I guess it's not illegal if Obama does it

[no limit]

If Bush had sent our military in to war without the approval of congress how many here would be calling for impeachment? Why is this different?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 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 in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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.

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

[MineralMan]

1. Short memory, have you?

Nothing illegal here. I don't like it much, but it's the same process that's been used before. Congress was notified. That satisfies the Resolution.

[no limit]

5. What resolution? The one I posted in the OP

because that resolution was clearly violated.

[MineralMan]

7. No, it wasn't violated.

This has already been discussed in depth here.

[no limit]

8. So there is no requirement that the president ask congress to go to war?

What in the war powers act leads you to say that?

[MineralMan]

9. From the very thing you quoted:

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress..."

Notify. Not ask permission. There's a time limit for such actions unless Congress authorizes them to continue.

Did you not even read what you posted? Really? You should read the entire Wikipedia article. Really.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[L. Coyote]

16. +1,000,000,000

Not to mention, the UN Charter is being ignored and abused by a cabal of interventionist, imperialist oil-suckers.

[EFerrari]

22. John Dean wrote a whole chapter about this, the first chapter

in "Worse than Watergate", iirc.

[zorahopkins]

20. Exactly Right!

But can't you just hear all the war-supporters now, saying,

'But it's not "military adventurism", it's Kinetic Military Action.

[qazplm]

27. nothing in the War Powers Act

Not a thing mandates that the president must get any sort of approval prior to introducing troops.

He must "consult" with Congress within 48 hours of introducing troops.
Congress then has a options after that they can exercise including funding options.
He has 60 days and then he has to get congressional approval or a declaration of war.

If Congress believes after consultation, when the president tells them the why and the wherefore, that the mission should be stopped, then guess what they can do?
The 60 days kicks in whenever he uses troops, it does not only kick in when there is a direct threat to the nation

[EFerrari]

163. War Powers Resolution: 1) By authorization of Congress or 2)

a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.

No, the president is not constitutionally able to start any old little war that he wants to start. I didn't know Dick Cheney and John Yoo had so many fans around here because you are arguing their position, which is wrong as we all agreed not too long ago, iirc.

[bvar22]

190. But things are soooo different now.

Obama is our guy,
so it can't be wrong.

See how easy that is?

"Centrism"...because its so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!!!
:party:


If you're not for MORE WAR,
you're with The Communists AlQaeda Saddam Qaddafi!!!

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

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

[pokerfan]

215. But our "interests and values" were under attack!

I guess that's supposed to satisfy #2.

[no limit]

14. Do you selectively quote everything all the time or just when defending Obama?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 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 in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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 notification is done once approval comes from congress or we are attacked and the president must go to war without approval.

Are you really trying to argue that the president can go to war at any time without the authorization of congress?

[qazplm]

25. you do realize that

the section you've highlighted comes from wiki and the only section in that quote that is from the resolution is in quotes and says notification is all that is required, right?

[PurityOfEssence]

19. No, it requires Authorization or a Declaration of War unless we're attacked

Section 2(c) 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.

The very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you cite PROVES THIS. The very idea of you scolding someone for not reading the article is laughable.

[MineralMan]

31. If that's the case, then it's been ignored a few times.

If that's the case, where's the call from Congress to stop this?

I think the missing thing here is the definition of what "attack on the United States" means. That appears to have had a very broad interpretation for some time.

[Marr]

213. The act of ignoring that point used to be pretty universally considered criminal around here.

But give the other team the ball and... not so much.

I used to laugh at Bush's devoted fans for flipping their positions upside-down whenever supporting their leader demanded they do so. I honestly thought that was a purely right-wing phenomenon, poor weak fellow that I am.

[frylock]

218. acme goalpost mover overer

[PurityOfEssence]

246. There's been fairly serious outry on a number of occasions

This is also the biggest violation of the War Powers Act EVER, even slightly exceeding Bill Clinton's, which was pretty bad and for which he caught holy hell.

(There is a very iffy excuse that the NATO Treaty's mutual self-defense clause was applicable there; there's absolutely NO EXCUSE FOR THE WAR POWERS ACT FOR THIS.)

He went to the UN and got what he wanted there, but he then broke US law by not complying with our Congressional authorization requirements. This is not only bad, it's HORRIBLE; it's an act of completely high-handed arrogance and prima facie illegal, that's why it's so damned galling to have to go over and over and over and over this, and then have to hear that it's not really such a big deal after facts can no longer be ignored.

What if Bush had done this?

[sudopod]

252. "If that's the case, then it's been ignored a few times. "

Yes, yes, OH GOD YES!

Someone gets it!

The powers that be have been ignoring the law for decades.

[sudopod]

253. "If that's the case, then it's been ignored a few times."

Yes, yes, OH GOD YES!

Someone gets it!

The powers that be have been ignoring the law for decades

The Congress hasn't cared because it wasn't politically prudent, or because they were in bed with those who wanted the wars, all the wars, since the close of the Second World War.

[jeff47]

111. Wikipedia is not a legal document

The WPA requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours, and get approval beyond 60 days.

In addition, your quote explicitly covers this situation. There has been specific statutory authorization. That was done when the US ratified the UN charter. Articles 42 and 43 of the UN charter cover this situation.

[MineralMan]

There ya go.

Thanks for the details.

[no limit]

131. What a lame argument. Wikipedia might not be a legal document, but the war powers resolution is

and it says the following:

(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.

