish in the majesty of the Imperial Presidency – ruling by executive orders, signing statements, and crafting policy for literally hundreds of Federal agencies.

That is so mind boggling I do not even know where to begin.

http://www.coherentbabble.com/Statements/SS-PL112-10-hr1473.pdf

And last but not least – the pièce de résistance – judicial appointments: the ability to effect American society years after a given Republican president’s term ends. It was the power to appoint judges and justices that allowed the GOP to take back the WH in 2001.

Through a 7-2 court decision? How did the Republicans stack the deck and force the Democrats to appoint judges that would vote for Bush?

So it’s easy to see why the GOP is highly pissed, how desperately they want the WH back, and how they would intensely hate any democrat in the WH, regardless of race.

What is easy to see is that you are actually dumber than I thought. You make a bag of rocks look smarter than Einstein.

 

[percysunshine]

No blood for oil!


chuckle

 

[xsited1]

...

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

Troll post rating: 9/10.

Nice thread, rdean. This is a new twist on old material. Keep it up.

 

[percysunshine]

“I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

[Charles_Main]

Congress declares war.
The President is the Commander in Chief
There is a lot of wiggle room between those two positions.

Granada
Serbia
All the other places troops were sent under:
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

and only NOW are house Republicans freaking out?????

Then you have Republican Senators agreeing with the president. Lindsey Graham, McCain, and so on.

How many troops are in Libya??

Zero, oops.

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

All the other places former Presidents sent troops where they actively "engaged" in combat and only now Republicans are SCREAMING.

What is SCREAMING is the "Double Standard". They would rather see America suffer economically rather than create a jobs bill that might help this president (no surprise there, no one can say Republicans want to help the middle class, who would believe it, it's just too far out there).

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

I agree with you on one Point and ONLY one point. It is an unconstitutional Law, and many President have said so. But you know what, Everyone of them before Obama. OBEYED IT. Because the President does not have the authority to Deem a Law unconstitutional and not Follow it. Until the Courts say so it's law, and every President before this one Had enough respect for the constitution to follow it and let the courts interpret it.

And the rest of your argument? That were not at war because no troops are on the ground? Is a joke, and you are a joke for making it. We are dropping bombs, and killing people, and US special Forces are MOST certainly on the ground. It's a fucking War.

Never thought I would see the day, a die hard, died in the wool Liberal like Dean would try and tell us Bombing another country is not war.

To fucking Rich.

 

[Charles_Main]

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

More lies, NATO just admitted the other day that well over 50% of all Offensive Strike Missions have been and are still being carried out by US forces.

Besides, Just what are the taking a leadership role of? What the hell are we doing? Over seeing a perpetual Stalemate?

 

[percysunshine]

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

More lies, NATO just admitted the other day that well over 50% of all Offensive Strike Missions have been and are still being carried out by US forces.

Besides, Just what are the taking a leadership role of? What the hell are we doing? Over seeing a perpetual Stalemate?

We are raising oil prices.

 

[Charles_Main]

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

Again you clearly lack any understanding of the law. Each and every other one of the presidents, went before congress and got some sort of Resolution that allowed them to act or they could at least claim did, or they ended hostilities before the 90 Day Deadline.

Obama has just let that Deadline Expire with out going to congress, something NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE!! because it clearly violated the law as written. Unconstitutional or not.

 

[Charles_Main]

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

More lies, NATO just admitted the other day that well over 50% of all Offensive Strike Missions have been and are still being carried out by US forces.

Besides, Just what are they taking a leadership role of? What the hell are we doing? Over seeing a perpetual Stalemate?

We are raising oil prices.

I also forgot to point out that the "NATO" Guy in command of the show. An American!

lol

 

[hortysir]

Congress declares war.
The President is the Commander in Chief
There is a lot of wiggle room between those two positions.

Granada
Serbia
All the other places troops were sent under:
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

and only NOW are house Republicans freaking out?????

