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.
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’ Monday, March 21, 2011 By Fred Lucas Barack Obama, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), campaigning for president on Sept. 21, 2008, in Charlotte, NC.. (AP photo/Chuck Burton) (CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States. Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress. “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,” Obama responded. “As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress. In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress. “No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”
OK, let’s see: The United States was the principal actor in creating the United Nations. It drafted much of the United Nations Charter. The Senate ratified the Charter in 1945, from its own free will. It enacted, as well, the provision that authorizes the President to use the armed forces pursuant to Article 42 military action, such as the one on-going in Libya. The United States, like Germany, could have decided not to participate in hostilities.
Originally posted by woghd
It would seem, at least on the surface that the POTUS no longer answers to the US Congress, but instead, to the United nations. No the congress has not been disbanded or anything like that, nor will it be. In fact it will probably be preserved for "domestic" issues that are of no interest to the UN. However, for the BIG issues, it seems that the UN is now calling the shots. If I have misinterpreted something here, please point it out.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Make zero mistake and have no lillusion that The United States Of America's Soveriegnty and Soveriegn Authourity is still fully and completely intact.We will NEVER DIE! We remain as 307,000,000 strong and show no signs of slowing down ever! This is our nation, "Of The People, By The People, For The People" forever shines as our motto.
USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA NOW, ALWAYS AND FOREVER!
Remember people, when you abandon your nation the terrorists win!!!
Originally posted by woghd
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Make zero mistake and have no lillusion that The United States Of America's Soveriegnty and Soveriegn Authourity is still fully and completely intact.We will NEVER DIE! We remain as 307,000,000 strong and show no signs of slowing down ever! This is our nation, "Of The People, By The People, For The People" forever shines as our motto.
USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA NOW, ALWAYS AND FOREVER!
Remember people, when you abandon your nation the terrorists win!!!
Sorry, but all that Rah-Rah-Rah just doesn't cut it. The president is working with the UN instead of Congress.
Originally posted by woghd
Sorry, but that argument simply isn't compelling. Our constitution is supposed to tell us jow to handle international affairs, not some "international law" The fact that anyone even thinks this is ok or acceptable is a testament to how far gone things have become. No "international law" should override the constitution in ANY event. Ever.
The constitution says that ALL acts of war must be approved by congress. Bombing another country is certainly recognized internationally as an act of war.
We've been P0wned by the NWO.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1 The UN handles human rights issues and as The US along with Russia and China is the accepted broadsword of The UN and if a hungry masses is calling for us to engage an oppressor then The Constitution allows for it as any action to further the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty anywhere in the world is protected and allowable under The Constitution.
Originally posted by woghd
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1 The UN handles human rights issues and as The US along with Russia and China is the accepted broadsword of The UN and if a hungry masses is calling for us to engage an oppressor then The Constitution allows for it as any action to further the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty anywhere in the world is protected and allowable under The Constitution.
1. The UN should not be handling *any* of America's issues.
2. That Constitution demands congressional approval to make war. It didn't happen.
Again, we've been P0wned by the NWO.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Originally posted by woghd
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1 The UN handles human rights issues and as The US along with Russia and China is the accepted broadsword of The UN and if a hungry masses is calling for us to engage an oppressor then The Constitution allows for it as any action to further the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty anywhere in the world is protected and allowable under The Constitution.
1. The UN should not be handling *any* of America's issues.
2. That Constitution demands congressional approval to make war. It didn't happen.
Again, we've been P0wned by the NWO.
Congressional approval is required to make war yes but THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT DECLARED WAR ON LIBYA. THAT IS THAT.
Quit trying to use this to spew the GOP Mantra as the right has been itching for war for a minute so get real.
Originally posted by woghd
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Originally posted by woghd
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1 The UN handles human rights issues and as The US along with Russia and China is the accepted broadsword of The UN and if a hungry masses is calling for us to engage an oppressor then The Constitution allows for it as any action to further the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty anywhere in the world is protected and allowable under The Constitution.
1. The UN should not be handling *any* of America's issues.
2. That Constitution demands congressional approval to make war. It didn't happen.
Again, we've been P0wned by the NWO.
Congressional approval is required to make war yes but THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT DECLARED WAR ON LIBYA. THAT IS THAT.
Quit trying to use this to spew the GOP Mantra as the right has been itching for war for a minute so get real.
Bagger, right, how could I not see that!
I'm not a Republican. nor am I a member of "the right". And an attack on Foreign soil is a declaration of war by anyone's standards, but most importantly by the standards of the Constitution. Shall I quote it?