----------------------

You and others that keep repeating this bullshit about how Obama only needs to notify congress ignores this part. And you seem to be doing so on purpose.

[qazplm]

145. yeah, it's just us

not every president and congress in every fucking conflict we've had since 1973...

just us.

[no limit]

147. You have a funny definition of the law

as long as previous presidents did it and got away with it then it's legal.

I dont agree for obvious reasons, I think you would find most people don't either.

[qazplm]

154. most people?

lol

Yes, clearly you are in the majority on this. I mean I hear the lawsuits for this constitutional violation are being filed all over the country, and Congress is up in arms about this usurpation of this power and this clearly unconstitutional use of power by the president.

Wait, none of that is actually happening? Congress is actually satisfied that he's complied with the law? It's only folks not happy with any military intervention by the president?
Ah, never mind then.

[bvar22]

238. I broke the law yesterday.

I hit 90mph in a 55 mph zone.
Does the fact that I got away with it yesterday mean that it is NOW legal for me to go 90 in a 55?

[jeff47]

209. So...only read the first sentence of my post then?

(c) (2) covers this situation.

UN Security Council voted for military action.
UN Treaty requires member countries to supply military force when requested (see articles 42 and 43).
Congress ratified the UN treaty.
Therefore, Congress pre-authorized all UN-backed military action. Because they approved a treaty that requires it.

In addition, the War Powers act is not just section (c). All sections come into play. What we describe (notification in 48, approval after 60) is the net result of the entire act. If the UN wasn't involved.

[PurityOfEssence]

245. UN Treaty does NOT "require" member countries to supply forces; they're subject to members' laws

See post 244, and please stop this fantasy.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. And he's been shown to be clearly in violation, PERIOD.

He may ONLY introduce forces into "hostilities" or where they're imminent if Congress declares war, Congress authorizes, or we are literally attacked.

If it's not a Declaration of War, then he has 2 days to inform us after he's done so, a further 58 days to end operations and a further 30 (as needed) to withdraw.

You are totally incorrect. The time limitations are put in play ONLY AFTER HE'S MADE AN AUTHORIZED ACT. There is no wiggle room here, and even less in the UN Participation Act.

Please show where the "in depth discussions" in any way sustain your contention.

He has been confronted by this in the major press and has chosen to not respond at all.

The justification in his letter to Congress cites the UN Charter 6 times, but never states that even that Charter clearly states in Article 43(3), the article that governs agreements with which forces are "made available" for Article 42 call-ups specifically says that these agreements are subject to the member nations' ratifications per their constitutions. He's so far out in violation of two US laws and the very UN Charter he claims for legitimacy that it stinks to the cosmos.

Here's the language from the War Powers Act, and please have the decency to retract your statement in print on this thread. As a long-term poster here, your words carry weight, and if you're casually stating something that is plainly unclear, the covenant of communal decency necessitates clear retraction.

War Powers Act Section 2(c) "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."

No wiggle room.

[jeff47]

214. Only in your mind

The war powers act consists of more than section 2c.

And you are mis-reading article 43 of the UN charter. Article 43 says the countries must supply forces unless doing so would violate another obligation. So Japan doesn't have to supply forces, as their military is constitutionally forbidden from foreign action. Nor would the US be required to invade a country with which we had a non-aggression pact.

Article 43 says nothing about the political process of going to war in an individual country, as it shouldn't. Many nations do not have a constitution, nor legislative review prior to military action. So demanding those in the UN charter would be inappropriate.

[PurityOfEssence]

244. Here, with the real documents, is how you are completely incorrect

This is getting so old.

Your assertion is completely incorrect on both counts. Where else in the War Powers Act does it negate Section 2(c)? It doesn't, period. The UN Treaty is not one that pre-authorizes action, so that's not an issue.

Here's the actual Article 43 of the UN Charter, and I'll take it upon myself--since it's obviously not worth your time--to specifically point out where you are wrong and I am right.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES.

You assert that members are required to provide forces unless it interferes with obligations. This is false. They are to "undertake", or sincerely attempt to provide forces, but they are not required. Read 43(1) above.

You assert that Article 43 "says nothing about the political process of going to war in an individual country", which is also grossly incorrect; 43(3) SPECIFICALLY says that the member nations have to get this ratified to satisfy constitutional process back home.

This is the full text of the War Powers Text; please show me where there's anything to support your misreading:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml
Please respond.

[KittyWampus]

2. This has been explained-debunked so many times already. At this point you must be doing this

intentionally.

[dionysus]

3. geez, ya think?

;)

[no limit]

6. So the war powers act doesn't really apply any longer?

[MineralMan]

11. It's not an Act. It's a Resolution.

Seriously. War Powers Resolution. Do you know why it was created?

[no limit]

15. Do you know why this is a resolution and not an act?

[PurityOfEssence]

24. It is an act of Congress. It's the law of the land, the Constitution itself

Why don't you tell me how it was created? The sheer fantasy of this fiction is fascinating.

And yes, it is the Constitutional statute that governs the Enumerated Powers of both the Legislature and the Executive, as granted by the "necessary and proper" clause, as the Act itself states.

[qazplm]

155. well it was a joint resolution

so it does have the same power as a bill.

The question is not that it's a valid congressional act, the question is the constitutionality of it vis-a-vis the issue of separation of powers.

[jeff47]

119. The War Powers Act has not been violated

The WPA requires notification with 48 hours (done) and then approval from Congress if it lasts more than 60 days (not due yet).

