posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by Misoir
God this war powers debate is annoying.
The War Powers At was passed in response to vietnam, and has been rejected by just about every single president there is, regardless of party
Because it places stipulations on the Presidents ability to be Commander in Chief.
Congress, because they are more concerned with the way they look and less concerned about their job, are morons plain and simple.
Congress already has the authority to stop military action that the Commander in Chief takes. How?
Congress retains the power of funding, and whether they will or will not fund a military deployment. Isntead of running the risk though of appearing
to not suppoort the troops, Congress found an easy way out. Pass the war powers act and make the President look like he supports or does not support
The Constitution syas the President is The Commander in Chief of our Military.
The Constitution says Congress retains control of the purse strings, and its up to them to either fund or not fund.
So here we are -
The PResident exercised his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and involved our military in Libya.
The Us Congress now must exercise their Constitutional authority - Do they fund or not fund Libyan operations?
The War Powers act is nothing but a "blame the other person" legislation.
For once I wish Congress could do its job without devolving into another gavel pounding, partisan BS fest.