Kucinich: Obama could be impeached for attacking Libya

[markpkessinger]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the constitutional authority to order U.S. forces to participate in an attack on Libya.

In a conference call with other liberal lawmakers Saturday, Kucinich asked why the U.S. missile strikes were not impeachable offenses, according to two Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Politico.

The U.S. unleashed a barrage of strikes against the Libyan regime's air defenses over the weekend, but ruled out using ground troops in what Obama called a "limited military action."

After taking a cautious stance on armed intervention in Libya's civil war, Obama ordered the attacks citing the threat posed to civilians by Moamer Kadhafi's forces and a UN-mandated no-fly zone endorsed by Arab countries.

Full Article

[elocs]

1. Well, I'm sure glad you've kept us informed about this.

Although I think I've read about it more than a few times today on DU.

[L. Coyote]

24. Watch the video too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x565645

[ncrainbowgrrl]

41. I hadn't. Just got to 'puter for first time today

Sure there are others like me.

[markpkessinger]

81. Thank you!

I was in the same position when I saw the story. I did a quick glance over a couple of screen's worth of prior threads and didn't see anything. I thought it was a significant story worth sharing, but I've gotten hammered for doing so!

[FiveGoodMen]

2. We don't need no stinking Constitutional Authority! (heh-heh)

[sabrina 1]

5. Looks like a few people here agree

Unrecs state that there are people here who are opposed to Congress daring to question the Unitary Executive.

Who needs Congress anymore? Can the president now fund a war all by himself?

We give up our rights so easily here. Who ever said we needed terrorists to take them away. So long as we protect our team, that's what matters!

Good for these few principled Representatives who understand the oath they took.

[FiveGoodMen]

32. I know. It's frightening how many will back any atrocity with a D by it.

[sabrina 1]

3. Not just Kucinich. Several very good Democrats

are also very concerned about the Constitutionality of the latest war.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.

Those are the non-hypocritical members of Congress who are not only opposed to policies based who in the WH. And there are so few of them.

[G_j]

6. most of my favorites

are on that list. :thumbsup:

[NorthCarolina]

9. True, but these numerous postings are really just about Kucinich bashing.

Best to try to stick to the program, and not inject any tidbits of truth that can derail the process.

[sabrina 1]

26. Oh, okay. Although I don't see how, if you care about the things

we used to care about when Bush was president, such as the Rule of Law, anyone who was serious about those issues, would want to bash the few voices that have remained consistent.

:-)

[NorthCarolina]

28. Personally, I wouldn't

and I "personally" admire DK's consistency on such issues. Of course, you and I both know full well what this is all about. Let them play their little games.

[markpkessinger]

76. I WASN'T bashing Kucinich!

I hadn't seen the earlier postings. I simply thought it was a story worth passing on. For what it's worth, I happen to agree with Kucinich!

[revolutionnow45]

39. These people are hypocrites

They did not introduce articles of impeachment of Bush....after years of proven lies to start a war for the military industrial complex and PNAC.

It took Kucinich until 2008 to introduce impeachment of Bush

The strange thing about Kucinich and Impeachment....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x710688

[sabrina 1]

59. No they are not. They are doing their job. And President

Obama agrees with them. He said so in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

So now our best Democrats are hypocrites??? Because they are still saying what they said when Bush was president.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'hypocrite'. Hypocrite would be all those who were screaming over Bush's wars, who are now dancing for joy because a Democrat is doing it. And it looks that would include the president himself. Seems he changed his mind.

Look it up!

[aquart]

90. All wars are exactly alike, ain't they?

See, some of us see the subtle distinctions LIKE BEING BEGGED FOR ASSISTANCE and some of us don't.

Iraq, see, was a plain invasion. A war of aggression since they did not attack us.

We could argue that Gaddafi has attacked us a few times but mostly we could live with it. However, this time we were asked to the dance. We were not asked to invade Iraq.

Will we get some nice deals out of it? Gosh, I hope so.

[sabrina 1]

91. You forgot, the Iraqis we were told, were begging for assistance

also. They had organizations that were brought before Congress, they appeared on TV showing the results of Saddam's brutality.

