If Congress votes No on Syria and Obama orders bombings anyway, Consitutional Crisis?

[Antares]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

See this article for 'clarification'?!

The War Powers Act Is Pretty Unclear About Whether Congress Gets a Vote On Syria - US News and World Report

President Cracka is trying to prove he is a man.
He isn't.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said



When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

See this article for 'clarification'?!

The War Powers Act Is Pretty Unclear About Whether Congress Gets a Vote On Syria - US News and World Report

So you are saying that Obama, the "Constituitonal" Scholar and Professor was WRONG when he said that as a Senator and President G.W. Bush was in office?

Exactly, but we should be used to Obama being wrong........

 

[B. Kidd]

Like Mark Levin says, we live in a post-constitutional era.......so its' a moot point.

Both of you would be well served to mute your points.

Reality was never your strong suit.

 

[MikeK]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

It is an act of war. Absent formal declaration, as per the Pearl Harbor attack, an act of war is a more serious violation of International Law and is considered a war crime.

After WW-II, Japan was charged with several war crimes. Their act of war against the U.S. with no formal declaration (sneak attack) was one of them. Germany was not so charged because Germany did declare war against us.

 

[Antares]

If Congress votes No on Syria and Obama orders bombings anyway, Consitutional Crisis?

No.

The president is still authorized to initiate military action per the WPA.

Those who disagree with this should direct their anger at Congress, who foolishly abdicated their authority to declare war.

Nope, President Cracka gets it all....he is trying to show how big his dick is....we don't care.

He needs to man up and stay out of this shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So you are also saying that Obama was wrong when he said that it did?

Boots on the ground is an invasion, which needs congressional approval per the constitution. A support role such as bombing a few targeted locations does not.

Read the constitution.

Which was the original intent of the WPA; to prevent ‘another Vietnam,’ an open-ended military commitment.

The theory of the WPA was that in an age of modern warfare, in the event of an international crisis or National emergency, the president could act militarily short-term as Congressional approval would take too long, placing America in jeopardy.

What Congress failed to realize was that subsequent to the passage of the Act, presidents developed a military strategy that exploited the ‘time limit’ placed on the Executive to bring the matter before Congress for an official declaration.

With the courts correctly refusing to get involved in a potential conflict between the president and Congress, we are stuck with the CE having the authority to order limited military actions.

 

[U2Edge]

There will not be a crises. If congress really wants to stop the President, they can cut funding, but they will need a veto proof majority to do it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like Mark Levin says, we live in a post-constitutional era.......so its' a moot point.

More proof that Mark Levin is an idiot.

 

[Mertex]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said



When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

You are still underestimating Obama. He's way smarter than that.

I wish you would expand upon this.. IMHO, this is a straight forward issue.. Obama made the statement that unless there is an imminent threat, the President needs Congressional authority... Of cours he was a Senator at that time.

Obama has asked Congress to vote on it. He hasn't acted on it.

If Congress doesn't give him authority, has he violated the Constitution? I don't see any areas of grey here.

Obama has substantial authority, but he isn't going to do something that he knows he doesn't have authority to do. Also, he isn't going to do anything that would give Republicans in Congress any reason to seek impeachment, which they have been itching to do, even if it was what they would have wanted him to do.

He said he contacted congressional leaders on Saturday and that they plan to hold a debate and a vote as soon as Congress comes back in September.

Obama says he has the authority to act on his own, but believes it is important for the country to have a debate. The U.S. says 1,429 people, including at least 426 children, were killed following the deadly Aug. 21 attack.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio issued a joint statement with other Republican leaders Saturday announcing that the House would vote on a measure approving military intervention in Syria once it returns from recess during the week of Sept. 9.

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," the leaders said in a statement. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Obama: Military Response Warranted in Syria
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama: Military Response Warranted in Syria

 

[OriginalShroom]

You are still underestimating Obama. He's way smarter than that.

I wish you would expand upon this.. IMHO, this is a straight forward issue.. Obama made the statement that unless there is an imminent threat, the President needs Congressional authority... Of cours he was a Senator at that time.

Obama has asked Congress to vote on it. He hasn't acted on it.

If Congress doesn't give him authority, has he violated the Constitution? I don't see any areas of grey here.

Obama has substantial authority, but he isn't going to do something that he knows he doesn't have authority to do. Also, he isn't going to do anything that would give Republicans in Congress any reason to seek impeachment, which they have been itching to do, even if it was what they would have wanted him to do.

He said he contacted congressional leaders on Saturday and that they plan to hold a debate and a vote as soon as Congress comes back in September.

Obama says he has the authority to act on his own, but believes it is important for the country to have a debate. The U.S. says 1,429 people, including at least 426 children, were killed following the deadly Aug. 21 attack.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio issued a joint statement with other Republican leaders Saturday announcing that the House would vote on a measure approving military intervention in Syria once it returns from recess during the week of Sept. 9.

