Sen. Joe Biden: War without Congressional Authorization is an Impeachable Offense

Regardless of whether or not you argue semantics on declaring war, Obama IS directly interfering (or meddling) in Middle East affairs. Liberals harped on Dubya for that constantly. Now that the big O is doing it Liberals are falling all over themselves to defend the actions. D O U B L E S T A N D A R D

War is messy, expensive, and hard. "Defense Operations" and "military engagements" are profitable and much easier.

BTW, the US congress has not formally declared war on anyone since June 5 1942, although they have authorized and/or funded "military engagements" and "use of force" a few dozen times since then.

en.wikipedia.org...

Violating the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War, Bush had every right to attack Iraq, just as Clinton did, but only used misslies. I do not see how Obama can make that assumption, even with some UN provisions thrown in. Congress did vote for for Bush's war.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Which part of the Constitution gives the President the authority to conduct acts of war without Congressional declaration of war? Any powers not specifically giving to the President in the Constitution do not exist without amendment. A standing army is also strictly forbidden.

Originally posted by chancemusky
But Obama has not made a declaration of war, so he is not outside the constitution...

You're correct He didn't "declare" a war.
We are just sending out loaded aircraft and ships to Libya that return home with empty bomb racks. Shrapnel hurts less that way. If the legal technicalities arenot met ( "t"'s crossed,& "i"'s dotted)

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This is nothing like Iraq as the reasons for us engaging Libya now are different then Iraq as we are in there to aide and support the people in their effort to topple Ghadaffi.

Did you just arrive in this universe?

edit on 23-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

Iraq was sold to us on lies and everyone and their mother nowadays knows this. Libya is directly responsible for Pan Am Flt 103 and a dozens of unmaned drone attacks upon other nations. Libya is on US DHS and CIA's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" by providing key support to al Qaida, Hezbollah.

The only nation Hussien era Iraq launched against was Iran for which they got their snotbox rocked and Kuwait which started Desert Storm on 1991.

edit on 23-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

What's that you say?
"Lib'ya is FULL of "TERRROISTS"
Wow they're screwed now that's exactly why we are in Afghanistan and a bitof "paki"

I am sure any 2 bit lawyer will find a loophole and impeach the President over the Libyan crisis.

By all means, go ahead.

I am certain that perhaps the President may EVEN NOT put up any fight. If I were him, I would find it a tiring and depressing job. So much to do and yet much more yet to be done, if allowed to do so. I would have been looking for exits. But he hung on.

So do make the attempt, because of this Libyan incident, and see the consequences.

While Blair and Bush would be pelted with rotten eggs during any public appearances, Obama will be treated with royal deferrences, and honoured by future generations for what he had done and where he had stood during the Libyan crisis.

With an economy broken, and people dispirited, he uplifted the spirit of mankind by his act of taking direction to help another nation to achieve freedom, the very same freedoms that made USA great for 200 years, come hell or highwater.

It was his decisive decision to make, and he did not falter one bit, and did what was necessary, together with Secretary of State Mrs Hilary Clinton.

This direction may be unknown and despise by our overfed generation, but in years to come, it will be remembered by our future generations, whom will know where US stood when the chips are down, and venerated for generations more to come as our founding fathers had been.

President Obama, Secretary of State Mrs Hilary Clinton, leaders of UK and France, had not shirked from their responsibilities as leaders of Free mankind as other leaders had during the mass murders conducted in China, Russia, Darfur, Burma, Rwanda, etc.

Go ahead with the impeachment. At the end of our lives, it is neither power or wealth that we will be fondly remembers, immortalised and role models to follow. It will be what we had done for our fellow humans. And unfortunately, Joe Biden will find himself a vile and petty cartoon caricature amongst future generations to come.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Wow your nose is so far up this administrations ass can you even open your eyes anymore? It's not our responsibility to fix the world, yes it's nice to help others out when you can but we are not in that position anymore. Obama needs to concentrate his energy and efforts on our country no where else, and it's something that he seldom wants to do. He's too busy looking to send our money elsewhere in the world instead of investing it here where we need it the most right now. If anything future generations will look and laugh and say how could he be in a position to rebuild this country and piss it all away. Nothing he is doing right now is in my opinion gonna help the history books, unless ending the United States is the plan. If thats the case I am sure he will succeed as he is hell bent on destroying it along with both sides of the party line.

