White House on War Powers Deadline: ... No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by centurion1211

 

the whole government is rooting for him and definitely in on the plan, congress would be ok with this anyway
they all are on the same boat

the goal is to get all eyes on obama for these controversial things

EXACTLY!! Just like under Bush the partisan Democrats pretended it was all Bush and all the Republicans (despite near unanimous Democratic support). That's part of the game. Keep moving the Empire forward while blaming the fall guy. Then, after 8 years, the pendulum can swing.

reply to post by centurion1211


The war powers act was passed by Congress to prevent another Vietnam. The problem is no president to date has acknowledged the war power act as even being legal, since it violates the Constitution.

Congress is reserved the power to decalre war.
The President is reserved the authority as Commander in Chief.

The President can send troops anywhere he wants, and must answer to the American people when he does.
The Congress can decide whether or not they will fund those troops, and must answer to the American people.

Congress can delegate their own authority. They cant delegate the Presidents authority.

That is the check and balance - Commander in Chief deploys troops, and if Congress does not support it, they dont fund it, forcing the troops to be brought back home.

The war powers act is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Press secretary Carney can't even get the story on Israel straight - no speech on 1967 borders and then there is one 1 day later.

God forbid people change their mind....again...double

Could this be your most disingenuous post ever? double

But IF you are even right on press secretary Carney not having a clue what obama is going to say the very next day, it means the right and left hands of the obama administration have no clue what the other is doing. Sorry, there's just no way to put a positive spin on this.

And now your definition of the Libya conflict is that it is not an "open" war, therefore obama gets to play dictator?
Careful, you're going to get pretty dizzy with all the spinning you're having to do to make obama's actions still seem "right".

Remember, I supported Bush into his 2nd term until the reality started to sink in. Maybe you should also consider dropping the dogma and start thinking all of this through before continuing your blind support of obama. More and more people are denying that ignorance every day.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The war powers act is unconstitutional.

Be that as it may, the point of the OP is that after invoking the War Powers Act to justify taking military action in Libya, obama is now saying the WPA doesn't apply and can't be used to limit his actions.

What should we call that - hypocrisy, or double-speak, or outright lying?

Of course to some members, it doesn't matter what obama says, they will blindly support it. Obama also knows this ...

reply to post by centurion1211


good point. But since the Senate unanimously supported the call for a 'no-fly-zone' in Libya, I doubt you will see any significant complaint made by your senate or congress.

Emperor Obama *jedi mind wave*
"This is NOT the war you've been looking for".

Seriously though, I started a thread on this about it being a turning point for Aamerica. Congress? Irrelevant. Peoples voices? Irrelevant.

The Executive Branch is now the Dictatorship.

There is no Judicial Branch or Congressional Branch to keep him in check.

We now have a King. Congress can't pass a Budget due to insufficient Revenue to fund the Empire so there will be no election in 2012.

We now have a King.

Originally posted by Pervius
there will be no election in 2012.

I'll take a wager on that.

What are your odds?

reply to post by centurion1211


Are you sure about "invoking" the war powers act? That act is designed for Congress to invoke, not the President. Everything I have seen shows the President rejecting the war powers act based on our involvement, which is a support role.

If you have a source going to ther way, can you post it for us to see? Thanks!

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the committee's ranking Republican, told The Cable he also doesn't see any action on the horizon, but he called on the Senate to start conducting oversight of the war and demanding more details from the Obama administration. "I'm one who believes that there does need to accountability, if not a declaration of war under the War Powers Act, at least some specific resolution that would give authority," Lugar said. "But even absent that, some definition from the president of what our plan is, what our metrics would be, and by this time what the costs have been, quite apart from the estimate of what they will be."

That's a pretty funny quote coming from long-time incumbent Richard Lugar, who never questioned Bush on his costs for the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, I know. The past is irrelevant to a partisan..

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Are you sure about "invoking" the war powers act? That act is designed for Congress to invoke, not the President. Everything I have seen shows the President rejecting the war powers act based on our involvement, which is a support role.

If you have a source going to ther way, can you post it for us to see? Thanks!

Really???

Did you even read the OP, including the excerpt I posted in the OP???

To refresh it just for you ...

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

reply to post by centurion1211


You wanted a hippie you got it.Hilary was a hippie too.
I have long hair but that is because I like Klingons.

reply to post by centurion1211


Yes I am being serious. The war powers act, a congressional act, requires the president to explain troop deployments lasting longer than 60 days. The President doest invoke the act, Congress does. In the article the president is saying that under the act, he doiesnt have to respond to congress since its a support role.

Either way, the act is unconstoitutional as it is an injury to seperation of powers.

Congress can either fund the libyan support role, or they can not fund it. That is the power delegated to them by the US Constitution.

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Congress can either fund the libyan support role, or they can not fund it. That is the power delegated to them by the US Constitution.

And there in, I believe, lies the Republican bluff. They wont defund this. A few may make a inconsequential stand, but the majority will fund it when the push comes to shove.

I'd love to be wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Yes I am being serious. The war powers act, a congressional act, requires the president to explain troop deployments lasting longer than 60 days. The President doest invoke the act, Congress does. In the article the president is saying that under the act, he doiesnt have to respond to congress since its a support role.

Either way, the act is unconstoitutional as it is an injury to seperation of powers.

Congress can either fund the libyan support role, or they can not fund it. That is the power delegated to them by the US Constitution.

Once again read the excerpt. The key word used is "cite", not "invoke".

definition of cite

cite (st)
tr.v. cit·ed, cit·ing, cites
1. To quote as an authority or example.
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.

Whether obama is using definition 1 or 2 of the word "cite", the meaning is basically still the same. Obama cites the WPA to show he didn't have to ask congress for permission to attack Libya. But now obama is turning around and saying that the WPA doesn't even apply, so he doesn't have to ask congress if he can keep attacking Libya.

So, does the WPA apply or doesn't it. The obama administration clearly thinks it can have it both ways.

You, on the other hand, are clearly attempting to deflect by playing the semantics game.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Are we really arguing about Obama's approval rating?

Do you not know that whoever is put in office is just a front man for the corporate oligarchy that controls our country?

Do you realize that the majority of politicians constantly say one thing while doing the opposite?

Do you understand the difference between both parties is how to spend your money (welfare/warfare) and neither is for true free market capitalism and individual liberty?

Let's get parts partisan politics (which are not partisan at all) and talk about real issues