[no limit]

148. That's only one thing the WPA requires, and I think you know that

(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.

[jeff47]

217. As mentioned elsewhere, the act is more than section 2c. (nt)

[PurityOfEssence]

247. Really? Then show us the pertinent part.

You can't because it doesn't exist.

[guruoo]

229. They're subbing in new players to sway casual readers who missed previous debunkings

It's the new 'Al Gore claims to have invented the internet'

[JonLP24]

234. Not true at all

I've read H2O Man's threads and actually read people debunking the claims that this has been debunked.

[guruoo]

236. Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and continue

tying up our time and energy playing
bunk debunk bunk debunk bunk debunk!

[JonLP24]

237. Just pointing out

There are no ulterior motives such as trying to sway casual readers when reasonable people feel he violated the war powers clause.

[guruoo]

240. If you're right, then every President since Truman has misintrepreted it

If so, you'd be better off campaigning for a SCOTUS ruling,
instead of laying all the blame on one President, whose legal
team may be guilty of no more than following 60
years of misinterpreted legal precedence.

[JonLP24]

243. Oh I have no issues

to holding any other President to task regarding that. I don't consider myself laying all the blame on him when possibly every President this century and the last has ignored this. I know that Arthur Schlesinger admitted his error years after dismissing criticism that Truman declared his war without Congressional approval.

[PurityOfEssence]

259. The law is 37 years old, and all of the Presidents knew PRECISELY what was meant.

They just didn't like it much. All of the Presidents who have served when this law was in force have made major efforts to stay within its strictures in most cases, and even when playing fast-and-loose, they all at least tried to make it look like they were within their rights except Clinton in one instance and this grotesque mockery of us all.

Truman's term ended more than 20 years before the act was even passed.

Truman grossly violated the UN Participation Act, and it was decried at the time. The problem is that the country was so rabidly anti-communist that people like Robert Taft didn't get any traction.

[guruoo]

262. Didn't Congress vote to call for the NATO no-fly zone?

The US is still a NATO member state, isn't it?

So how many days are left in the 60 that Obama's
permitted to continue our envolvement in this Congressionaly
approved military operation?

[PurityOfEssence]

264. NATO is a defensive organization only. You are WRONG about the 60 days; it's not a given

NATO in this case is working in conjunction with the UN in this case, but even though the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 allows the President to do military operations without further consent from Congress, he may only do so to respond to AN ATTACK ON A MEMBER NATION.

Once again, you are wrong about the 60 days. How many times do I have to show this to you explicitly?

By Section 2 of the War Powers Act, the President may only send in forces if Congress declares war, Congress authorizes the action, or we are attacked.

If there's a declaration of war, then the 60 days doesn't apply, but if he sends in forces from an authorization or on his own after being attacked, the moment he engages, the clock starts running. (He can get an authorization and wait as long as he wants, using it as a threat, or he can wait after being attacked for as long as he wants, but the moment contact is made, the clock starts running.)

Now we go to Section 4, which is entitled "REPORTING". This in no way says that this supersedes the very specific requirements for him to send in forces, this is how he must comply with Congress. Congress is making it VERY specific that they have the say-so on starting things. From first contact, he has 48 hours to let them know everything: the action, the plans, the forces, the whole thing.

Now we go to Section 5, which is entitled "CONGRESSIONAL ACTION" it is not entitled "presidential grace period" or "test drive" or anything of the sort; this delineates Congress' requirements for him to get out. It even goes further to say that he even has to ask them and get their permission for a further 30 days to withdraw.

I've pointed this out over and over, and shown the actual document.

Please show me where it says that he has any grace period at all. Please show me where he can do diddly-squat without Congress' specific vote on it UNLESS we're attacked. You are so persistently wrong, and you've been shown in post after post in more than one thread.

Here's the actual document. Please read Sections 2, 4 and 5. Your assertion is completely incorrect, not the least bit disputed by any legal authorities for its intent and mechanics, and the very fact that the President refuses to address this at all should make it abundantly clear to even a child. His only mention of it is that his letter within 48 hours was "consistent" with the War Powers Act. It is, but he BROKE THE LAW TO MOVE WITHOUT CONGRESS' APPROVAL OR DUE TO AN ATTACK.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[EFerrari]

4. Yep. n/t

[brooklynite]

10. If President Obama violated the law...

...don't you think the Republicans in Congress would be leaping to file impeachment bills?

[EFerrari]

13. That would depend on how much their owners stand to make in Libya

and related projects.

[L. Coyote]

17. Obama works for the same interests as Bush did.

[MineralMan]

158. Could you please stop posting that image?

Thanks a bunch.

[L. Coyote]

228. Why?

[SixString]

239. Cuz He's the forum nanny, and sez so.

[SixString]

241. And He'll alert on that lickity split

[MineralMan]

256. Nah. It isn't worth an alert. Seeya.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. No; they WANT an unrestricted, imperial presidency as much or more than he does

Don't rule it out, though. Rand Paul has specifically mentioned it and the White House didn't respond, which is COMPLETELY out of character.

[qazplm]

32. unrestricted?

I must have missed the power of Congress to deauthorize the use of any funds for attacks on Libya.

Because I thought if they so desired, they could make it illegal today to spend one penny on any military operations within a 1000 miles of Libya, that don't involve withdrawal from the area.

I mean that sure seems like a restriction.

