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.

 

Ron Paul: Why I'm Suing the Obama Administration Over Libya

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





So tell me what is the opportunity here for Ron Paul and the others that you would call them opportunists?


They get to play David in a David and Goliath scenario.



I'll give you several good reason why they should do this. First the congress will not do their duty and uphold their oaths to the constitution and cut off the money and repeal the EO


Ok, if this is the truth of the matter why are these 10 Congressmen not making any mention of this fact? All they are saying is the president is out of line, overstepping his bounds, ignoring the constitution and the War Powers Act. Not one word of congressional failure to do their jobs. Also, only the SCOTUS has the authority to exempt an Executive Order.



sending troops into Libya illegally


This is where a lot of people fail, it is not okay IMO for people to run around dropping the word illegal just because the don't like the POTUS, what he is doing is far from illegal. First of all there are no troops in Libya, zero. Second of all when the Libyan rebels started assembling and protesting and calling for their dictator to step down, they were unarmed and being slaughtered.

After warnings from the UN and several UN countries to stop the slaughter (I think it was Italy, can't remember for sure at the moment) guns were delivered to the rebels. Shortly after that Ghadaffi called for a cease fire, the rebels put down their guns and were willing to talk, Ghadaffi's military then fired upon thousands of unarmed rebels. That was the moment that France and Italy through the UN called for strikes against Ghadaffi and it was agreed in the UN that NATO would step in, The UN asked the USA to take the initial lead. Obama agreed with limitations, no ground troops, and after a set amount of days the US would fall to a support position.



It is clear that a majority of congress are in collusion with the executive and who ever thier corporate benefactors are and will not do thier job. They have been acting outside thier scope for over a hundred years.


Again if this is true, then it is a serious problem, a more serious problem IMO than supporting a NATO mission. So where is the outrage against their fellow congress members, why not sue congress for failing to do as these 10 congressmen wish, er I mean, failing to keep the POTUS in check. Also it is alluded to in many other posts (not just yours) that our President is thumbing his nose at Congress, why would he do this if they are in collusion?
So why do they not address this issue of congress failing? My guess...they don't want anything in congress to change.



Also while i do not hold out much hope the court will do anything significant it will at least raise awareness among the people of what is going on.


You're 100% right there because it can't go anywhere and hopefully the only awareness that it will raise is seeing these 10 congressmen for the opportunistic pigs that they are.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I served, signed my name on that line, I have lost friends, and fellow patriots along the way, you sorry assed scum that call your selves patriots now, make me wanna puke. Piss off.


I didn't serve because I was a leftist, tree-hugging hippie. But I couldn't have served if I wanted to because of medical issues and would have been turned away, just like millions of others. Are they not patriots because they didn't get to join the club? Serving in the military doesn't give one an automatic pass to patriotism. Would you call Nidal Malik Hasan a patriot?

/TOA


TOA, you and I have had conversations in the past, and no military service does not give one an automatic pass to patriotism. Hasan is another subject for another conversation, but no he is not a patriot. The discourse going on in this country right now is ridiculous, compromise has become a profanity. The 1st amendment gives us all the right to free speech, no matter how much nonsense it is. Our current president, and yes W too, to some degree, have been called facists, communists, idiots, etc, etc. Those in charge, or those that want to be in charge, have adopted a my way or the highway mentality, and this is going to accomplish nothing. My point being, anyone is currently allowed to spout any level of nonsense, and then call themselves a patriot, and maybe instead of keyboard warriors, I should refer to them as keyboard patriots.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
They don't need to sue him. They need to exert their power and authority as The Congress of The United States and say no, if they have such a moral opposistion to the actions in Libya. So many of you are acting like these 10 congressmen are hero's and standing up for what is right...wrong. They have the existing power to say no, they can say no right now or could have after the 60 day mark, Why didn't they do it? Why are they going to the judicial branch to do what is already in their power to do? I can tell you why, to get the exact reaction many of you are giving.


And don't forget when you are running for the whitehouse it really helps to jump on the hate what the president is doing bandwagon.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
The thing that everyone is forgetting is that this is a NATO action



Sorry bud. The UN Resolution only called for a No-Fly zone over Libya.

Obama tried to assassinate a foreign head of State of a sovereign foreign country, Kadafi.

But Obama missed and only killed Kadafi's gran-kids and sons.