Then you have Republican Senators agreeing with the president. Lindsey Graham, McCain, and so on.

How many troops are in Libya??

Zero, oops.

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

All the other places former Presidents sent troops where they actively "engaged" in combat and only now Republicans are SCREAMING.

What is SCREAMING is the "Double Standard". They would rather see America suffer economically rather than create a jobs bill that might help this president (no surprise there, no one can say Republicans want to help the middle class, who would believe it, it's just too far out there).

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

So it's unconstitutional when those guys do it but not Obama?
Got it!!
BTW, I remember several "peeps" about shit past presidents have done.

I do NOT, however, recall a specific letter to Congress saying, basically, 'tough shit, I'm doing it anyway':

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)
I am providing this supplemental consolidated report, prepared by my Administration and consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), as part of my efforts to keep the Congress informed about deployments of U.S. Armed Forces equipped for combat.

MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST AL-QA'IDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES AND IN SUPPORT OF RELATED U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM OBJECTIVES
Since October 7, 2001, the United States has conducted combat operations in Afghanistan against al-Qa'ida terrorists and their Taliban supporters. In support of these and other overseas operations, the United States has deployed combat-equipped forces to a number of locations in the U.S. Central, Pacific, European, Southern, and Africa Command areas of operation. Previously such operations and deployments have been reported, consistent with Public Law 107-40 and the War Powers Resolution, and operations and deployments remain ongoing. These operations, which the United States has carried out with the assistance of numerous international partners, have been successful in seriously degrading al-Qa'ida's capabilities and brought an end to the Taliban's leadership of Afghanistan.
United States Armed Forces are also actively pursuing and engaging remaining al-Qa'ida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is approximately 99,000, of which more than 83,000 are assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The U.N. Security Council most recently reaffirmed its authorization of ISAF for a 12-month period from October 13, 2010, in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1943 (October 13, 2010). The mission of ISAF, under NATO command and in partnership with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is to conduct population-centric counterinsurgency operations, enable expanded and effective capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces, support improved governance and development in order to protect the Afghan people, and promote sustainable security. Including the United States, 48 partner nations, including all 28 NATO Allies, contribute troops to ISAF. These combat operations are gradually pushing insurgents to the edges of secured population areas in a number of important regions, largely resulting from the increase in U.S. forces over the past 2 years. United States and other coalition forces will continue to execute the strategy of clear-hold-build, and transition, until full responsibility for security rests with the Afghan National Security Forces.
The United States continues to detain approximately 1,000 al-Qa'ida, Taliban, and associated force fighters who are believed to pose a continuing threat to the United States and its interests.
The combat-equipped forces, deployed since January 2002 to Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, continue to conduct secure detention operations for the approximately 170 detainees at Guantanamo Bay under Public Law 107-40 and consistent with principles of the law of war.
In furtherance of U.S. efforts against members of al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, the United States continues to work with partners around the globe, with a particular focus on the U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility. In this context, the United States has deployed U.S. combat-equipped forces to assist in enhancing the counterterrorism capabilities of our friends and allies, including special operations and other forces for sensitive operations in various locations around the world. The United States is committed to thwarting the efforts of al-Qa'ida and its associated forces to carry out future acts of international terrorism, and we have continued to work with our counterterrorism partners to disrupt and degrade the capabilities of al-Qa'ida and its associated forces. As necessary, in response to the terrorist threat, I will direct additional measures against al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and associated forces to protect U.S. citizens and interests. It is not possible to know at this time the precise scope or the duration of the deployments of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to counter this terrorist threat to the United States. A classified annex to this report provides further information.
MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ
Since the expiration of the authorization and mandate for the Multinational Force in Iraq in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1790 on December 31, 2008, U.S. forces have continued operations to support Iraq in its efforts to maintain security and stability in Iraq, pursuant to the bilateral Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq (Security Agreement), which entered into force on January 1, 2009. These contributions have included, but have not been limited to, assisting in building the capability of the Iraqi security forces, supporting the development of Iraq's political institutions, enhancing the capacity of the ministries of Defense and Interior, providing critical humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the Iraqis, and supporting the U.S. diplomatic mission. The United States continues its responsible drawdown, in accordance with commitments in the Security Agreement, to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011. The number of U.S. forces in Iraq at this time is approximately 45,000.
MILITARY OPERATIONS IN LIBYA
As I reported on March 21, and at my direction, consistent with a request from the Arab League, and as authorized by the United Nations Security Council under the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, U.S. military forces commenced operations on March 19, 2011, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya and to protect the people of Libya from the Qadhafi regime. The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts. Although we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians and civilian populated areas from the actions of the Qadhafi regime, and to address the threat to international peace and security posed by the crisis in Libya. With the exception of operations to rescue the crew of a U.S. aircraft on March 21, 2011, the United States has deployed no ground forces to Libya.
MILITARY OPERATIONS IN EGYPT
On January 31, a security force of approximately 40 U.S. military personnel from the U.S. Central Command deployed to Cairo. Although this security force was equipped for combat, this movement was undertaken solely for the purpose of protecting American citizens and property. A security force remains deployed to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and will remain through July 4, or until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed, if earlier. This security force is separate from, and in addition to, the approximately 693 military personnel that constitute the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force Observers present in Egypt since 1981.
MARITIME INTERCEPTION OPERATIONS
As noted in previous reports, the United States continues to conduct maritime interception operations on the high seas in the areas of responsibility of each of the geographic combatant commands. These maritime operations are aimed at stopping the movement, arming, and financing of certain international terrorist groups. A classified annex to this report provides further information.
U.S./NATO OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO
The U.N. Security Council authorized Member States to establish a NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) in Resolution 1244 on June 10, 1999. The original mission of KFOR was to monitor, verify, and, when necessary, enforce compliance with the Military Technical Agreement between NATO and the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia), while maintaining a safe and secure environment. Today, KFOR deters renewed hostilities and, with local authorities and international institutions, contributes to the maintenance of a safe and secure environment.
Currently, 22 NATO Allies contribute to KFOR. Eight non-NATO countries also participate. The United States contribution to KFOR is approximately 800 U.S. military personnel out of the total strength of approximately 6,000 personnel. The principal military task of KFOR forces is to help maintain a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement.
I have directed the participation of U.S. Armed Forces in all of these operations pursuant to my constitutional and statutory authority as Commander in Chief (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107-40 and other statutes) and as Chief Executive, as well as my statutory and constitutional authority, to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. Officials of my Administration and I communicate regularly with the leadership and other Members of Congress with regard to these deployments, and we will continue to do so.
Sincerely,
BARACK OBAMA