[qazplm]

21. Doesn't requrie approval yet

it requires notification, which he did...

once it passes the 60 day mark then he need approval.

we ain't there yet, so no it's not illegal.

furthermore, I can point you to a whole host of actions starting with the naval war with France and the first Barbary War in the 1700s where presidents have engaged armed force in action abroad without a declaration of war or prior congressional approval.

[no limit]

23. So you are saying my eyes are lying to me?

The war powers act doesn't require Obama get approval from congress unless we are directly attacked?

So I guess you are saying any president at any time can attack any country they want without congressional approval? Do you not understand how absurd this argument you are making is?

[qazplm]

30. yes

he can. And Congress must be notified within 48 hours, and here's the kicker, if they don't like what he's doing, if they feel he isn't using troops for a proper purpose, they can simply DEFUND the operation making it illegal for example to spend any more sums other than for withdrawal, just like they could do right at this moment in Libya. We could have a resolution today that ceases all flights, dropping of bombs, etc because the funding wouldn't be allowed for it.

There are checks and balances here and your portrayal of this as somehow allowing any president unchecked power is simply wrong.
Folks want to cite the purpose and policy section? Ok, fine, cite it, but please point to me where in that section, or any section there is any, any mention of a requirement that the president seek approval from congress before introducing troops into an area.

Consultation requirements are not the same as requiring approval.

[no limit]

33. So if Obama wanted to bomb Poland tomorrow you are saying there is nothing legally stopping him

amazing.

[MineralMan]

36. Why would he want to do that?

You may remember that the UN Security Council approved this, and that it's a NATO action of joint forces.

It's not nearly as simple as you seem to think. You're focused on a single thing, and ignoring a whole raft of other things, including treaties, UN Security Council decisions and our international agreements.

To focus only on one portion of the War Powers Resolution is to focus too narrowly.

Personally, I think this Libya thing is a bad idea. We've not done well in that part of the world by interfering, but that's not really the issue. I'm not the C-i-C. I wasn't consulted.

[no limit]

37. Is there anything in US law stopping a president from invading a country

for any reason without the approval of congress?

[MineralMan]

42. I'm not sure, exactly, but we've sure done it before.

Technically, though, we're not actually invading Libya. The only US forces that have been on the ground there have been rescue and recovery missions. Very technical stuff.

I'm afraid I'm not an expert on the legal considerations in play here, from UN agreements, to standing NATO agreements, to other stuff that may be in play. It's all really complicated.

As I said, I think it's a terrible idea, but that's not really the question here. You have to ask yourself, though, why there isn't a big outcry in Congress about this. I haven't seen any such thing. Have you? Maybe because it all fits into what's legal.

[qazplm]

55. technically, no, practically yes

You mass troops (which takes tremendous amount of time and money even for a battalion or less).

You get them in there, and then Congress goes WTF are you doing, we deauthorize funding for this.
Now you've just invaded another country and your options are, immediately pull them back out which probably isn't what your initial plan was, or keep them in and risk impeachment for violating the law.

[qazplm]

38. from the sense of his power to use troops

no there isn't.

From the fact that such conduct could amount to an act of war, violate numerous treaties, and would create such outrage that he'd possibly be impeached and Congress would almost certainly hold an emergency session to condemn it and withdraw any and all funding for any operations anywhere near Poland, there might be a few things that would stop him, desire not to be impeached, desire to be re-elected, violating treaties which have the force of federal law, etc.

So your attempt to somehow present this as the war powers act (and more importantly your incorrect interpretation of that act) being the only standing between us and a president run amuck is again, inaccurate.

But you tell me, what part of the war powers act says "the president must get our approval before using military forces anywhere overseas"
Where in the law is that located?
Why would a 48 hour notification requirement be written so broadly if it only applied to serious "direct" threats to national security, and where does it say in the 48 hour notification that this is what the requirement is limited to?

I mean if my position is so crazy, and yours so obvious, then you should require about thirty seconds to point this out to me.

[no limit]

41. Your argument doesn't make any sense

you are saying he can but he would be impeached for it. That means what he did is illegal, is it not?

The part of the war powers act that says this is right here:

(c) 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.

[qazplm]

48. sigh

yes, I mean we've only done this for almost every military intervention since 1973 considering we have not declared war once since then and yet we've done countless interventions and each time Congress has not once protested but you didn't get our permission first, but yes clearly my position "doesn't make any sense."

Folks down below have laid out several ways this could fit under either 2 or 3.

An attack on Poland assuming you are trying to give me an extreme example (President Asshole bombs Poland just for the hell of it) would not fit under any of those authorizations or any broad interpretation of those authorizations such as an expansive view of the requirements of treaties/statutes dealing with NATO et al or an expansive view of what section 3 is to include any threat to national security.

Again, point me to where Congress has mandated approval BEFORE the introduction of troops. You can't.

[jeff47]

106. Impeachment is not just for illegal acts

A president can be impeached for anything. It doesn't have to be for something illegal.

[MilesColtrane]

167. I think the White House would argue that the "(2) specific statutory authorization" comes from...

the UN treaty broadly and from Security Council Resolution 1973 specifically.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Please see my posts on this thread

You're so very, very wrong. He's also in violation of the UN Participation Act and the UN Charter itself.

[qazplm]

110. and yet

the UN seems to disagree. Funny that. China, Russia, they must all be Obama sycophants.

[MilesColtrane]

179. I'm looking at Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations

And I don't see any violation.

Could you point it out specifically to me?