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by chancemusky
But Obama has not made a declaration of war, so he is not outside the constitution...

You're correct He didn't "declare" a war.

This is to look at the constitutional question from a very bizarre perspective — of course the President didn’t “declare war,” he couldn’t, that’s an Article I power.

The purpose of the “declare war” clause in the Constitution was intended to prevent the President, one man, from unilaterally declaring war on another nation, an action that, in most cases, inevitably, triggered a military response from the other nation, in effect committing the United States to what could be a long and costly war.

But international diplomacy and law have changed a lot, and since the United States and practically every other nation have ratified the United Nations Charter, they have, in essence, agreed not to wage war in the traditional sense, and as the “declare clause” in Article I Section 8 intended to avoid being at the discretion of one man alone.

Nations now can’t legitimately declare war on other nations because they don’t like them, or want their land. In modern times, and according to international norms, nations can only, legitimately, use military force against another in (1) self-defense or (2) in pursuance of a UN resolution to maintain or restore international peace and avoid humanitarian disasters. Everything else is considered a war of aggression, prohibited by the Charter and other international law instruments.

It has been understood, including by Congress, at the time of debate regarding the ratification of the UN Charter, that action pursuant to a UN resolution wouldn’t qualify as an act of war in the traditional and constitutional sense, and didn’t interfere with Congress’ exclusive power to “declare war”—

Preventive or enforcement action ... upon the order of the Security Council would not be an act of war but would be international action for the preservation of the peace and for the purpose of preventing war. Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of Congress to declare war.

(see Senate Report 717, “Report Providing for the Appointment of Representatives of the United States in the Organs and Agencies of the U.N., and to Make Other Provisions with Respect to the Participation of the United States in Such Organization,” 1945)

Throughout history Presidents have used the armed forces without Congressional authorization numerous times. In fact, according to a 1995 Office of Legal Counsel memo, “in at least 125 instances, the President acted without express authorization from Congress.”

Directly analogous to our present situation in Libya, Presidents have on numerous occasions, since Truman, introduced the armed forces into hostilities, pursuant to a UN resolution, without an express authorization from Congress, including by Reagan, George H. W. Bush or Clinton.

Contrary to what some are now painting the picture, Presidential power isn’t limitless and Congress is not helpless to act, if it disagrees with the President, particularly in the military arena. Congress has the power of the purse, and if it opposes and wishes to cease a military endeavor it can defund said endeavor.

Those cheering for, or believing what Obama has done will have consequences, namely impeachment, are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Congress won’t even seriously debate this question, let alone act, before the 60 days limit of the War Powers Act are up. And even then, and if the US continued its participation in the Libya campaign, I seriously doubt Congress would defund the US efforts, for political reasons, or force a constitutional battle.

The Courts have no desire to touch this question, and the precedents and practices, reinforced whether by Congress’ own decisions or inaction, are tipping in favor of Presidents, asserting inherent powers and ample authority to command the armed forces as they see fit.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Which part of the Constitution gives the President the authority to conduct acts of war without Congressional declaration of war? Any powers not specifically giving to the President in the Constitution do not exist without amendment. A standing army is also strictly forbidden.

Upon further reading, it has become obvious that the concept of war has been given the "treament" by the lawyers. As described in the decision of Doe v. Bush (www.ca1.uscourts.gov...), apparently, even the semblance of legislative approval (such as allocating funding for a mission or "action") is enough to count as congress "declaring war", especially since the consitution itself does not specifically enumerate HOW congress is meant to declare war.

reply to post by jjkenobi


I'm not defending his actions.

When will people on here STOP lumping people together just because of their political beliefs?

Originally posted by aptness
Contrary to what some are now painting the picture, Presidential power isn’t limitless and Congress is not helpless to act, if it disagrees with the President, particularly in the military arena. Congress has the power of the purse, and if it opposes and wishes to cease a military endeavor it can defund said endeavor.

So in light of this (and the Doe v Bush opinion), it would seem that by simply funding the standing army (and other military forces), Congress gives an implicit war making abilities to the president?

Last week Obama was golfing and filling out the NCAA brackets, now this week Biden is taking in some MLB Spring Training. All while bombs are falling in Libya. Nice!

nbcsports.msnbc.com...