We always include the humanitarian aspect to this wars because as they know, the American people are compassionate and will react positively to 'saving them'. And that is true, we do want to save them. But then, we remember how we 'saved' the Iraqi people. How we have 'saved' the people of Afghanistan.

And fyi, the Libyan revolutionaries have emphasized over and over again that they do not want bombings and the destruction of their infrastructure 'like Iraq'. I have followed this from almost the first day of the protests and this was a consistent demand. 'NO foreign interfernece. No foreigners on their soil'.

The U.N. mandate, as could have been predicted, has gone way beyond a 'no fly zone' and I would be willing to bet there will be 'peace-keeping' forces on the ground before the summer. In fact, the British PM has already suggested it.

Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the War-mongering neocons who gave us the war in iraq, are fully behind this. Last night that war criminal was on TV talking about how we will have to 'do more than what we are now doing'. He says we 'need people on the ground, BUT ONLY to find out what they need'! Right, just seeing his evil face being consulted on yet another war for oil, should tell us what we have to look forward to in Libya.


All wars are not exactly alike, but all of our wars have one thing in common.

And I remember how convinced Republicans were that the Iraq war was to 'liberate' the Iraqi peo9ple. I remember then accusing me of 'not wanting to free those poor people from Saddam's torture chambers'. They really did think the U.S. was going to help them. Just like now, Democrats think this war is to help the Libyan people.

The U.S. does not do anything just to help people. Look around the world. The U.S. was SUPPORTING and ARMING all these dictators and worse, we were sending detainees to be tortured in Egypt eg, the proof now coming out as the revolutionaries secure the Secret Police's documents. Germany and others were selling them 'torture instruments'.

Until not so long ago, the U.S. fully aware of who all these dictators were and what they were doing to their people for decades, the U.S. itself making use of ther Torture Chambers, now suddenly cares??? Please, no one believes this. The Tunisians and Egyptians are demanding an apology from the U.S. for the years of support they gave Mubarak and Ben Ali.

We never do anything, sadly, for altruistic reasons. I used to believe that, now I fear for the people, almost always in oil producing or strategic, countries that we go to 'save'. And the world feels the same way.

To see Sarkozy and the rest of the hypocrites leading this 'mission of mercy' when just weeks ago he was in love with Qadaffi, is truly sickening.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. Dupe-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=706525&mesg_id=706525

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=634729&mesg_id=634729

[NorthCarolina]

23. Shhhh....you'll spoil their fun. nt

[cali]

7. and little green men from outerspace could land tomorrow.

so what?

[Hippo_Tron]

8. The War Powers Act gives the President authority to use military force for 60 days

Without congressional approval.

[sabrina 1]

29. Under what circumstances? Was this country in iminent danger

from Libya?

[jmowreader]

35. The Libyan people were in imminent danger...

from the nutball who spells his name 65 different ways.

There's historical precedent for Obama's actions: during the Clinton Administration Saddam tried to assassinate GHWB, so Clinton used 23 Tomahawk missiles to destroy Iraqi intelligence headquarters. It straightened Saddam's shit right out.

Under the War Powers Act, Obama has 60 days to bomb the hell out of Libya without asking Congress for permission. I figure someone in Muammar K's army will shoot the SOB before then.

[sabrina 1]

57. The American people are not in imminent danger.

And Bush Sr. WAS an American president, sadly. Not the same thing, and Obama himself disagrees as he said in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

[markpkessinger]

10. EXCLUSIVE: Kucinich calls Obama’s attack on Libya ‘an impeachable offense’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/exclusive-kucinich-calls-obamas-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. There are already a zillion threads about this.

Could we maybe consolidate the comments somewhere?

[ClarkUSA]

12. Maybe DU can create a "WTF Kucinich" Forum?

[sabrina 1]

27. Yes, I mean WTF is he worried about that piece of paper for?

It's a Democrat doing it now, why can't someone explain this to him? :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

31. No, it's because he's an attention whore who doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

Here's why he's wrong:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=710102&mesg_id=710239

[sabrina 1]

33. No, he's not and President Obama agrees with him.

In fact he said so, in 2007 and since he's a Constitutional Lawyer, I think he knows something about this:

Obama in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Well, I should have said Candidate Obama. I really would love to see Candidate Obama and President Obama debate each other.