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

[PurityOfEssence]

251. My Pleasure; it's right here, and here's the American Journal of International law to confirm it:

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? It's right there in what you quoted: he makes the agreement with the Security Council, which by definition in UN Charter 43(3) is not valid UNTIL CONGRESS AUTHORIZES IT. Then, if the call-up comes, he may act accordingly to an agreement that CONGRESS HAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED, and if that's not clear enough, it goes on to say that any actions he takes that aren't covered by that already authorized "special agreement" must be themselves authorized by Congress.

I'll admit that they could have worded it a bit clearer, but it is iron-clad and the whole point.

Here's the American Journal of International Politics:

� Under the UN Charter, in the event of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the UN Security Council may decide in accordance with Article 41 to recommend "measures not involving the use of armed force." If those measures prove inadequate, Article 43 provides that all UN members shall make available to the Security Council‑‑in accordance with special agreements‑‑armed forces and other assistance. These agreements would spell out the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. As noted above, it was anticipated that the member states would ratify these agreements "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

Please have the courtesy and honor to respond and set the record straight. Thanks in advance.

[MilesColtrane]

255. I concede your point.

The President's use of U.S. forces in Libya is in violation of the War Powers Act. (and, there is no direct authorization in the UN treaty that supersedes the Constitution)

Maybe Congress will challenge him on it, and the law's constitutionality could be finally be determined.

I have a feeling that instead it will authorize Obama's actions.

Thanks for making me do the research.

[PurityOfEssence]

257. Thank you. You know what? YOU'RE THE VERY FIRST AND ONLY PERSON TO DO THIS

I sincerely mean my "thank you". It's like I'm living in a land of crazy people, willingly blind and the woefully unable to read.

It's a really chilling situation: he and the Republicans want to make the Presidency some kind of monarchy. It raises the question of what else this man might see fit to do if he'd so very deliberately and flagrantly defy the law and spirit of the concept of pluralist government.

[Gravel Democrat]

261. "It's like I'm living in a land of crazy people, willingly blind and the woefully unable to read."

subtract "like" and you've once again nailed it

Frightening. Truly.

"A Republic if you can keep it" has never meant so much. Our founders were light years smarter than the "leaders" of today.

[MilesColtrane]

263. I know that power, once it is acquired, is almost never willingly given up.

I had hoped that when Obama won the presidency, he would have had the strength of character to cede some of the unlawful powers grabbed by Bush in his quest for ideal of "unitary executive". Barring that, I envisioned a united front of Republicans and well-meaning Democrats in Congress legislating the pendulum of power back to a more balanced position.

Too bad Congress' attitude about the extra-Constitutional practices of Presidents over the last forty years mirrors those of many DUers, "It's OK as long as our guy is doing it."

[PurityOfEssence]

265. Absolutely. In fact, it whets the appetite for further encroachment; that's why it's a big deal

Your decency gives me hope, and your ability to note having been incorrect without flying into a rage or feeling somehow embarrassed shows strength of character and a healthy ego. The world is full of very small people, and that's the source of so much acrimony and wickedness.

I am not a fan of the man. As an inveterate disliker of religion, his active courting of evangelicals in the fall of 2006 disgusted me thoroughly. The South Carolina "40 Days of Faith and Family" cavalcade made me spitting mad with its deliberate race-baiting overtones to get rid of Hillary Clinton and the strident religion. The Faith-Based organization expansion drove the spikes in deep. The constant corporatist enabling is unmistakable. The unwillingness to address Global Warming is part and parcel with accommodation and weakness. The spineless accommodation shows at least a touch of collusion, but REALLY underlines the lack of leadership ability and the obsession with being loved. It's like Bill Clinton all over again in that respect. He still really doesn't get that they won't love him if they just get to know him; he's so wonderful that he just doesn't see how someone wouldn't come around.

This is a personality cult, and he is the chief cultist. He's got leading man syndrome now, and it's not going to be pretty from here on out. ANY power usurped or created by the Executive is something he feels is his right, and he feels entitled to more. The way he's having his Secretary of State tell Congress Members that he doesn't even feel beholden to the pesky little 60 day limitation on the act he violated in the first place is arrogance beyond solipsism.

The Republicans want a monarchic executive, and much as they thirst with righteous, bigoted, jealous, violent hatred, they probably won't hit on this and try to impeach for this: they WANT HIM TO HELP POLISH OFF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'LL HAVE THE PRESIDENCY AGAIN.

The palpable hatred of the right is breathtaking, but having our entire party condone behavior like this is deeply disgusting. I expect better from us. I expect an honoring of the law and an honoring of the ethical underpinning of the Constitution; Republicans HATE the mob, so it's predictable that they'd like having a monarch, but Democrats are supposedly pluralists, and they should be defending the concept of the Constitution's mechanism for war: the individual prosecutes it, but the group decides whether it's to be prosecuted in the first place. It's very, very clear, and to me, it's very, very dear.

[jeff47]

Yes. There is nothing stopping him.

Keep that in mind when you decide to sit at home instead of voting for a Democrat who doesn't inspire you.

[frylock]

219. because dems wage a kinder and gentler kinetic military action?

[jeff47]

254. They wage less of them. (nt)

[PurityOfEssence]

26. No. 60 days is a limitation on operations AFTER authorization or an attack.

You simply cannot read or have no respect for the truth or your fellow posters.

The powers to initiate War are in Section 2. You're referring to the time limitations that are mentioned later. This is settled law; it's not the least bit subjective. It's not unclear, open to debate or anything of the sort.

