Obama is NOT explaining how the actions in Libya are constitutional, he's just telling us what we

[FLAprogressive]

all already know. Come on.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dipsydoodle]

2. I gave up watching

Reagan had his faults but at least you knew in advance you were getting an actor as President

[Catherina]

12. Really you should. It's amazing watching someone talk about human rights

while bombing the fuck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

[dipsydoodle]

13. Peace.

:)

[Warren Stupidity]

17. and codifying gross violations of human rights domestically.

[deaniac21]

16. All politicians are actors. Get with the program.

[StarburstClock]

52. Is there a membership fee for "the program"? A Kool-Aid party maybe?

No thanks.

[NYC Liberal]

3. It's been explained many times why it is Constitutional.

Also, this speech is not really for us news junkies who follow the happenings in Libya minute-to-minute.

[FLAprogressive]

4. And how is it constitutional?

[NYC Liberal]

15. Here:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=700460&mesg_id=700460

[FLAprogressive]

19. The UN Charter does not require all UN members to go to war if the UNSC does something...

We'd be seeing every country but Libya attacking Libya, then.

Therefore it is a war that requires congressional approval.

[pacalo]

30. And we pause for a few democratic words...

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Absolutely wrong; that poster has been conclusively disproven on this by me

Please take a moment and see the thread on General Discussion: Presidency entitled "Why Obama's Action in Libya is specifically illegal"

The UN Charter does not claim that agreements between member nations' leaders are exempt from their own constitutional process, in fact, it SPECIFICALLY states that, special agreements with the Security Council "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

The US law that governs everything we do with the United Nations, the UN Participation Act of 1945 specifically states that the President may make a special agreement for making armed forces available, but that this must be authorized by Congress, which is not the case here. It then goes on to say that the President may send in forces without authorization by Congress pursuant to an agreement that has already been authorized, and cannot do anything outside of that scope without further authorization.

I hope that poster has started retracting the re-posting of such things, but the point has been beaten into the ground and he flagrantly violated the War Powers Act, the UN Participation Act, and the UN Charter itself.

[StarburstClock]

53. Same here, the poster has an agenda

and I ain't buyin!

[PufPuf23]

22. Bingo! The speech was for those that don't pay rapt attention.

Soothing bullshit to justify a hypocritical and violent foreign policy.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

[NYC Liberal]

26. Good thing that's not what this was. nt

[PufPuf23]

36. Then what was the screed about and what is violence in Libya about?

Humanitarian? Dick Cheney's ass.

Neo-liberals are a cancer on the Democratic Party and USA and world. Neo-conservatives were invented to make neo-liberals seem liberal. Neo-liberals more resemble the neo-conservatives in domestic and foreign policy than traditional and true liberals.

[NYC Liberal]

37. So you deny the very real humanitarian crisis in Libya,

and that not taking action would have meant an even worse situation?

[PufPuf23]

44. No I think the violent and dishonest overly violent intervention

will result in more deaths, more deaths of innocents, and dmage of infrastructure if the scenaririo played out as a civil wat.

I detest Qadaffi; he was a terrorist and post 2003 a tool of the neocons.

If you do research, post 2003 Gadaffi was a full participant in the War in Terror and most of Libya's purchases of arms and oil sales were with NATO countries. Recently, Qadaffi offerered oil sales to China, India, and Brazil where NATO was not allowed to compete. These Nations plus Russia and Germany abstained from the UNSC vote. There is nuance here.

[H2O Man]

25. It is definitely not constitutional.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. And every time it's completely wrong; it is an unconstitutional act

Please see my thread in General Discussion: Presidency; I use the literal documents and conclusively shoot down all comers. NOBODY has been able to refute these facts convincingly, and regardless how wrong people like Bill Richardson are, Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act, the UN Participation Act and the UN Charter itself.

The War Powers Act is the standing law of the land, and Congress' interpretation of the Constitutional Powers of making War; to defy it on this is to be "unconstitutional".

The President may ONLY send "armed forces" into "hostilities" or where they're imminent if Congress Declares War, Congress authorizes it, or we're attacked That's it, period. He can do it by himself pursuant to a treaty that already guarantees involvement, but the UN Charter does not call for that. All the language about 48 hours notification, ending operations after 60 days plus a 30 day withdrawal period are all put into effect AFTER he goes in with an Authorization or after being attacked. (It doesn't apply to a Declaration.) He literally may not send in armed forces without Congress' permission unless attacked or with a special binding treaty that pre-approves his ability to act without Congress which is not the case with the UN.

The UN Participation Act of 1945 governs all of our dealings with the United Nations. Section 6 states that the President may negotiate a "special agreement" regarding making armed forces available, but that it must be authorized by Congress. It then goes on to say that if the UN calls out forces under an Article 42 Resolution, the President may do so without Congress pursuant to a special agreement that Congress has already authorized, and may not do anything not in the special agreement without further authorization. There is no "out" whatsoever; it's even more restrictive than the War Powers Act: he MUST have a "special agreement" with the Security Council, and it must be authorized by Congress before he acts.

The UN Charter clearly states in Article 43(3) that any agreement regarding making forces available made by the representative of a member country "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The UN Charter itself says that the member states MUST satisfy the rules back home for a special agreement to be valid.

It's not even close. People put their fingers in their ears and refuse to believe it, even when presented with the clear documents. What's worse, is that quite a few engage in shout-downs and ad hominem attacks to silence this, and then either disregard what they learn, or continue making assertions that are incorrect.

Please read it.

