OK, let's put this to a test.

[mmonk]

If the UN Security Council voted to enact a no fly zone over Israel, would the President of the US be compelled to order US forces to do so and without notification or going before Congress?

The UK?

Russia?

[gateley]

1. What do you hope to accomplish by this post, mmonk?

Seriously, just curious.

[mmonk]

15. The flaw in the argument that treaties trump the Constitution itself

and the separation of powers.

[gateley]

22. Thanks -- is that what people are claiming? nt

[bahrbearian]

25. Yes

[gateley]

26. Okay -- thanks again. I admit I haven't been following that angle because

I figure that if Obama has violated something somewhere, we'll hear about it soon enough from the Republicans, so thanks for making me aware. :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

2. The US would veto such a motion.

Obama is not compelled to with Libya, but he is free to.

[DURHAM D]

3. Here is a test -

What do you think this means: "without notification or going before Congress?"



Take your time. Need a blue book?

[Motown_Johnny]

21. I'll answer that if you answer this, and I will supply "the book"

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

^snip^

SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.





Do You Understand This Whole Sixty Calendar Days Thing?

[DURHAM D]

23. NMJ

[cali]

4. here's the problem with that: The U.S. has veto power

and it's just never going to happen.

[mmonk]

11. So it's conditional on who we like and don't like or want to go to war with.

[cali]

13. yes. of course. did you see the my post about what Mullen said

about treating Bahrain differently than Libya? We will tolerate atrocities from our friends that we won't tolerate from our non-friends.

I guess that's what they call realpolitik.

sigh.

[mmonk]

14. Yep. And to take it a step further, can it be used by the executive

branch to by pass congress? Or not?

[NoTimeToulouse]

24. Well, depending if the situation on the ground in Israel

deteriorated to such the level that existed in Libya, and Netanyahu was ordering the murder of Israeli citizens, then the international community might have no other duty than to stop that carnage from going on any further.

Yes there a disconnect between Libya and other calamities that often are ignored.

[kenny blankenship]

5. Presumably the NFZ in that resolution, if it passed, would also be US policy

since the UNSC resolution would have to pass over the United States' veto power. We can veto stuff in the Security Council, not just vote against it. So can Britain, France, Russia and China.

I doubt very much that we will ever see such a resolution. But that's a different story.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Or how about this one: What if the UN ordered Jimmy Johns and nobody asked Congress what they wanted

... what then?

[Angry Dragon]

7. ............

:hide:

[NYC Liberal]

8. As others have mentioned, if the US did not veto it then

it would mean our policy supported such a NFZ. In that case, the answer is yes, the president could do so.

[madinmaryland]

9. Sigh. Oh and IBTL.

[mmonk]

12. Why would it be locked?

I'm asking if the UN charter trumps Constitutional separation of powers and war powers. I'm doing so by changing the players to see if there is consistency or not.

[Arctic Dave]

10. That would take being non hypcpocritcal in our use of force.

Our miliary policy is built on hypocrisy.

[TBF]

16. Recommended. nt

[Blue-Jay]

17. No. The US is in no way required to participate in UN-sanctioned actions.

Next question.


Edit: I wish all tests were this easy.

[ProSense]

18. If the President decided to support a U.N. resolution on Israel

would Congress complain? Yes!

<...>

Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey (N.Y.), the ranking member of the Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee, joined with Ros-Lehtinen.

"Compromising our support for Israel at the United Nations is not an option," she said in a statement Wednesday night. "The United States must veto the U.N. resolution on settlements to make clear we will not support such a blatant attempt to derail the peace process."

Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) also released statements urging a veto.

link

Lowey Statement on UNSC Resolution Veto

<..>

“The United Nations Security Council resolution on settlements is a distraction from efforts to advance the peace process. The Obama Administration was right to exercise its veto power and defeat this counterproductive resolution. I urge the Palestinians to join Israel in agreeing to begin negotiations immediately without pre-conditions.”

It shouldn't have been vetoed. In fact, they need to get the politics out of it and do what's right.

US Vetoes UN Resolution on Israel -- But Agrees With Its Substance

[Motown_Johnny]

19. both the UK and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council

and therefore have veto power over any vote.


Unless the UK or Russia decide to let us place a no fly zone over their own country there is no way to get that action sanctioned.



If Israel was in a civil war with large amounts of civilian casualties and the government attacking it's own people then yes. I would then support a no fly zone over Israel.

[snot]

20. Thank you!