Okay, so point out those actions, why don't you? Silly me, but I'm under the impression that 1973 came after 1798; perhaps this understanding of time and history explains your inane contention.

It's precisely the dangers of Presidential violation of the executive's rights that prompted Congress to craft this in 1973 and send it to get vetoed by Richard Milhous Nixon.

Adams got permission for the Naval War against the Revolutionary French Government from our Congress, by the way, Jefferson got permission for the First Barbary War, although--as the Magistrate pointed out--he did send ships before asking for it. The Second Barbary War was authorized.

Your pointing out of a host of OTHER instances simply would point out WHY Congress found it necessary to assert its rights and power, which it is allowed to do by Article 1, Section 8.

[qazplm]

29. I just read the entire War Powers Act

not going to wiki and reading there like most apparently have done, and my point for talking about circumstances in the late 18th century is to show that we've ALWAYS contemplated the idea of using military actions overseas that didn't require a declaration of war or even anticipation of direct national threat.

After the purpose section there is the following:

§ 1542 The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

So we have a requirement for "consultation" ANYTIME armed forces are engaged in hostilities not just direct threat, anytime.
No requirement for "consent" or "approval", merely "consultation."

The very next section lays out how that consultation is to be done:

§ 1543 In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) Other information reported
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

Again, very broad, very general dealing with any situation where Armed Forces are introduced and saying that once that happens, the President has 48 hours to notify why he did it.
Not 48 hours to get approval, or consent, 48 hours to notify.

The rest we all know, after 60 days (up to 90 days including a withdrawal) he has to THEN get approval or consent.
It's clear, plain and non-ambiguous. There is no part that talks about the president requiring initial congressional approval. None.
This isn't a war, the president doesn't have the power to "initiate a war." This is however a use of military forces and the president does have a limited power to use military forces PROVIDED he notifies the Congress of that use within 48 hours and provided he gets congressional approval within 60-90 days.

Of course, that assumes the War Powers Resolution is constitutional but since that's never going to be decided by the Supremes due to SOP issues, it's more or less de facto constitutional regardless of whether or not it is de jure.

[MineralMan]

34. There ya go!

Nothing new in this.

[Rex]

35. Curious about purpose.

In the last section on purpose and policy;

(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.

So did Obama use number 2 as his reason for military action?

[MineralMan]

39. Attack upon the United States can also mean an attack on

our interests, I believe. There are also a number of standing treaties and international agreements that influence this. Those would be the specific statutory authorization. NATO is involved, as is the United Nations. We have all sorts of statutory agreements with those organizations, as well as with the individual countries involved in this action.

It's just not that simple. And that's probably why you haven't seen any serious effort on the part of Congress to do anything at all about this.

[Rex]

43. Thank you.

That is what I was wondering. :hi:

[qazplm]

45. could be

that would admittedly be a very broad interpretation...but it would match history given 99 percent of our interventions aren't exactly a direct threat to the US in the strictest sense of the term.
I think regardless of what congressional intent may have been at the drafting of the resolution, it's morphed into what you state.

Agreed, it's almost never "that simple" and it's why we rarely actually declare war.

[MineralMan]

51. Exactly. We're in Iraq, even though we were never under attack

from that country. We haven't been in a declared war since WWII. Even Korea was never a declared war. We seem to avoid declarations of war in these military adventures. The language of the Resolution is vague enough to allow for the interpretation I made. We've certainly seen other examples of the same thing.

The precedent for a UN-approved "No Fly Zone" started with GHW Bush's action in Iraq, where, again, the United States was not in any way under attack.

That the Congress hasn't called for a withdrawal from any of these places is an indication that the de facto meaning is about as broad as it can be. "our interests" now appears to be equivalent to our territories, etc.

Ugly business it is.

[no limit]

47. lol. now you're spewing just absolute non-sense

do you know of the history that lead to congress passing this law during the Nixon years?

An attack on america could mean an attack on our interests, give me a fucking break.

[qazplm]

49. seems to me

Congress is the body to determine whether the president has violated the intent of the statute yes or no?

[no limit]

You are really trying to make this argument right now, do you not remember Bush?

So since congress didn't decide that Bush ever broke the law you are saying everything Bush ever did was legal?

[qazplm]

59. legal how?

As far as being sanctioned by Congress? They funded it every year didn't they? Yes.

Now, if you want to argue it violated international law that's a whole nother kettle of fish. If you want to argue it was mind-numbingly stupid, right there with ya.
But yes the initial invasion was allowed, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force, they continually funded the operation year after year, if President Bush broke the law then Congress retroactively absolved him of it when they continued to fund the operation.

[no limit]

63. I'm not talking about the Iraq war specifically

I am talking about various actions Bush took such as violating FISA, torturing people, among a laundry list of other actions.

You are sitting here, with a straight face, making the argument that since congress didn't do anything about it that automatically makes everything Bush did legal. Do you not understand how absurd such an argument is?

[MineralMan]

72. I think Bush is guilty of all kinds of things.

Lacking prosecution and conviction, however, he remains innocent by assumption. I'm afraid that's how we do things here. Until he is prosecuted and convicted, the assumption is innocence and that his acts were legal. I hope one day there will be such a prosecution and conviction. I doubt it will occur.

[no limit]

73. You didn't really answer the question, did you?

I am not asking if Bush was convicted. I am asking you if many of his actions were illegal? If you say they were think about how you are contradicting your own argument.