TAMPA, Fla. - Vice President Joe Biden has visited the New York Yankees' spring training camp.

Biden spent around 30 minutes on the third-base side of George Steinbrenner Field on Wednesday while the Yankees were taking part in early defensive drills. He was with Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and both wore Yankees hats.

The vice president talked with team officials, including manager Joe Girardi and spring training instructor David Wells, along with a number of players.

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by EvolEric

 

Exactly, plus, the UN has given the go ahead, so its not just him.

The UN doesn't have the authority to authorize American Forces, only Congress does. A UN "authorization" merely means no other nation can &^%$# about it after Congress decides.

Originally posted by loam

So the UN gets to decide it's ok to use US military force?

No, they decide that the US is allowed to help enforce it...As a part of a coalition, led by the french and Britain.


Do I agree with it? No.... But they have the right.

reply to post by aptness

It has been understood, including by Congress, at the time of debate regarding the ratification of the UN Charter, that action pursuant to a UN resolution wouldn’t qualify as an act of war in the traditional and constitutional sense, and didn’t interfere with Congress’ exclusive power to “declare war”—

US war planes and missiles are blowing up the military of a foreign country..

Maybe it's just me, but I call that war...
They can dress it up any way they like but it's still the same thing..

Under the Bush administration, we invaded Iraq on a lie, thousands of American men have died on a lie, and no one is held accountable? We invaded Afghanistan too, and rightfully so, but then Ben laden left Afghanistan and fled to Pakistan.... we stayed.

I see past the two party oligarchy however, I think the military industrial complex runs this country and our puppet leaders are here to keep us from revolting and to tend to things like gay marriage and abortion, things to keep us preoccupied from the real issues. Ever notice politicians are trying to cut things that take up less than 5% of our deficit? What makes up our deficit? Military.... and no politician can touch it.


Moral of the story... Obama does not control who we invade, this was the military industrial complex IMO, not Obama... He just okay ed it to make the people happy.

Originally posted by backinblack
US war planes and missiles are blowing up the military of a foreign country.. Maybe it's just me, but I call that war... They can dress it up any way they like but it's still the same thing..

You missed the point of the post.

I’m not arguing, nor was Congress then, that flying planes and dropping bombs in the territory of a foreign country aren’t hostile acts. The point was to demonstrate that the “declare war” clause in Article I Section 8 had a specific meaning and intent, and isn’t meant to apply to, for instance, military action pursuant to a UN mandate to restore international peace and security, such as the one in Libya.

That military action will still involve dropping bombs and people getting killed, but from the constitutional sense — the purpose for which the “declare war” was intended — they are distinct.

The “declare war” clause was meant for, what we now call, war of aggression, and not for defensive purposes or in pursuance of international efforts to restore peace and deal with humanitarian crisis.

The Framers were remarkably well-read men. The publicists with whom they were familiar in this area—writers like Grotius, Vattel, and Burlamaqui—all argued that a formal declaration of war was unnecessary for defensive hostilities. It was only when nations were at peace and one wished to initiate an offensive (or what we would today call an aggressive) war that it was necessary to declare war. And this distinction between the President's right to use force defensively, but requiring legislative sanction to initiate an offensive war, was evident in the debate at the Philadelphia Convention over Madison's motion to give Congress not the power "to make War," but the more narrow power "to declare War." In 1928 and again in 1945, the world community by treaty outlawed the aggressive use of force among nations, and in the process made the declaration of war clause a constitutional anachronism. It is no coincidence that no sovereign state has clearly issued a declaration of war in more than half a century ...

When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war."

The following is also helpful in comprehending Congress’ understanding of the constitutional and congressional authorization requirements concerning action pursuant to a mandate of the Security Council—

During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes.

(see “The War Powers Resolution: An Unnecessary, Unconstitutional Source of ‘Friendly Fire’ in the War Against International Terrorism?,” Robert F. Turner, 2005, source)

Biden currently does have the authourity known as President Of The United States Senate and is incredibly well versed and is highly respected by the international community as Foreign Policy is actually something he is good at.

Allow him to handle and oversee this with our allies and we should not expect to see this happen same way Iraq and Afghanistan did. Cheney and Rice were horrible when it came to matters like this.

reply to post by backinblack


Is stopping a bully from knocking out a kid a fight? Or simple protection?