Trying to kill the head of a foreign country is an act of war. And when it failed is why we saw on the news the whole "we got Osama Bin Forgotten" propaganda to hide the fact that Obama tried to assassinate a foreign countries leader and take that country over.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by LexiconRiot
 


Your not making any sense. Ron Paul is not a hypocrite he has been condemning all these illegal actions since he has been in congress, however he has been doing it alone until now. Had he filed law suites when he was the lone voice then he would have been easier to ignore and dismiss. Now that has has 9 other congressmen it cannot be ignored as easily. Going after Obama for acting outside his scope of authority is the right thing to do since congress will not do it and are largely in collusion with him on his unlawful actions. Obama has thumbed his nose at congress and said he doesn't need congress to wage war indefinitely by his actions completely ignoring the war powers act. UN resolutions do not trump the constitution and are not authority for us to go to war without a congressional declaration. What else would you have them do?


You avoided my point to embellish the Ron Paul mystique. Congress doesn't need the President to come to them to take a vote. They are acting as if this was a one way street. They can stop funding on their own. They are the congress of the United States of America. They are the checks and balances for the President. This is not an issue for the Department of justice. The is why the war powers act is there. Demand a vote Paul and the idealist 9. The reason they don't, the rest of congress is ok with the actions in Libya.This law suit stunt is just for better name ID. Something Paul needs desperately with the non ATS crowd. If they were serious about this suit the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen would also be part of the suit. You "constitutional types" are always avioding the direct point someone makes.
edit on 18-6-2011 by LexiconRiot because: grammar issues.


This DOES make Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the other 8 hypocrites. Those of you so blinded by the Rose Red colored glasses will still refuse to see the logic here.
edit on 18-6-2011 by LexiconRiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 



You would do well to actually research his positions instead of repeating false leftist talking points. Ron Paul does not advocate a flat tax.


Really?



I should add that I don't know if this is Paul's "official stance" on taxes for his election platform but he definitely has advocated for a flat tax. But if this isn't Paul's stance, what is it exactly?
edit on 18-6-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
This reminds me a few days ago while watching C-SPAN, Senator McCain was speaking to a CIA agent (possibly director, can't remember) at the Capitol. McCain was speaking about troop deployment in the middle east, etc, and was asking the CIA guy what he thinks would be prudent, and what authority the congress has in declaring war verses the president.

So McCain says something along the lines of, -do you think it's right that the president have authority to keep troops in the ME, despite not having congressional approval? (can't remember exactly where, I believe Libya was one of the locations they were talking about). The CIA guy responds, (basically) -Sure, the president can do whatever he wants, he has the power to keep troops wherever he wants, as long as "they" (occupied country..) want us there.

I'm not positive how it works exactly, though I'm learning bit by bit. But it doesn't make sense to me that even after the 90 days (if I understood that stipulation correctly) that the POTUS can keep "residual" troops in the ME, without approval from this country, or theirs. And if they want us there, shouldn't they at least vote on it? So it can be recorded that (for everyones sake) that there was a military request. Otherwise it's just invasion.. Then when we start asking questions like, where did they get approval? What's the reasoning for invasion?
Then it's all just smoke and mirrors, and he says she says BS while they point fingers at each other.

all hail the emperor? =\



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Kali74
They have the existing power to say no, they can say no right now or could have after the 60 day mark,


The President still has the ability to engage in military action PAST 60 days. He has up to 90 days. The 60 day mark is when the President has to TELL Congress that the military action is taking place, he has 90 days to get Congress's approval. He has not done so.

What is dangerous about this whole thing, is the UN involvement. The US's military, and the US's President is TAKING ORDERS FROM THE UN WHICH VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND PUT AMERICAN LIVES IN DANGER. Sorry for the caps, but that part really, really, needs to be understood.

Ron Paul is not doing anything hypocritical or against The Constitution, PERIOD


No the U.N. is not calling the shots. This is a NATO operation pushed by France and Italy. The U.S. has a minimal part but Obama is clearly wrong and Paul is right. What Paul should also be asking is why NATO is involved at all when not one NATO member was attacked.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mellok
 


Doesn't the ability to send troops into conflict, in the fashion you mentioned, without any kind of approval from any legislative branch of government mean that the executive power basically has dictatorial war-powers?

Ron Paul makes the point that the legislative branch of government is supposed to match the executives power- keep it in line. They have obviously failed to do this, and have been failing to do this for years now. I'm not surprised at all Ron Paul is going to court with this issue, as nobody else on capitol hill seems to think this is a war in Libya.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



They get to play David in a David and Goliath scenario.


Ron Paul has been David v Goliath for over 30 years where have you been? You still fail to show how this benefits them in any way to justify calling them opportunist. There is no money to be made no power to be gained. Just an attempt to get Obama to obey the law.


Ok, if this is the truth of the matter why are these 10 Congressmen not making any mention of this fact? All they are saying is the president is out of line, overstepping his bounds, ignoring the constitution and the War Powers Act. Not one word of congressional failure to do their jobs. Also, only the SCOTUS has the authority to exempt an Executive Order.