[ClarkUSA]

34. But he didn't "unilaterally authorize a military attack"; he's informed Congress as per U.S. law.

One mo' time... here are the facts (check out #1 because it presages #3, while #2 is comprehensive):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=710102&mesg_id=710239

Ergo, Candidate Obama = President Obama

[sabrina 1]

53. Yes, he wrote them a letter. No debate, no imminent threat

no vote on funding, sorry, it does appear to be unconstitutional.

He will get the authorization regardless, all the Republicans are for it, but then there never was a military operation they didn't love. And most of the Dems are not much better when it comes to spending our tax dollars on the war machine.

And I guess this will add to the deficit, it will come out of the SS fund, AGAIN, then they will claim they have to cut SS benefits. Forever war, that's what we will have until one day the people here like the people of Egypt say 'enough'!

[ClarkUSA]

66. Pres. O followed the law. You're wrong. Not one constitutional law expert agrees with you, either.

Why do you think that's so? Hmm? That should tell you something.

The facts bear repeating:

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period ha not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

Also, read more facts:

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.
Here's the full text of the resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

[sabrina 1]

69. Was this country under attack?

That is the only exclusion in the War Powers Act for not going to Congress before going to war.

[ClarkUSA]

74. dupe/self-delete

[ClarkUSA]

75. lol! Are you deliberately ignoring the facts I quoted or did you not understand them?

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period had not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

Also, read more facts:

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

You. Are. Wrong. Not one constitutional scholar agrees with you or Kucinich or any of the others criticizing Pres. Obama about this issue. Get a clue and quit digging.

[sabrina 1]

77. Who are those people? Commenters from Daily Kos?

I have read the War Powers Act and it is clear. The president himself agreed with it. Now they are doing what the Bush administration used to do when they were ignoring our laws and the Constitution. They are coming up with twisted logic meant to obfiscate the fact that the law is clear.

Look, I have accepted the fact that we no longer abide by the Constitution in this country. Bush was NOT wrong, although back then I was far more naive, when he called it a piece of paper. That's about what it's worth in today's America.

I see people struggling to excuse violations of our laws all the time. And they get away with it.

You needn't worry about him, he's not going to get in any trouble for violating any of our Constitutional amendments or other laws. I guess that's why he will not be prosecuting the Bush War Criminals. Someone sat him down and explained it all, and I guess he still wanted the job.

To fix this country we cannot look to presidents or members of Congress. We will have to find another way, and of course when you have half the population defending illegal wars when THEIR party is doing it, and the other half defending them when THEIR party is doing, it is clear it will take a long, long time to fix.

I hope you'll be defending the next Republican President when he violates the Constitution. I will not be, nor will I do so just because he's a Democrat.

[ClarkUSA]

82. Here's a clue: A Senate resolution was passed unanimously on March 1 which calls for a no-fly zone.

Read the facts:

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

You are wrong. Kucinich is wrong. All his fans are wrong.

President Obama is following U.S. law with the unanimous support of the Senate for a no-fly zone.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[aquart]

13. It would have been. Before we didn't impeach Bush for Iraq.

Now it ain't an impeachable offense anymore. I doubt anything is.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Was Clinton's use of US forces in support of the Bosnia/Kosovo

operation undertaken by NATO an impeachable offense as well? Or didn't it matter because they were already trying to impeach him?

[aquart]

88. Not to me, it wasn't.

And if they could have impeached him on it, you bet your sweet ass they would have done it. He made damn sure it was an international operation and it had been a long sweat to get it.

Didn't do a thing to hurt his popularity, either, did it?

[Jersey Devil]

15. A zillion may be misoverestimating

More like a grazillion, no?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Maybe more like a brazilian.

[L. Coyote]

16. Only because it is. Proof = this quote from candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have

Candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

[ClarkUSA]

19. Wrong. The conflict is legal & will remain so as long as Obama keeps Congress informed as he has...

... and follows the War Power Resolution.


