It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Originally posted by boondock-saint
lookie here O-Bummer,
if ya wanna be head of the UN,
I suggest you give up ur job
at the WH. It is against the
law to hold both positions at once.
Head of the UN? Say what?
On what planet is that the case?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by StarLightStarBright2
The Constitution prohibits the President, or Congressional members, from working for 2 branches of Government at the same time. The UN is not part of that nor is it covered by the law you are talking about.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by forklift
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
Oh HELL no!
The U.S. is NOT governed by the U.N. Period.
Who is it governed by than?
Our own state and federal governments. The U.S. is a sovereign nation.
Sovereignty - The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
Originally posted by Konah
[
Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544).
If he had been granted approval by Congress first or the United States was attacked by Libyans, or given specific statutory authorization, then yes you would be correct.
However, he was not. Which means the initial attack was un-constitutional and that your argument is void.
Edit for Clarity: What you highlighted is in regards to the pulling out of military forces stationed in a hostile environment, not entering combat. Did you notice this?edit on 3/20/2011 by Konah because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Bonified Ween
If that is not an act of war, then what is? Your going to tell me bombarding a country with 120+ tomahawk's isn't declaring war? In your head it might be "clearing a path". But to the many - that is an act of war. Bombing another state in any form of perception / aggressive or defensive is war...plain and #in simple.
Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
reply to post by TrueAmerican
opps!...sorryedit on 22-3-2011 by StarLightStarBright2 because: (no reason given)