Obama conspires with China to cripple U.S. energy?

[Theowl32]

Obama Makes Surprise Climate Deal with China After Secret Negotiations


President Barack Obama pledged deeper U.S. cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions and China will for the first time set a target for capping carbon emissions under an agreement between the world’s two biggest economies.
Culminating months of quiet negotiations between U.S. and Chinese officials, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping outlined the accord, which they said would help push other nations to seriously negotiate a global pact next year in Paris.

“This is a major milestone in the U.S.-China relationship,” Obama said at a news conference with Xi in Beijing. The two nations, which account for more than a third of greenhouse-gas emissions, have a “special responsibility” to lead efforts to address climate change, he said.

The climate deal capped two days of meetings and announcements of deals that Obama and Xi said marked a high point for U.S.-China cooperation. Officials from both countries also negotiated a breakthrough in talks to eliminate tariffs on communications and technology products from printer cartridges to magnetic-resonance imaging machines, vowed greater military- to-military coordination and extended the validity of visas for tourists and business travelers.

Obama is setting a new target for the U.S., agreeing to cut greenhouse gas emissions at 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The current U.S. target is to reach a level of 17 percent below 2005 emissions by 2020.

China’s Commitments

Xi committed China to begin reducing its carbon dioxide emissions, which have risen steadily, by about 2030, with the intention of trying to reach the goal sooner, according to a statement released by the White House.

China, the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitter, also agreed to increase its non-fossil fuel share of energy production to about 20 percent by 2030, according to the White House.

Obama called the plan “an ambitious but an achievable goal.”

The agreement by two countries that are often at odds on other issues is a boost for international negotiators in advance of the 2015 United Nations climate conference in Paris.

“These are big emitters, and these are very aggressive targets,” Martijn Wilder, head of global environmental markets at law firm Baker & McKenzie, said today by phone from Sydney. “This makes it very difficult for other countries to say we’re not going to do anything.”

Big Impact

Jake Schmidt, director of international programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based environmental group, said no other countries can have as big an impact on the climate debate as the U.S. and China.

“They shape how the market invests,” he said. “They’ve also been two of the most difficult players in the history of the climate negotiations so the fact that they are coming out and saying they are going to take deep commitments will be a powerful signal to the rest of the world.”

Obama, and Xi were personally involved in the discussions. Obama sent Xi a letter on the matter this year, according to administration officials, and the topic was a central theme during the more than five hours of meetings last night in Beijing. Obama is in China for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Acting Now

Obama, at a UN-sponsored climate meeting in New York in September, called on the more than 120 officials present to take action “not this year, or the year after, but right now, because no nation can meet this global threat alone.”

Chinese officials signaled at the same summit that the country would act on a carbon-dioxide cap soon. China has been taking steps to cut emissions, saying in September it plans to start a national carbon-trading market by 2016. China selected seven cities and provinces, including Shanghai, Beijing and Guangdong, to set regional caps and institute pilot programs for trading rights as part of its initiative to cut the intensity of emissions by as much as 45 percent before 2020 from 2005 levels.

China has domestic political reasons to pursue emissions cuts. Pollution in Beijing reached hazardous levels for at least 10 days in October. To cut the haze while leaders from APEC nations were in Beijing, the government put limits on the number of cars on the roads and restricted industrial production and construction.

Obama has made climate change a central issue for his final two years in office, though his agenda is under attack by Republicans, who are set to take control of both chambers of Congress at the start of next year.



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-treaty-china-obama/2014/11/12/id/606807/#ixzz3It4F5Bs2
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

When will obama take out the matador? He has been sticking the country with picador after picador.

The fucking American hating traitor.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I think it's just a tiny bit hypocritical for a president who chain-smokes, to be proselytizing over issues like carcinogens in the air we all breath.

 

[Theowl32]

I think it's just a tiny bit hypocritical for a president who chain-smokes, to be proselytizing over issues like carcinogens in the air we all breath.

Every time he placates his stupid American hating base (who actually still believe man made global warming is real.) America gets fucked, all to the delight of the know it all, arrogant piles of double taking shit on the left.

 

[skye]

Has anybody noticed that this President goes automatically towards the enemy countries?

To Iran ..to China....

To Islamo Nazi nations....

What is wrong with the man?

 

[The Irish Ram]

He is going to spend the next two years campaigning abroad to shore up his ratings for a global position. He will deplete as much of our economy and resources as he can to accomplish that goal. He will spare no expense to push his global agenda as quickly as he can while he still has the opportunity. We are the white colonists that his father wanted to tax one hundred percent and destroy.

Our energy bills do not have to necessarily skyrocket. But they will, because we are selling our energy resources to China dirt cheap. We are not allowed to burn our coal efficiently, due to strict Obama regulations, but China can burn our coal for pennies on the dollar with no regard for air quality, and with impunity. He will allow a pipeline, but for China. We won't be able to use the gas, or the price for us will necessarily skyrocket, because of the stricter Obama regulations he promised China he would impose on us to the tune of 50 billion dollars. China will use our gas instead. It is called redistribution.

And btw, just in case you think regulations are worth it to have clean air, American clean air does not stay in America. What we have agreed to do is to clean the filthy air from China and send it along it's way to Europe.

China has embedded viruses in our energy grids, hacked wall street, and our banks, and have the capability to stop us in our tracks if we make trouble for them. Now we are giving them 10 year visas to finish their work from the inside.
They are also our financial institution. We owe them more than we can repay.

If we don't say no to the global initiative and the redistribution of what little wealth and resources we have left, we will be begging for heat and food and relief from taxation in the future.

We need to get back on our feet. Back to work. We have been bled nearly dry. We need to heal this country, from Washington, not from behind a great wall.

 

[daws101]

if it's a conspiracy it's the most public ever....