[MineralMan]

88. And what I said was that I'm in no position to decide that.

I don't even have a law degree, and I don't know enough about the applicable laws to make that decision. I'm contradicting nothing. Only Congress can bring charges against a sitting President, and I'm not sure who would bring charges against a former President for actions taken during his term of office. That's a pretty unexplored area of the law, as far as I know. Frankly, I doubt that it's possible to charge a former President for acts that never had charges brought by Congress during his term. I don't know, but I don't think it's possible. As far as I know, it has never been tried, probably because nobody can figure out how to do it.

[no limit]

91. Lol, you aren't in the position to decide if Bush ever violated the law?

I would love nothing more right now then to go back and look at your posts from a few years back when we found out Bush was violating FISA or that he was torturing people. But I have better things to do with my time.

[MineralMan]

95. You'd have a difficult time. I didn't join DU until 2008, and I

don't believe I've ever said anything online about Bush and FISA on any forum.

[no limit]

112. Ok, fair enough. So you had no opinion on legality of Bush's FISA or torture violations?

[MineralMan]

121. Of course I had an opinion. When I say something that is my opinion

I try to make it clear that it is my opinion.

I do not say something is illegal. I say I believe it to be illegal. There's a difference, and it's not just a semantic difference.

You claim President Obama's actions in Libya are illegal. I say that is your opinion, and that your opinion carries no legal weight. The decision on legality is not made by individual citizens in this country. Ever. We may hold any opinion we wish, however.

[no limit]

128. again, I have never said my opinion holds any weight

but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't valid. In this case I think it is. And you are yet to show me why it isn't. Here is the war powers resolution:

(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.

------------------

You have absolutely nothing to counter the argument that Obama did not meet the requirements outlined above.

And the argument that what I say isn't valid because it holds no weight is no argument at all.

[qazplm]

103. it's really hard

to continue this discussion with you because

a. you jump all over the place
b. you take narrow statements and make them broad while taking broad statements and trying to make them narrow
c. you ignore words that if you'd read them would completely negate your entire attempt to argue that saying that SOMETIMES one can look to the actions of Congress to determine whether a law has been violated (PARTICULARLY when it's a law that deals with notification to or approval from Congress) must therefore mean that anytime someone isn't "gone after" by Congress it must mean you think no laws were violated

You aren't interested in having a serious debate. You don't like the intervention, you think the Obama = Bush thing is oh so clever, and you like the idea of going after folks because you think they are acting just like Bush supporters. Obama isn't Bush, I'm not just like a Bush supporter, and Libya isn't Iraq. Heck, invading Iraq isn't FISA, or torture. You'd think if there was one place one could come to find people who understand nuance and non-one size fits all, black-white thinking, it would be here.

[no limit]

113. I didn't ask you if Obama = Bush. I asked you if you ever thought Bush's actions were illegal

why are you refusing to answer this question?

[qazplm]

123. can you read?

I mean seriously. When I say, "now if you want to ask whether or not his actions violated international law that's another kettle of fish," or when I say, "now if you want to talk about whether or not he deceived Congress" do you not get any sense at all of what that is saying?

You would do better if you spent less time trying to extremize those whom you disagree with.

I'm sure Bush violated all sorts of things. But we are specifically talking about one area. Focus on that one area if you don't mind and quit trying to expand arguments folks have specifically limited to one set of facts and laws and take them to extreme and ridiculous extents.

[no limit]

133. Yes, lets focus on one area. FISA

Did he violate that law or not?

[MineralMan]

137. Off topic, seriously.

Let's not stray too far from the issue you raised in the OP, OK?

[no limit]

139. This is in no way off topic. If the argument you two are spewing is correct

then FISA violations weren't illegal.

I love how you guys want to argue this in a vacuum as if history doesn't exist.

[qazplm]

141. you clearly

can't wrap your brain around "the argument we are spewing" so any conclusions you draw are equally as suspect.

[no limit]

146. You just admitted below, you think FISA violations weren't illegal

I understand your argument perfectly. What you don't understand is that your argument is batshit insane.

[MineralMan]

149. You know...I'm done with this discussion.

You go right ahead, though. When you begin to get personal with the argument, then I'm out.

[qazplm]

152. tell me about it

one would be better off teaching a cat to drive a car.

It's possible, but man that's a lotta work.

[qazplm]

140. clearly he didn't

because at the end of the day Congress authorized retroactively what he did.

If Congress had not done so, then yes he would have violated the law.

See how that works? When Congress is the body that is "offended" by the law such as lack of notice, then it is Congress that gets to decide whether the law was violated and they can even decide to change the law more expansively and even make it retroactive (provided it isn't made more restrictive).

I know you think you are making a great point with FISA but you are just highlighting the opposite.

[no limit]

143. I didn't think you would honestly sink that low

You have sunk to the point of saying that what Bush did with FISA was perfectly legal just so that you don't have to say what Obama is doing is illegal.

There was a law that prevent a president from spying on american citizens. Bush said fuck that law, he'll do what he wants. And as you said he kept congress and everyone else out of the loop. And you today are saying that this wasn't illegal because a chicken shit congress didn't mind.

I can not understand people like you. It's as if you don't stand for anything, all you are capable of is standing behind something (Obama).

[qazplm]

151. no

because a chicken shit congress CHANGED THE LAW RETROACTIVELY.

You seem to have a problem with a few things:

you don't understand the difference between the law and the Constitution, they are not synonymous. Something can be legal and wrong, it can be legal and unconstitutional, it can be illegal but constitutional, it can be illegal but right. You don't understand the terms and you use them with no regard to their definitions.

