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.
So tell me what is the opportunity here for Ron Paul and the others that you would call them opportunists?
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
sending troops into Libya illegally
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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
The thing that everyone is forgetting is that this is a NATO action
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?
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.
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
They get to play David in a David and Goliath scenario.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.