 

[Vel]

rdean..rightwinger..

Who benefits from U.S bombing? Who's going to take over? Come on.. what's the goal?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Congress declares war.
The President is the Commander in Chief
There is a lot of wiggle room between those two positions.

Granada
Serbia
All the other places troops were sent under:
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

and only NOW are house Republicans freaking out?????

Then you have Republican Senators agreeing with the president. Lindsey Graham, McCain, and so on.

How many troops are in Libya??

Zero, oops.

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

All the other places former Presidents sent troops where they actively "engaged" in combat and only now Republicans are SCREAMING.

What is SCREAMING is the "Double Standard". They would rather see America suffer economically rather than create a jobs bill that might help this president (no surprise there, no one can say Republicans want to help the middle class, who would believe it, it's just too far out there).

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

So even when Bush GOT Congressional authority for Iraq and Afghanistan you retards claimed it was an illegal war. Now suddenly Obama is President and refuses to obey the law of the land and you are just fine with it? Go figure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

“I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton

To be fair, they aren't saying were are not patriotic, they are saying we are racists.

 

[Charles_Main]

Congress declares war.
The President is the Commander in Chief
There is a lot of wiggle room between those two positions.

Granada
Serbia
All the other places troops were sent under:
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

and only NOW are house Republicans freaking out?????