[Skidmore]

5. He's explaining how me met our obligations to the treaty we have

under NATO.

Did you jump up and down and demand constitutionality from *?

[FLAprogressive]

6. NATO treaties to do not supersede U.S. law.

[Skidmore]

10. Treaties are law,...

they must be ratified by Congress.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. US Constitution trumps laws and treaties.

The constitution is quite clear in requiring a congressional declaration of war. Of course Obama is not alone in simply ignoring that requirement. Every president since Truman has done this.

[qazplm]

34. in 1798 we fought an undeclared naval war with france

was that unconstitutional?

Do you think so close to the Constitution's implementation that they might have understood that there are possibilities for military operations that are short of war? And that those operations did not require a declaration or Congressional approval? And that since Congress controls the purse strings, ultimately they still had the power?

Barbary War was not a declaration of war.

The concept of military operations that are short of war goes all the way back to our founding.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Jefferson made it clear that his initial actions were limited

absent a declaration of war by congress to defense of our ships and citizens.

"In response (to an informal declaration of war from Tripoli), "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'"<14> He told Congress: "I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.'"<14> Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War#Declaration_of_war_and_naval_blockade

You might want to research your assertions first.

In 1802 and again in 1815 Congress specifically authorized military actions against the Barbary States.

[qazplm]

32. what are you talking about, ratified treaties are law

100 percent law, Federal law at that.

[Exilednight]

7. "We had a unique ability to stop that violence" We also had the unique ability to stop

a lot of violence around the world. He turned a blind eye to Ivory Coast where they are already digging mass graves.

[ixion]

8. Obama's gettin' his war on, and those of us who don't like it should STFU

just like old times.

[pnwmom]

9. Why should he? This issue was decided 40 years ago. n/t

[Karmadillo]

11. Mr. Constitution, he dead.

nt

[killbotfactory]

14. How and why are so many people here ignorant of the War Powers act?

I learned about it in high school. Come on.

[FLAprogressive]

20. The War Powers Act only covers war w/o congressional approval if the US is under attack/threat

HOW was the US under imminent threat?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Apparently you were nodding off.

"(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


Libyan War 2011:
No declaration of war.
No specific statutory authorization.
No national emergency created by attack upon the US etc.

[killbotfactory]

31. Every president since that became law has used military force without complying to that criteria

I wonder why that is?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Absolutely correct.

So why on earth bring it up as some sort of basis for Obama's actions? Every administration, even when bothering to comply with some or all of the resolution's requirements, has maintained that the resolution itself is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch, while resolutely (pun intended) avoiding any court challenge that would rule on it.

But never mind that - THE CONSTITUTION IS PERFECTLY CLEAR.

[killbotfactory]

39. Apparently, it's not perfectly clear

Since, as my HS social studies class pointed out, no president has been found in violation of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. So again, your point in bringing it up was?

Oh never mind. Actually the resolution is perfectly clear. The reason 'no president has been found in violation of it' is that every president since it was passed has carefully avoided the court case that would decide the legal status.

[joshcryer]

40. specific statutory authorization + ratified treaty = UN/NATO military action

What's so hard about that to grasp?

[Warren Stupidity]

47. There is no specific 'go blow up Libya' statute.

The best you have is a security council vote, and that does not obligate us to do anything: it is not a statute in the clear meaning of the war powers resolution.

It is not unusual for Obama to do what he did: just about every other president since Truman has done the same thing. Just don't bullshit about what just happened: yet another post WWII president has ignored to constitutional requirement to obtain a declaration of war from congress before initiating a war against another sovereign nation.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Nice try

Quick, name your Senator and Congressman.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

18. Why explain something that is obvious?

[Marr]

33. Really?

Why don't you give it a shot then.

[Gravel Democrat]

27. At least the exit strategy was clearly defined....

war is peace

[Catherina]

29. & no explanation of which US security interests were threatened enough to necessitate intervention

We have always been at war with Eastasia

[sad sally]

35. Where, where? I missed that part.

(must have been while I was practicing my marching and saluting)

[H2O Man]

28. Recommended.

I would hope that people, no matter if they believe we should or should not be involved in a war in Libya, would be concerned by the fact that President Obama's actions are unconstitutional.

[slipslidingaway]

41. knr nt

[RB TexLa]

42. We are acting on behalf of the UN, per the UN charter a treaty we signed

this is not an act of war by a nation. What is hard to understand about that?

[Bluebear]

43. So all UN members are bombing Libya now? Per treaty charter?

[Warren Stupidity]

50. no but if they keep repeating this talking point dullards will be convinced.

they have learned from their other half how to play the game.

[RB TexLa]

51. Not all have the resources and some are not in the majority on the issue

But these silly arguments about the UN authorizing and overseeing military actions is a big reason why the UN needs a standing military.

[StarburstClock]

55. Silly arguments about international laws and rights of civilians, DOH!

Away with them all I say, arm everyone!

(Sarcasm off)

[StarburstClock]

54. Hard to understand about what? Could you start over?

I've read the entire U.S. constitution and the entire UN Charter but it sounds like I need a refresher, please expound upon your great wisdom for people like me who interpret such foolish things as civilian killing as a crime.

[Bluebear]

57. Thank you.

[F Bastiat]

56. I suppose he could explain that if something that is unconstitutional is done often enough

it becomes constitutional. And then he could explain that he is not the first president to do it.

However, if he were an honest man, he would look directly into the camera and explain that the reason they keep doing it, is because we let them keep doing it.