No need to continually state the obvious. Ron Paul has been calling out congress for 30 years for failing to do their jobs. It's not rocket science to know they are doing this because congress failed to hold Obama accountable. Not sure what you mean by "exempt" an EO? Did you mean repeal? Show me where SCOTUS has authority to exempt or repeal an EO, and exempt it from what? Congress has authority to repeal an EO if they think it violates the constitution.


This is where a lot of people fail, it is not okay IMO for people to run around dropping the word illegal just because the don't like the POTUS, what he is doing is far from illegal. First of all there are no troops in Libya, zero. Second of all when the Libyan rebels started assembling and protesting and calling for their dictator to step down, they were unarmed and being slaughtered.


You are naive if you think there are no US troops in Libya and that we are just in a support role. I guarantee there are US pilots flying sortes and troops on the ground. We are the backbone of NATO and the UN there is no NATO or UN without the US. Every UN Action that did not include us failed miserably and fell apart militarily.

And it is illegal because there was no threat to the US and he failed to get congressional approval before 90 days. It doesn't matter what was happening in Libya there was and is no immediate threat to the US by what is happening there. This is why the founders said we should not be involved in entangling alliances.

We are bankrupt and our economy is failing while we spend over a trillion a year on military half of which goes to the Afghan an Iraq wars. We have troops in over 135 countries around the world. Yeah I guess Ron Paul and the others are just opportunists to want to stop this illegal madness that is causing the breakdown of our society.


Again if this is true, then it is a serious problem, a more serious problem IMO than supporting a NATO mission. So where is the outrage against their fellow congress members, why not sue congress for failing to do as these 10 congressmen wish, er I mean, failing to keep the POTUS in check.


As I said Ron Paul has been the lone voice in the wilderness for decades. Now he has some backing he can move. The Presidency is the logical choice for suing since he can commit troops and military weapons and assets without congressional approval for 90 days. Suing congress will have political consequences more so then suing Obama. And it is not wise to ignite the whole political machine against you right out of the gate. One step at a time. I suspect more congressmen are quietly in favor of the suit but are to cowardly to sign on to it. Bottom line is you must choose your battles carefully in the corrupt political climate.


You're 100% right there because it can't go anywhere and hopefully the only awareness that it will raise is seeing these 10 congressmen for the opportunistic pigs that they are.


And here I thought you were sincere. But instead you appear to be just another irrational hater with a statements like that...Sigh!

You seem to think it is good for us to be in Libya because of the slaughter but by your logic we/NATO/UN should be in China and N Korea and Several African countries and every country in the world where there is severe and violent oppression.


Yeah heaven forbid someone actually take some action to hold the president accountable since congress will not... And if it succeeds I am sure congress would be next.. Gotta start somewhere...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Once again everyone failed to recognize my points. Ron Paul is a Opportunist! He needs the name recognition. Outside of ATS no one gives a crap about Ron Paul and he know it. He jumped on this suit which does NOTHING to get his name out there. It is all about who can look most anti-Obama for the GOP candidates. I clearly stated this. You gloss over my post to attack someone that didn't assume you needed such a simple explanation.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
Just curious, did Paul sue the Bush Administration?

If not, I guess he's a hypocrite too?

I agree with what Paul is saying in regards to war (100%).


Ummm the Bush Administration got approval from Congress. Bush did not go into Afghanistan or Iraq on the approval of the U.N., he got Congress to approve.


Originally posted by kro32
Paul is an idiot and he shows it with that statement. He is such a strict constitutionalist that he doesn't realize that as Commander and Chief the President has the power to send troops to war if the need is immediate and there isn't time to go to Congress for approval.

This is why they passed the war powers act because Presidents were overstepping their bounds and Congress called them on it. Now you may certainly debate whether Libya was an immediate threat but the problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't believe the President has this power.

If he was President and China invaded the east coast he would have to convene Congress, have a debate, then a vote on whether to go to war with China or not.

He is stupid.


Are you serious? The President does not have the power to wage wars anywhere he wants. There was no immediate threat from Libya. Libya was not invading the U.S., Libya was not invading anyone. Libya is having a conflict with Rebels, we should stay out of it. Someone here is stupid, and it's not Ron Paul. Have you ever actually read the Constitution?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
double post
edit on 18-6-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Once again everyone failed to recognize my points. Ron Paul is a Opportunist! He needs the name recognition. Outside of ATS no one gives a crap about Ron Paul and he know it. He jumped on this suit which does NOTHING to get his name out there. It is all about who can look most anti-Obama for the GOP candidates. I clearly stated this. You gloss over my post to attack someone that didn't assume you needed such a simple explanation.