 

[Vigilante]

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

 

[daws101]

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

false (executive order)

 

[Vigilante]

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

false (executive order)

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

 

[daws101]

s

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

false (executive order)

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12938.pdf

as to your second lame ass comment
What War Powers Does the President Have?
President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?

Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shoot To Kill? Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
Next question?


wrong again
now you'll try to spew some shit about it being unconstitutional..

 

[Vigilante]

s

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

false (executive order)

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12938.pdf

as to your second lame ass comment
What War Powers Does the President Have?
President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?

Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shoot To Kill? Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
Next question?


wrong again
now you'll try to spew some shit about it being unconstitutional..

Yes asshole IF WE PHYSICALLY ARE ATTACKED! Were we physically attacked by Saddam? That's why Congress declared war... in Afghanistan they PROTECTED OBL who attacked us, another scenario.

Obuma's WAR in Lybia, and Syria are Unconstitutional, WE were not attacked, but there is NO ONE with balls to go against him.

Yes, pond scum, you know Constitutional law, about as much as your garbage man!

 

[SteadyMercury]

Has anybody noticed that this President goes automatically towards the enemy countries?

China is an enemy country?

When was the last US President who didn't go to China? Probably before Nixon.

 

[daws101]

s

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

false (executive order)

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12938.pdf

as to your second lame ass comment
What War Powers Does the President Have?
President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?

Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shoot To Kill? Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
Next question?


wrong again
now you'll try to spew some shit about it being unconstitutional..

Yes asshole IF WE PHYSICALLY ARE ATTACKED! Were we physically attacked by Saddam? That's why Congress declared war... in Afghanistan they PROTECTED OBL who attacked us, another scenario.

Obuma's WAR in Lybia, and Syria are Unconstitutional, WE were not attacked, but there is NO ONE with balls to go against him.

Yes, pond scum, you know Constitutional law, about as much as your garbage man!

Korea and Vietnam did not attack us either ..

 

[Vigilante]

s

NOW if the Congress has the balls, they tell him, that Congress must ratify that DEAL in order for it to become effective.... I see no such HEROIC Republican, IN THE POSITION OF POWER, doing so!

false (executive order)

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12938.pdf

as to your second lame ass comment
What War Powers Does the President Have?
President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?

Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shoot To Kill? Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
Next question?


wrong again
now you'll try to spew some shit about it being unconstitutional..

Yes asshole IF WE PHYSICALLY ARE ATTACKED! Were we physically attacked by Saddam? That's why Congress declared war... in Afghanistan they PROTECTED OBL who attacked us, another scenario.

Obuma's WAR in Lybia, and Syria are Unconstitutional, WE were not attacked, but there is NO ONE with balls to go against him.

Yes, pond scum, you know Constitutional law, about as much as your garbage man!

Korea and Vietnam did not attack us either ..

Did we have treaties with both S. Korea, and S. Vietnam?

 

[daws101]

s

false (executive order)

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12938.pdf

as to your second lame ass comment
What War Powers Does the President Have?
President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?

Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shoot To Kill? Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
Next question?


wrong again
now you'll try to spew some shit about it being unconstitutional..

Yes asshole IF WE PHYSICALLY ARE ATTACKED! Were we physically attacked by Saddam? That's why Congress declared war... in Afghanistan they PROTECTED OBL who attacked us, another scenario.

Obuma's WAR in Lybia, and Syria are Unconstitutional, WE were not attacked, but there is NO ONE with balls to go against him.

Yes, pond scum, you know Constitutional law, about as much as your garbage man!

Korea and Vietnam did not attack us either ..

Did we have treaties with both S. Korea, and S. Vietnam?

not the point and you know it.
btw when did saddam attack us?

 

[SteadyMercury]

not the point and you know it.
btw when did saddam attack us?

Ooh is he ever going to unleash a torrent of cartoons on you if you don't stop confounding him.

 

[Vigilante]

s

Show me an executive order that deals with an economic measure with a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... I can wait!.... I bet you didn't know that the President can't declare WAR, that's the job of Congress, he can only rubber stamp that!

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12938.pdf

as to your second lame ass comment
What War Powers Does the President Have?
President George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "acts of war." What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?

Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shoot To Kill? Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.
International Law The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the "inherent right ... of self-defense if an armed attack occurs." NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it's determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
Next question?


wrong again
now you'll try to spew some shit about it being unconstitutional..

Yes asshole IF WE PHYSICALLY ARE ATTACKED! Were we physically attacked by Saddam? That's why Congress declared war... in Afghanistan they PROTECTED OBL who attacked us, another scenario.

Obuma's WAR in Lybia, and Syria are Unconstitutional, WE were not attacked, but there is NO ONE with balls to go against him.

Yes, pond scum, you know Constitutional law, about as much as your garbage man!

Korea and Vietnam did not attack us either ..

Did we have treaties with both S. Korea, and S. Vietnam?

not the point and you know it.
btw when did saddam attack us?

So did we have treaties? Some in Congress consider attacking our Planes in the no fly zone after Gulf War I where we were part of the U.N. coalition was enough!

 

[daws101]

not the point and you know it.
btw when did saddam attack us?

Ooh is he ever going to unleash a torrent of cartoons on you if you don't stop confounding him.

hope they're more intelligent than he is..

 

[Vigilante]

not the point and you know it.
btw when did saddam attack us?

Ooh is he ever going to unleash a torrent of cartoons on you if you don't stop confounding him.

Sorry, for you I'd need one of Needle Dick the Bug Fucker, and I would be banned for using it!

 

[Vigilante]

not the point and you know it.
btw when did saddam attack us?

Ooh is he ever going to unleash a torrent of cartoons on you if you don't stop confounding him.

hope they're more intelligent than he is..

Your 2 digit IQ is entertaining!