A War Fit for a King: Mr. Obama's War Against the Constitution

There's a problem in that our Constitution was written back before modern times, and some modern concerns. War was rather different back then. We didn't cross oceans in hours or days and storm through a country in less time than it takes to pass a piece of legislation.

Even when the War Powers Act was written - the concept of the U.S. military being deployed in support of U.N. resolutions was not really addressed.

As such - we often try to interpret how the laws and founding principles should be interpreted to apply to the issues of today.

Quite bluntly - the U.S. has no business in Libya - we run the risk of over-extending while in the midst of something of an economic crunch/crisis (depending upon who you talk to). From a purely functional standpoint - it's a bad move. From an ideological standpoint - I'm not too thrilled about the whole idea of "international" anything. The U.S. is the U.S. and we have our own concerns and prerogatives. If the rest of the world wants to band together on common goals - that's their decision.

That means I'm going to be interpreting the constitution a little differently, and to -interpret- that the President is not supposed to be able to say "well, all the other countries are doing it - so I can, too!"

But the laws are rather murky as to what really applies and what doesn't - since none of them expressly address the issue, and many of the laws that can be interpreted to apply to this case are conflicting.

I will say this: Learn to stop listening to everything your (Left/Right) side sells you and do your own knowledge. I was a Liberal man who ate up the "illegal war" claims concerning Bush.

These Presidents are doing things that they probably don't want to do, and know us regular people who haven't done our homework will curse them for, but they have to do them anyway for this country.

I had to learn on my own what Bush's war actually did for our country. We can call it illegal if we want, but...China, Russia, Iraq, and other countries were getting ready to run a gangbang train on America. If we hadn't went into Iran and took control of the oil, we would live in a very different world right now. We would be looking up at Europe and their Euro, while our dollar was seen as no longer being any good. The dollar crash many on here are anticipating was very nearly a reality in 2002!

At any rate...the President doesn't mean a thing, just a talking head. Obama has been shown the official report of Kennedy and what will happen to his family if he goes too far right or left. Presidents are given a little wiggle room but not much.

Is it just entertaining for people to give Presidents titles like, Emperor, Highness, Czar, King, etc. If you have any sense you know the President is merely a puppet.

Originally posted by Aim64C
From an ideological standpoint - I'm not too thrilled about the whole idea of "international" anything. The U.S. is the U.S. and we have our own concerns and prerogatives. If the rest of the world wants to band together on common goals - that's their decision.

And the US didn’t have to participate militarily. Germany, for instance, decided not to. As did many other countries.

I think it’s foolish in this day and age to follow an isolationism policy. Perhaps on short term it could help fix some domestic problems, but many of the complex problems in the world, that are affecting or will eventually affect millions of people, including in our country, require the participation, cooperation and help of all parties.

The United States has been a driving force, has shaped, or helped shape, many international “common goals,” such as the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, or the Convention Against Torture.

Nations can achieve a productive and healthy balance between self-interest and international cooperation. I don’t see why it has to be one or the other.

The needless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq caused, and still cause, much more financial, economic and even social problems in our country that any other thing the United States has embarked in, and those were not “international common goals.” If anything we had to convince others to join us in those adventures.

reply to post by aptness

I think it’s foolish in this day and age to follow an isolationism policy. Perhaps on short term it could help fix some domestic problems, but many of the complex problems in the world, that are affecting or will eventually affect millions of people, including in our country, require the participation, cooperation and help of all parties.

I agree to some point. However - we have grown too accustomed to being a microwave and creditcard society revolving around instant gratification and denial of future consequences.

Libya is a non-issue. The U.S. does not need to risk over-extension over Libya.

The needless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq caused, and still cause, much more financial, economic and even social problems in our country that any other thing the United States has embarked in, and those were not “international common goals.” If anything we had to convince others to join us in those adventures.

Afghanistan is a huge cog in the funding of terrorist networks being a huge exporter of poppies and opium products.

Iraq was an aspiring weapons manufacturer and one of the larger powers in the region. Bringing Saddam down was as much symbolic as it was practical. From a logistical standpoint - securing Iraq is part of securing Kuwait - both having crucial logistical and strategic importance to our involvement in that sector of the globe.

Libya, on the other hand, serves no purpose. We could support with some logistical concerns and allowing other involved nations access to our airspace and facilities - but a troops-on-ground support is going to end up running us into an over-extension.