Facts:

1. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=634729&mesg_id=634742

2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=634729&mesg_id=634825

3. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

[L. Coyote]

25. LISTEN and WATCH

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x565645

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

83. FYI: A Senate resolution was unanimously passed on March 1 which calls for a no-fly zone.

Read more facts:

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

[Autumn]

18. Interesting article,the link goes to Barack Obama's Q&A when

he was a candidate.
Question 2 is really eye opening. From December 20, 2007 :

2." In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
Of course the question was asked about Iran not Libya

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

[sabrina 1]

61. Yes, that was candidate Obama. Something happened to him

since then.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Debunked.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=710102&mesg_id=710705


And here:

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.
Here's the full text of the resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

[Autumn]

72. I'm not sure how you can debunk Obama's own words

I pointed out what he said as a candidate, from a link in the article. But kudos to you because you are one hell of a "fierce advocate" for Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

73. I just debunked your implication that Pres. Obama was going back on his "own words".

As for your "fierce advocate" snark, at least I can acknowledge President Obama pro-LGBT civil rights achievements such as keeping his campaign promise to repeal DADT, which is transformative for the nation. Now he's working on repealing DOMA using the same process strategy that served him so well when he was pushing for a legislative end to DADT, only now there's no second-guessing him by certain quarters who had wrongly vilified him during the DADT process.

I approve of this president, as does 97% of the liberal Democratic base.

[Autumn]

79. I pointed out what he said as a candidate, from the article

which I found interesting. I stated that very straightforward, there was NO implication . You claimed to debunk it. Whatever.

[wildbilln864]

85. you are debunked!

consulting with congress isn't the same as an action being "explicitly authorized by Congress."
Congress has made no such authorization but you spin on anyway.

“any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

[ClarkUSA]

86. You're wrong. On 3/1, a Senate resolution calling for a Libyan no-fly zone was passed unanimously.

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=710102&mesg_id=712134

You can be happy now knowing that President Obama is a Chess Master of the First Order. :)

[Maru Kitteh]

20. You have TWO threads on this in the top ten. How many times do you think you need to post this?

[spanone]

21. exclusive?????

[Maru Kitteh]

22. Limited time offer! CALL NOW! Operators are standing by!

[wysingm]

36. Kucinich thinks we're idiots.

~~Notification sent, but nobody home. Congress is in recess until March 25.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya

.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Good find. Thanks.

Yes, he does.

[Catherina]

37. We either have a constitution or we drop the pretenses.

Any president, regardless of party, who goes to war without congressional approval deserves impeachment.

I'll have NO sympathy for stupid belly-aching a few years from now when a Republican President does something we don't like.

[NorthCarolina]

38. You speak sense. Making sense seems a bit out of place on threads such as this though. nt

[ClarkUSA]

40. President Obama has already informed Congress as per U.S. law.

Read more about the facts that make Kucinich in the wrong:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=710102&mesg_id=710705

[Catherina]

42. Wrong. Here's the US law. He had no authority to take this country to war

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

US Code

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541

§ 1541. Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html

We were not under attack or serious threat of attack.

[flvegan]

43. Wasting your time typing at that one.

At least about this particular tidbit of forsaken truth.

[Catherina]

45. It's ok. Just putting the truth out there directly so other people don't

have to click on a merry-go-round of embedded links, as if a chain of embedded links is suddenly fact, and get incorrect information.

[flvegan]

46. Good point.

[ClarkUSA]

49. That's the way I feel, too, which is why I spelled it out for you below.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Really? Because I refuse to condone bullshit or an erroneous reading of the Constitution?

Read the facts and swallow that bile:

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period ha not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

[flvegan]

50. No, that's not it at all. n/t

[Catherina]

51. I gave you the law itself. Not someone's erroneous interpretation in an article.

What's your problem with the law itself? It's very clear, very simple. Even an 8 year old could understand it.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Pres. Obama is following the law, dear. Not one constitutional scholar agrees with Kucinich, either

Why do you think that's so? Hmmm?

That should tell you whose interpretation of The War Powers Act is erroneous bullshit.

[Catherina]

55. Your response is pathetic. Predictable but pathetic. n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flvegan]

60. Well, now. THAT tells us a lot about you.

Quoted in case of an edit by the poster.

