It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
Five wars have been declared under the Constitution: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II.
Under Section 2 Article 2, it is clearly stated that a declaration of war must be stated for authorizing it.
Obviously it has been circumvented in Vietnam and Korea by using the term "police action".
Later, the Korean police action was changed to a war status.
Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
Preemptive , sovereign state.... doesn't matter.... attack by us and others, just another excuse to control that region...will the U.N. come in and protect , we the people, if we decide our government is so corrupt that it is time to overthrow it??
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
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.
By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007
In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
* About 32 percent of Libya's oil goes to Italy, 14 percent to Germany, 10 percent to France and China and 5 percent to the United States. * Buyers have said the shortage can be covered by alternative sources such as Nigeria and
Azerbaijan, which produce similar light, low-sulphur crude oils. * Saudi Arabia has raised production to fill the supply gap, but opinions differ how much
spare capacity the kingdom has got and whether it can ramp up production further.
#1 "Islam has always been part of America"
#2 "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"
#8 "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."
#1 "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation"
#2 "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
"My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim."
One thing is clear: The sudden emergence of Obama’s National Security Council Advisor, Samantha Power, and the “new theory” she is using as justification for action in Libya, has very serious implications for future military action against Israel. As John Podhoretz explains in the New York Post, the “reason” behind the Libyan military strike is not the traditional justification of “protecting the national interest.” It is a “new” standard called “R2P” or “right to protect.” This concept is being promulgated by the “one-world” order activists at the United Nations, like Samantha Power.