Ron Paul has been a household name since 2008 when all his predictions came true. He has been on every news and talk show numerous times in last 3 years he does not need the name recognition. Him being an opportunist is ridiculous. The Man actually cares about the country and did not sign on to the suit for publicity but to take some action to right the ship of state and save what left of the economy and turn it around since congress as a whole will not. His 30 year track record is the best in the history of the congress his honesty and integrity is beyond dispute even his enemies will agree. Lobbyist do not even darken his door. He is not called Dr. No for nothing.

These poor attempts to discredit Dr Paul are just getting more pathetic and desperate all the time...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


If he was so prudent then why is he not pursing legal actions against the drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. I don't hate Paul I like his ideas and I have no need to discredit him. He is a politician that speaks for itself. We need a new system not a new person who cant accomplish anything because congress and the senate will stand in his way every time. Paul is nice but un realistic.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by hawkiye
 


If he was so prudent then why is he not pursing legal actions against the drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. I don't hate Paul I like his ideas and I have no need to discredit him. He is a politician that speaks for itself. We need a new system not a new person who cant accomplish anything because congress and the senate will stand in his way every time. Paul is nice but un realistic.


Yeah why doesn't he have hundreds of laws suits going for the hundreds of illegal actions of the government... Sigh.


Getting a new system starts with getting honest people in there who are willing to change the system instead of perpetuating the status quo.


edit on 18-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 





I should add that I don't know if this is Paul's "official stance" on taxes for his election platform but he definitely has advocated for a flat tax. But if this isn't Paul's stance, what is it exactly?


Did you watch your own video? In the first couple minutes he says he is for no tax and this was rhetorical as a possible compromise to get government off peoples backs for a start. Or sort of a step towards no income tax.

His official stance is NO TAX and always has been.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Not sure what you mean by "exempt" an EO? Did you mean repeal? Show me where SCOTUS has authority to exempt or repeal an EO, and exempt it from what? Congress has authority to repeal an EO if they think it violates the constitution.
Neither Congress or the courts can per se repeal an Executive Order. Only a sitting President can revoke EOs. What Congress can do is pass laws that contradict the EO, or undermine it by prohibiting funding for whatever action the order calls for.


Regarding the lawsuit: I doubt it will go anywhere. I know this will infuriate a lot of people, especially those who don’t care for the intricacies of the law, but I seriously doubt Ron Paul and the other Congressmen have standing.

There have been several other lawsuits by people in Congress against the executive and the courts ruled they didn’t have standing to sue. I read the complaint and fail to see why this case is different from those previous ones.

Even in the complaint they basically acknowledge they have a huge burden to overcome, admitting they hope their case “falls within a narrow exception.” From page 30 of the complaint—

165. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that standing of members has been curtailed in prior judicial opinions, but they believe that these decisions allow for an exception for these claims and that members of Congress must have the ability to seek judicial review in this context. See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,21 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815 (2000).

166. The Plaintiffs also believe that they have standing as taxpayers given the use of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds without authorization of Congress to support a war in violation of a specific constitutional limitation in Article I. See generally Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 85 (1968). While acknowledging past decisions limiting such standing to Establishment Clause challenges under the First Amendment, and rejecting some challenges to Executive Branch actions, the Plaintiffs believe that the violations asserted herein fall within a narrow exception allowing judicial review.

The second rationale for standing is patently weak. Millions of dollars in federal funds without authorization of Congress? Did Congress not authorize the military budget? Aren’t the plaintiffs members of the only government branch that can limit funding and outright defund military campaigns?

These Congressmen are asking the courts to, in essence, do what they can do in Congress, where the plaintiffs were elected to work, but for one reason or another decided not to.

Just because you didn’t convince enough people to support your ideas or vote on your bills, doesn’t mean you are entitled to have the courts resolve that for you. Especially when Congress — the government branch the plaintiffs are members of — has the power to defund the US Libya operations and remove the President of the United States.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 





I should add that I don't know if this is Paul's "official stance" on taxes for his election platform but he definitely has advocated for a flat tax. But if this isn't Paul's stance, what is it exactly?


Did you watch your own video? In the first couple minutes he says he is for no tax and this was rhetorical as a possible compromise to get government off peoples backs for a start. Or sort of a step towards no income tax.

His official stance is NO TAX and always has been.


So it's even worse?


If he wants to do away with income taxes and institute a nationwide sales tax that would make the inequality of wealth in this country much, much, much worse. It's already bad enough, no thanks. I guess that's his plan? I've looked around the internet and can't really find anything 100% concrete.

I agree that people that make 50K, 60K should maybe pay less in taxes, while the wealthy should definitely pay more.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Ummm the Bush Administration got approval from Congress. Bush did not go into Afghanistan or Iraq on the approval of the U.N., he got Congress to approve.


Yep, you are correct. I always forget that Bush got Congress approval. Maybe because it was all based on false information and lies.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join