Not to mention we are now scrambling to figure out just who the rebels are, exactly. Since they seem to be all buddy-buddy with the Muslim Brotherhood and AQ.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

Again he made the request on day 60, he has 30 days from the request giving a total of 90 days.

And, yet again, he has not made the request to extend hostilities. In addition to the msnbc.com news link I already posted, here is another news outlet that outlines Obama's stance on requesting permission to bomb Libya:

At a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers criticized Obama for not adhering to another provision that says presidents must terminate any unauthorized operations after 60 days.

EDITORIAL: The war over War Powers Obama failed to get congressional authorization

Here's Kucinich:

"The war is unconstitutional," he said on the House floor. "The president did not come to this Congress, he went to the U.N. Security Council."

"Last week, the President did not observe the tolling of the War Powers Act, so he's in violation of the statute," he added.

Kucinich says Obama in violation of Constitution, War Powers Act

Over and over, man. I got more if you need them. But I'm kind of tired of doing your research. Obama is in violation of the law..

/TOA

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by The Old American
He has yet to ask for Congressional approval to continue. Here is what Obama said in 2007 as a Senator criticizing George Bush:

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.

You forgot to mention his answer was in response to a specific scenario, namely, preemptively bombing Iran without Congressional authorization, substantially different from what is happening in Libya.

I didn't forget to mention anything. I was drawing a parallel to the Libya hostilities, as well as pointing out that he thinks the President doesn't have any more or less right to bomb Libya than he did to bomb Iran.

Barack Obama's Q&A

2. 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.

But he also said this—

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Candidate Obama said it was ‘preferable’ to “have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” not that it was necessary. I don’t find his position and words then to be inconsistent with his position as President now concerning the campaign in Libya.

I've already said he had authorization to begin hostilities on his own. This thread is about his continuation without approval. Google RIF.

How is he setting precedent when before him Presidents have used the military without Congressional authorization over 125 times?

The precedent is continuation of hostilities without approval. I can do this all day. The rest of your post has nothing to do with this thread. Except to say that past Presidents did, indeed, violate it. And they were wrong. Does that make Obama more or less wrong in your opinion?

If the President doesn't like the Act, then perhaps he should try to rewrite it. Or abolish it. But wiping his @$$ with it is not an option.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

Again he made the request on day 60, he has 30 days from the request giving a total of 90 days.

And, yet again, he has not made the request to extend hostilities. In addition to the msnbc.com news link I already posted, here is another news outlet that outlines Obama's stance on requesting permission to bomb Libya:

*snip*

Over and over, man. I got more if you need them. But I'm kind of tired of doing your research. Obama is in violation of the law..

/TOA

I've read articles contrary to what you are claiming. I would suggest furthering your own research instead questioning mine. Here is one from May 26, 2011. thehill.com

House leaders are ignoring a request from President Obama for a congressional endorsement of the U.S. military mission in Libya.
Five days after Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders seeking a resolution of support, there has been no action in the House, and aides in both parties say there are no plans to bring legislation to the floor.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

He has already indicated that this will be a lengthy process but, my point here is to say our President is not waging a war on the constitution nor acting against it nor commiting an illegal act in any way. If one has issues with the operation or issues on why this is allowed to happen than one needs to seek to change the laws, not make up false claims/believe false claims.

What he is doing is furthering the war machine. It's hilarious how lefties attacked Bush for a supposedly illegal war(even after approved by Congress), and now that Obama is stretching the limits, lefties are defending him. So, y'all are against war when its Republicans, but all for it when its Democrats....
Clinton's good war Kosovo. Bush's bad war, Iraq. Obama's good war Libya. See the pattern here?

reply to post by DZAG Wright


We didn't take control of the oil. China and Russia and others got all the contracts anyway. But I appreciate your bi-partisan thought.

Originally posted by The Old American
The rest of your post has nothing to do with this thread.

So the fact the military force used was pursuant to a treaty ratified over half a century ago by the United States, and that action is not considered war under that treaty, and is significantly and legally different from what to “declare war” in Article I Section 8 meant, are all irrelevant factors in determining whether the President is, as you claimed, engaged in “illegal hostilities”?

It’s also irrelevant to your OP’s link assertion — that “Congress has all the powers of a potted plant” — that Congress retains the power to terminate the military operation in question by defunding it, and can admonish a President or even remove him from office?

