Dot Com
Nullius in verba
Republicans being anti-war, isolationists 
I've seen it all now
- Thread starter Dot Com
- Start date
- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
It was the law passed by the Democrats. It is either the law, which should be obeyed, or it is unconstitutional and should be repealed. I would rather see the latter, but either way makes sense in this instance.
The whole Libya thing is an exercise in what everyone on all sides keeps promising we will never do again, even as we key up to do it again. It is an open ended engagement of US forces in a place we have no legitimate interest on a side we don't trust and which does not respect us.
It is this kind of thing that the law was supposed to end forever.
The whole Libya thing is an exercise in what everyone on all sides keeps promising we will never do again, even as we key up to do it again. It is an open ended engagement of US forces in a place we have no legitimate interest on a side we don't trust and which does not respect us.
It is this kind of thing that the law was supposed to end forever.
They couldn't be playing politics when peoples lives are at stake could they? So they had the vote & it passed BUT, when it came time to vote on de-funding the evil operation, the Repubs "flinched". Wha happened
They made their political statement but refuse to cut off money to their buddies in the war machine business.
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
- Thread starter
- #7
They couldn't be playing politics when peoples lives are at stake could they? So they had the vote & it passed BUT, when it came time to vote on de-funding the evil operation, the Repubs "flinched". Wha happened
They made their political statement but refuse to cut off money to their buddies in the war machine business.
Defense contractors have been making a ..... tidy profit the last decade w/ Repubs in control of the House for 6+ yrs of that time.
Avorysuds
Gold Member
They couldn't be playing politics when peoples lives are at stake could they? So they had the vote & it passed BUT, when it came time to vote on de-funding the evil operation, the Repubs "flinched". Wha happened
They made their political statement but refuse to cut off money to their buddies in the war machine business.
Defense contractors have been making a ..... tidy profit the last decade w/ Repubs in control of the House for 6+ yrs of that time.
Still making shit tons, maybe more now that Dems and Obama are in office... What is your point? Obama is the biggest war president in our history, why is it a bad thing that people don't like it? Oh, it's all political when Reps call Dems out as being the war party but when Dems do it to Reps it's because... well see, that's where I get lost.
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
- Thread starter
- #9
Our NATO Allies AND the Arab League called for action on Gaddafi. You know the guys a whack-job if even the Arab League wants him gone. The U.S. is simply in a supporting/logistical role now anyway. Lettuce not forget that the West has $70,000,000,000 of Gaddafi's assets frozen too 
Kuros
Rookie
- Banned
- #12
dotcom said:
Are you joking? You two must be joking.
Because partisanship means backing a President who violates the Constitution AND a law passed by Congress.
Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution vests in Congress the exclusive power to declare war. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, perhaps because of some unfavorable precedents (the most gross of which may be McKinley's Executive Imperialism in the Spanish-American War; or perhaps more geographically analogous: the various Barbary Wars). The War Powers Act states that the President has 60 days to receive Congressional authorization for war, although exceptions may be made (theoretically) in the case of defensive war. But our actions in Libya are not that. After those 60 days, the President has 30 days to wind down the war.
If the Constitution means anything, then this war is illegal. The Constitution explicitly vests in Congress the perogative to declare war. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Jackson divided Presidential authority in relation to Congress into three categories, ranked in descending order of legitimacy: (1) those cases in which the President was acting with express or implied authority from Congress, (2) cases in which Congress had thus far been silent, and (3) cases in which the President was defying congressional orders. Since Congress passed the War Powers Act, the President defies congressional orders in the nature of case number 3, on top of his violation of Art. 1 Sec. 8 Clause 11 of the Constitution.
Obama has provided a defense on why he needn't seek Congressional authorization. But libertarian Conor Friedersdorf and liberal Garrett Epps respectively provide wonderful rebuttals of Obama's slipshod reasoning.
Friedersdorf: (Obama Fails to Justify the Legality of War in Libya - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic)
Epps: (Obama's Bush-Like Approach to Executive Power - Garrett Epps - Politics - The Atlantic)
Meanwhile, it seems that Obama bypassed his top lawyers' advice to produce opinions defending his actions. While such an act is rare, it is not without precedent. President Bush also bypassed his top legal advisors and resorted to Roberto Gonzalez for a defense of his NSA secret wiretapping program.
the biggest war president in our history?
That is so partisanly stupid as to not even require comment.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zone1 "America Is In DEEP DANGER Under Trump!" - Richard Wolff's Dire Warning- Started by IM2
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
