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 make your congressional vote prediction here regarding Syria

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32


My prediction? Sheesh, it's really tough. I dont think Obama would bring this to congress without knowing he had the democratic backing. I see him winning the senate vote. However on the house side, I really dont know. Im really torn on this. My gut says the house votes no.
edit on 31-8-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)


Amazingly, I believe that it will be voted down, and handed back to Obama. Obama will then go ahead with strikes anyway, and Russia will intervene. Hopefully, none of that happens, after the action gets voted down..but...I just have this feeling.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Rushed through the Senate committee and passed. Senate will pass their "resolution" is my guess and the House will not.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


And it will go forward anyway because Obama is still spreading rhetoric to support his initial assertion that he didn't need congress' approval anyway. He has zero ability to be humble so will have to make his point on this too.

No one is doing anything about this guy crossing clear boundaries within our constitution so he has free reign. What he is debating gets done in a college (whether he should have asked congress or not), not right before a war. We have a toxic government right now that cannot even agree on how to interpret the constitution and they are deciding the fate of our Nation and others in the world?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
So much for "We the People"..
It is quite obvious that the majority of U.S. citizens do not want this to go down this way.
We are essentially telling POTUS that we don't want it.
If it happens, and we all live through it, I believe there will be more heads rolling than balls in a bowling alley.

I love this country, and I cannot believe that we are standing on this cliff.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


And it will go forward anyway because Obama is still spreading rhetoric to support his initial assertion that he didn't need congress' approval anyway. He has zero ability to be humble so will have to make his point on this too.


I am trying to place myself on the outside regarding this. To ATS, it is known that my views on President Obama's politics, policies and overall diplomacy is nothing to write home about. At the same time, I give credit where it is due. I do not follow party lines or believe that just because I hold more of the Libertarian points of view that I cannot see the Democrats' or Republicans' ideas.

All that said, you have brought up good points. From day one, the president of the United States has asserted that he can do this without going to Congress. Even in answering the prominent and poignant question of "how does this conflict in Syria, or the use of chemical weapons, constitute an imminent threat on the United States?"

He made it clear in his answer that while it isn't one, it could be. Even our Secretary of State left the possibility open that the president will act accordingly, regardless of what is resolved in Congress. Well Mr. President, the sky could fall tomorrow, pigs might fly one day and Anna Nicole Smith might marry one day for love. Those ideals are not bad, but they just are not true. The very same with this chemical attack.

Assad (if we are to believe it was Assad) did not show a hand that we already didn't know he had. It was no secret that the Syrian government had stockpiles of chemical weapons.


No one is doing anything about this guy crossing clear boundaries within our constitution so he has free reign. What he is debating gets done in a college (whether he should have asked congress or not), not right before a war. We have a toxic government right now that cannot even agree on how to interpret the constitution and they are deciding the fate of our Nation and others in the world?


I think none that is receiving media attention is more accurate. People are realizing that their Federal representation is near autonomous, insulated and separated from what their constituents desire. In turn, they have sought recourse with the more immediate form of representation that can affect (and as it should have always been); their State and local governments.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I appreciate your feedback. I am also not one to go with party lines. I've seen some good with Obama but it is truly troubling that he is so full of pride that he again made this statement today, "I didn't even have to go to congress." I wish he would let that one go. Continuing with this makes me believe that he has yet another point he wants to prove. I saw bewildered looks from a couple of congressmen today when this was addressed - almost as if, 'Obama actually believed it was okay to bypass us at one point?'

I wish there were more comments on media sites about this topic. I hope others will push for this oversight because it changes the entire meaning of executive power and the power to declare war. It could affect future presidencies. It doesn't help that some Congressmen are supporting this assertion (Pelosi). She in particular is basing it off of boundary crossing of past presidents, as well as international support trumping congress. Because this president cannot reestablish that line I think it needs to be addressed now; not later. Stop everything and lets revisit constitutional law 101.

I'm not extremely well versed in politics. I know enough to realize this is a huge red flag. We have had plenty of them over the past few years but it couldn't be more in our faces now. Why is it not taken more seriously? If more make comments perhaps. Who knows.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dianec
I wish there were more comments on media sites about this topic. I hope others will push for this oversight because it changes the entire meaning of executive power and the power to declare war. It could affect future presidencies.


He is following precedents, that is the problem. It is the very problem that many bring up, in defense of attacks of "Well, Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush" did it! The path hath been set long ago in terms of the expansion of war powers under the Executive Branch. Congress abdicated it willfully with the passage of the War Powers Resolutions.


Stop everything and lets revisit constitutional law 101.


But who's version of that Constitutional Law 101 are we revisiting? According to many, they are acting Constitutionally by just engaging because we need to "support" our President....no facts, no reason, just blind support.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join