I respectfully disagree. I think these are all valid considerations for the proposition that you have effectively presented us, namely that the President “has all the powers of an emperor.”

Except to say that past Presidents did, indeed, violate it. And they were wrong. Does that make Obama more or less wrong in your opinion?

It’s a question of analyzing each one of those instances.

Also, many of them occurred before the War Powers Resolution was adopted. Were those Presidents OK to use the military without Congressional authorization then? How many days could they use the armed forces without asking Congress? I’m curious to know your opinion on those pre-WPR days.

Concerning Obama, I already gave you my answer why I think he could/can constitutionally order US forces to participate in the Libya campaign.

The US didn't need to join in on the Libya situation..
The French etc could surely have handled it on their own..

My beef is with seeing all the news of worsening US economics..
Teachers,police and firemen being laid off due to budget constraints while Obama continues to spend $billions daily an military action overseas...

IMO, fix up your own affairs before worrying about others..
If he lets the US collapse then they'll be no help for anyone.!!

This POTUS is a staunch and firm defender and believer of The Constitution and will not dare try to usurp it.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This POTUS is a staunch and firm defender and believer of The Constitution and will not dare try to usurp it.

You must be in a time-slip. Which President are you referring to? Because it has to be one from pre-1860.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This POTUS is a staunch and firm defender and believer of The Constitution and will not dare try to usurp it.

You must be in a time-slip. Which President are you referring to? Because it has to be one from pre-1860.

/TOA

So, you support fully and unequivocally returning women to housework and gfully endorse reimplementing slavery huh? The truth is out there for the world to see now. Get lost and get off this site please?

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This POTUS is a staunch and firm defender and believer of The Constitution and will not dare try to usurp it.

You must be in a time-slip. Which President are you referring to? Because it has to be one from pre-1860.

/TOA

So, you support fully and unequivocally returning women to housework and gfully endorse reimplementing slavery huh? The truth is out there for the world to see now. Get lost and get off this site please?

Typical leftist tactic: can't come with your own arguments so you resulted to creating ideas out of whole cloth. Good job. Since you support Obama's wars and killing of innocent civilians so much, why don't you give him suggestions on how many more brown people he can bomb.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This POTUS is a staunch and firm defender and believer of The Constitution and will not dare try to usurp it.

You must be in a time-slip. Which President are you referring to? Because it has to be one from pre-1860.

/TOA

So, you support fully and unequivocally returning women to housework and gfully endorse reimplementing slavery huh? The truth is out there for the world to see now. Get lost and get off this site please?

Typical leftist tactic: can't come with your own arguments so you resulted to creating ideas out of whole cloth. Good job. Since you support Obama's wars and killing of innocent civilians so much, why don't you give him suggestions on how many more brown people he can bomb.

/TOA

Pre 1860 America was dominated by the slave trade and racism.

Anything Obama does is right. Because he is the President, and because I like him. Just like everything that Bush did was wrong, because I didnt like him. The whole world really revolves around me, and whether or not I like the person in charge. If I like them, they are right. If I dont like them, they are wrong. The actual actions and policies they pursue are really irrelevant, because all I care about is how I feel about the person taking those actions, or making those policies.

Just practicing being an average voter.

You could easily flip flop Obama and Bush and get the "conservative" partisan view.

1. Who wrote the Patriot Act?

2. Who developed and funded Homeland Security?

Those are the absolute cornerstones of the erosion of our Constitutional rights. Republicans wrote them, passed them and developed them. And as I recall the Republicans were waving their little madeinchina American flags from every corner and every house and every car and cheering the birth of the above 2 items as the saving grace of our Country.

So why the # are your panties in a bind over it now? Bit late isn't it?

No sir I dont like it one bit.
However I dont believe Mr Obama is calling the shots on anything right now, and I know he has a following but I dont think he'll be re-elected, He may be another well paid idiot working for the corporatists that really run the world but I dont think he'll be the hammer they use for the coming 4 years,
He got his spot light, his 15 minutes but the prick that's going to drop the hammer wont be him.
He doesnt want to wear that historical memory, but he did his job and advanced the agenda.
We have no congress anymore, just selfish glory seekers with short memories, no guts and alot of excuses

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also found this little gem to tie into the post below me.

Neither I nor the following video, is going to go away from threads like these


"UNITED STATES is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions - Sovereignty"

What?