Then you have Republican Senators agreeing with the president. Lindsey Graham, McCain, and so on.

How many troops are in Libya??

Zero, oops.

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

All the other places former Presidents sent troops where they actively "engaged" in combat and only now Republicans are SCREAMING.

What is SCREAMING is the "Double Standard". They would rather see America suffer economically rather than create a jobs bill that might help this president (no surprise there, no one can say Republicans want to help the middle class, who would believe it, it's just too far out there).

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

So even when Bush GOT Congressional authority for Iraq and Afghanistan you retards claimed it was an illegal war. Now suddenly Obama is President and refuses to obey the law of the land and you are just fine with it? Go figure.

Exactly the Irony and Hippocracy are so thick it could make one Vomit.

When A republican Obeys the War Powers act and get congressional Approval to take action. It is an Illegal War.

When A democrat Ignores the War Powers act and Engages in war with out their approval, and even goes so far as to let the 90 Day Deadline pass with out going to congress. It's ok by them.

 

[Charles_Main]

I have to thank Obama and Liberals for Libya though. We could not have asked for a better way to Expose them as the hippocritcal Lying assholes they are.

Hell I been tuning into FOX every night just to catch Sheperd Smith as he says, "More news from the non-war in Libya in which we are not taking sides"

Cracks me up.

The Day I watched Obama say we were not at war in Libya we were in a "Kinetic Military Action" I Shot Coke out my nose.

Been good for some real Knee Slappers.

 

[rdean]

Congress declares war.
The President is the Commander in Chief
There is a lot of wiggle room between those two positions.

Granada
Serbia
All the other places troops were sent under:
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

and only NOW are house Republicans freaking out?????

Then you have Republican Senators agreeing with the president. Lindsey Graham, McCain, and so on.

How many troops are in Libya??

Zero, oops.

Now get this. For years Republicans have been SCREAMING for the NATO Allies to "do something". Now they are taking the lead against Qaddafi with Obama providing drones and fuel, but not troops and Republicans are SCREAMING.

All the other places former Presidents sent troops where they actively "engaged" in combat and only now Republicans are SCREAMING.

What is SCREAMING is the "Double Standard". They would rather see America suffer economically rather than create a jobs bill that might help this president (no surprise there, no one can say Republicans want to help the middle class, who would believe it, it's just too far out there).

And now they are SCREAMING the president isn't following the constitution after not a "peep" from ALL the other times those other presidents sent in "combat troops".

I'm not saying ALL Republicans are against this president because he's black. Only about 90%. What else could it be?

So even when Bush GOT Congressional authority for Iraq and Afghanistan you retards claimed it was an illegal war. Now suddenly Obama is President and refuses to obey the law of the land and you are just fine with it? Go figure.

Because it was based on lies. Bush and the Republicans lied over and over again. They let Bin Laden go. Tens of thousands of Americans are dead and maimed for life and now Iraq has put it's women in Burkas and made "Islam" the basis for government. And you call someone a "tard" and this is what you still support? Go figure.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So even when Bush GOT Congressional authority for Iraq and Afghanistan you retards claimed it was an illegal war. Now suddenly Obama is President and refuses to obey the law of the land and you are just fine with it? Go figure.

Iraq was illegal because Congressional approval was based on information the administration knew to be false.

Libya is illegal because Congress didn’t/doesn’t have the authority to assign ‘war powers’ to the Executive – that can only be done via the amendment process.

And the courts refuse to get involved, meaning the constitutionally of the issue won’t be resolved making the debate moot.

Dellums v. Bush (1990)

The ruling perpetuated the courts' position in avoiding disputes between members of Congress and the president over commitment of U.S. military forces abroad. The district court held that it would not assume Congress' role in resolving political questions involving foreign policy.

Dellums v. Bush - Significance, Iraqi-u.s. Relations, A Congressional Duty, Impact, Further Readings - Military, United, Plaintiff, Decision, and War