"lol! Kucinich is the one whose idiot grandstanding antics are predictable and pathetic.
Posted by ClarkUSA


I can't wait for his seat to be redistricted so his constituents can benefit from actual representation."

[ClarkUSA]

62. Yes, it says that I, like so many DUers, are tired of a do-nothing Congressman and want better.

I'm not the only one, you know:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=710102&mesg_id=710977

There's been plenty of similar sentiments all around the blogosphere.

What has he ever done for his constituents besides vote for HCR? I'll give him kudos for that. But besides that, name one piece of legislation that he's ever wrote that got anywhere. I will contribute to any Dem who runs for that redistricted seat, too.

[flvegan]

63. Supporting

gerrymandering and possibly handing his district over to Republicans? Am I on Free Republic suddenly?

Considering his long run in office that HIS CONSTITUENTS put him in, I have you think you're a bit off base.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Reread my previous post. You're conflating what I said.

[flvegan]

65. Nah.

I'm kind of done re-reading your posts, considering.

[sabrina 1]

71. The president himself is a Constitutional lawyer and he agrees with Kucinich

President Obama in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

He is referring to the War Powers Act. There was no imminent threat to the nation. I have read the War Powers Act and there is no other exclusion. Obama was right. I guess now he's getting advice from Bush's gang who managed to mangle every law they intended to break.

[ClarkUSA]

80. You're wrong. A Senate resolution was passed unanimously on March 1 which calls for a no-fly zone.

Read more facts:

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

Not one constitutional scholar agrees with you. Get a clue and quit digging.

Here are even more facts:

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period had not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

[ClarkUSA]

47. Wrong again. "Breaking: Obama Sends Libya War Powers Act Notice To Congress"

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period ha not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

[apocalypsehow]

44. Dennis needs to spend more time seeing to the needs of his long-neglected constituents. Thankfully,

it appears the Ohio state legislature will redraw the congressional boundaries in such a way that the citizens of Cleveland will get actual congressional representation starting Jan. 3, 2013, as opposed to non-stop grandstanding and quixotic presidential runs.

[ClarkUSA]

56. +1000

<<Thankfully, it appears the Ohio state legislature will redraw the congressional boundaries in such a way that the citizens of Cleveland will get actual congressional representation starting Jan. 3, 2013, as opposed to non-stop grandstanding and quixotic presidential runs.>>

I cannot wait for that day to arrive.

[Oasis_]

84. That (at the very least) makes two of us

I reside in Kucinich's district, and believe me he's a zero. A walking talking propaganda machine-windbag who hasn't accomplished much of anything in his tenure as Representative.

He was one of the worst failures as Mayor of Cleveland---a national embarrassment---and unfortunately has continued to "provide" wholly ineffectual leadership as a Congressional representative.

Dennis has been a one man wrecking crew--with the city of Cleveland being the unfortunate recipient. The city bares the scars of his recklessness and nearly unfathomable incompetence.

Oasis

[ClarkUSA]

87. Bookmarked. As one of his constituents, you know what you're talking about.

Oasis_ (21 posts)
Mon Mar-21-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #56

84. That (at the very least) makes two of us

I reside in Kucinich's district, and believe me he's a zero. A walking talking propaganda machine-windbag who hasn't accomplished much of anything in his tenure as Representative.

He was one of the worst failures as Mayor of Cleveland---a national embarrassment---and unfortunately has continued to "provide" wholly ineffectual leadership as a Congressional representative.

Dennis has been a one man wrecking crew--with the city of Cleveland being the unfortunate recipient. The city bares the scars of his recklessness and nearly unfathomable incompetence.

Oasis

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Cleveland has such beauty to some parts (I'm thinking the historical area downtown) that it's a damned shame that it doesn't get more out of Washington, DC. It deserves better than Kucinich.

Welcome to DU, Oasis. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about this forum. :hi:

[Scurrilous]

67. ...

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

70. First Read @ MSNBC.com: "WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.
Here's the full text of the resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

[WatsonT]

78. He's consistent

[aquart]

89. Kucinich likes perfect.

Another reason he will never be president.