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," the leaders said in a statement. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Obama: Military Response Warranted in Syria
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama: Military Response Warranted in Syria

People who don't like us are killing people who don't like us in a civil war within the boundaries of the Nation/State of Syria.

Regardless of the number or types of people killed, where is our "National Interests" or "Immeninent" threat?

 

[Mertex]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

It is an act of war. Absent formal declaration, as per the Pearl Harbor attack, an act of war is a more serious violation of International Law and is considered a war crime.

After WW-II, Japan was charged with several war crimes. Their act of war against the U.S. with no formal declaration (sneak attack) was one of them. Germany was not so charged because Germany did declare war against us.

Apparently you have it wrong. I know Faux News lies often, but could this be one of those times?

Despite his mistakes in reading his domestic powers too broadly, this time President Obama has the Constitution about right. His exercise of war powers rests firmly in the tradition of American foreign policy.
Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congresses have acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S. can conduct military hostilities abroad.
We have used force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II.
Without any congressional approval, presidents have sent forces to battle Indians, Barbary pirates and Russian revolutionaries, to fight North Korean and Chinese communists in Korea, to engineer regime changes in South and Central America, and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans.
Other conflicts, such as the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War, received legislative “authorization” but not declarations of war.


Read more: Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval | Fox News

 

[Katzndogz]

The IDEAL outcome would be for obama to flex someone else's muscles and that other country consider the attack a declaration of war. Now obama's ass is in the pressure cooker. Democrats are under the mistaken impression that only the US can declare war. HA, they got a big lesson coming.

 

[Borillar]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So, would you be perfectly happy with some country lobbing a few bombs in the middle of your town? With impunity and no accountability?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So, would you be perfectly happy with some country lobbing a few bombs in the middle of your town? With impunity and no accountability?

This is sort of the mindset that we adopted after that trailer trash Bill Clinton told us that it "depends on what your definition of IS, is" in order to skirt around the issue of lying.

We are a nation of legalese little jag offs now. EVERYTHING is gray. Congress and the president use these little "outs" everyday in order to get around the American people.

Trust me on this. If you have EVER been shot at (and I have), the SECOND you hear that pop as the bullet goes by, you know that the idiot that is shooting at you has declared war on you. I do NOT need either (a) a declaration of war or (b) "presidential" order to know that it is another war and will have ongoing affects on our country. And after 2 other Ill-advised wars, we can NOT afford another. Period. End of story.

Hell, let's grab 2/3 of the worthless assed lawyers in this country and ship their asses to Syria to fight for a change.

 

[Mertex]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So, would you be perfectly happy with some country lobbing a few bombs in the middle of your town? With impunity and no accountability?

It's not a matter of whether one poster here is perfectly happy with your suggestion, it's what is in the Constitution that matters.

 

[Mertex]

So what happened to all the hoopla Republicans were demanding not too long ago that Obama must take some action in Syria? Is that when they were for something before they were against it? Seems like it.

Either you want him to take action or you don't - but quit flip-flopping, already.


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) laid out the situation in stark terms: “The time for President Obama to do something in Syria that we can eviscerate him for is long overdue.”

Arguing that there are a variety of options available to Mr. Obama for dealing with Syria, Sen. Graham said, “The President needs to choose one of those options so that we can immediately identify it as a catastrophic choice and demand that he be impeached.”
Republicans: Obama Must Take Action in Syria So We Can Criticize Action He Took in Syria : The New Yorker

 

[OriginalShroom]

So what happened to all the hoopla Republicans were demanding not too long ago that Obama must take some action in Syria? Is that when they were for something before they were against it? Seems like it.

Either you want him to take action or you don't - but quit flip-flopping, already.


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) laid out the situation in stark terms: “The time for President Obama to do something in Syria that we can eviscerate him for is long overdue.”

Arguing that there are a variety of options available to Mr. Obama for dealing with Syria, Sen. Graham said, “The President needs to choose one of those options so that we can immediately identify it as a catastrophic choice and demand that he be impeached.”
Republicans: Obama Must Take Action in Syria So We Can Criticize Action He Took in Syria : The New Yorker

Hmmmm Using a satire article as a basis for your position?

Interesting..

Do you relay on Jon Stewart and Colbert also?

How about "The Onion"?

 

[Borillar]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So, would you be perfectly happy with some country lobbing a few bombs in the middle of your town? With impunity and no accountability?

It's not a matter of whether one poster here is perfectly happy with your suggestion, it's what is in the Constitution that matters.

And where in the Constitution is the power to unilaterally attack other countries that have not attacked us and pose no threat to us?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

 

[francoHFW]

No crisis, and when did Obama say that? I think he just wants to put it off until after 9/11, and make Pubs look bad LOL.