The law can change. And so long as it does not violate ex post facto, it can be changed retroactively.
For example, Company A violates a law. That law has been standing for fifty years.
Consumer B takes the A to court.
The court says, this law is unconstitutional. Company A wins.
Company A didn't break the law at the end of the day, even though at the time they actually did.

That does not mean I or other agree with Company A or the court's interpretation of the law. It only means their actions are no legal.

They didn't break the law because, in this case the courts, say they didn't.
The analogy is no different when Congress decides to change the law.
IT does not mean I am defending Congress, or Bush, or the actions. It does not mean I think they were constitutional, it only means that Congress decided they were legal.

See, it's called nuance and it's called having more than a third fucking grade understanding of the law, legal theory or how our system works.

[no limit]

160. They did not change the law retroactively. They simply made it legal once they found out

you make this claim then go on to say I don't understand how the law works?

The amount of things you have said in this thread that have been totally wrong is unbelievable to me. And I have a feeling you know you are spewing bullshit.

[Rex]

56. They are, yet we are free to fight about it forever here on DU.

Note - nothing will change by what ever turns out in this discussion, the US will still do whatever it is going to do.

We just like to argue about the subject.

A lot.

I can see how Obama did what he did and Congress has decided silence is an unwritten agreement imo.

Except for DK and Newt...God what a combo! Who would have thought those two had any common ground!?

[no limit]

57. What you say is true. But that doesn't mean what Obama and congress is doing

is in any way legitimate or for that matter legal.

[qazplm]

70. so now your argument is that

Congress is violating it's own law???

Really? I mean let that sink in for a moment. You are arguing that even if Congress believes it fits, if you don't believe it fits, well then...

[no limit]

77. You keep ignoring this question, maybe you can finally answer it for me

was every single action Bush took during his administration legal? Remember, your argument is that if congress doesn't intervine then it must be legal. Therefore everything Bush ever did was legal. And this I don't have to tell you is an absolutely absurd argument.

[qazplm]

86. are you freaking kidding me?

So now if I say that under the war powers act, since he actually got congressional authorization for the use of force, and because he was continually funded by Congress then that must mean I'm saying that "every single action Bush took during his administration is legal?"

I guess you missed a certain word I used repeatedly in my post. It's a word which is explicitly used to not mean every time.
Try again.

[no limit]

90. Jesus christ. Your argument is that if congress doesn't go after a president that presidents actions

are legal.

Is that not the argument you are making here?

Congress never went after Bush for violating FISA. In fact they when they discovered Bush was breaking the law by violating FISA they gave him authority to do what he was doing. Does that mean Bush never violated FISA?

How about on torture? Congress never went after Bush for that. Does that mean torture was legal?

[qazplm]

96. I said that

if Congress implicitly approves of an action by CONTINUING TO FUND SAID ACTION YEAR AFTER YEAR then yes they consider it legal.
There is a difference between complete silence and taking actual steps that show agreement like funding.
There is a difference between complete silence and Congress actively and explicitly asking for notification and not once ever asking for prior approval.
There is a difference between complete silence and retroactively giving approval. There is no ex post facto law that prevents retroactively making something not a crime.

You are trying to compare FISA which was completely hidden from Congress for years, to Libya where Congress has had complete notification and information within 48 hours.
It's utterly ridiculous.

[no limit]

114. It was hidden from congress for years. But then congress went back and gave Bush authority

and all the telecoms that cooperated immunity (a democratic congress mind you).

Therefore according to you what Bush did with FISA was perfectly legal. Right?

[MineralMan]

52. Why did GHW Bush go to Iraq, starting with a UN-approved

No-Fly Zone, then. When did Iraq attack the United States? Same with Bush, Jr. You are insisting on an interpretation that does not seem to be used by our government. What can I say? We've done it before, and we're doing it again. You may not be seeing the entire picture here, in terms of legality.

[no limit]

60. Bush went to congress and got authorization for the Iraq war. Are you not aware of this?

And let me just understand your argument here. You are saying that because something was done before that automatically makes it legal?

[qazplm]

65. sometimes, yes

there is plenty of precedent in the legal world for "customary law" particularly in international law.

there is also plenty of precedent for the idea of post-ratification where Congress implicitly or explicitly ratifies actions after they are taken, such as continuing to fund a military operation.

finally, when Congress does the same thing every time, or fails to do the same thing every time, in response to a law THEY CREATED, it's pretty darn fair to say, well that must be what Congress meant.

So when Congress never, ever requires pre-approval for the President to use troops in the world, and only requires 48 hours notice after he does it, then it's pretty darn fair to say, well that's what Congress meant.

And when Congress allows all sorts of interventions that are well short of a direct threat to the US, again that broad interpretation might just be what they intended.
Same goes with section 2 and treaties and statutory law and what not.

[no limit]

71. What an absolutely absurd argument

you just said that everything Bush did during his administration is now perfectly legal. Great job.

[qazplm]

78. it would take

a really bad understanding of the English language to come to that conclusion.

[no limit]

117. and it would take

a really bad understanding of the law to come to the conclusion you have. That as long as congress doesn't do anything about it the action is legal.

[qazplm]

125. lol

since it's clear that isn't what I said, and since anyone with any ability to rationally and reasonably listen to what someone is saying would see that isn't what i said, it's clear to me that you don't have that ability on this issue and thus further discourse would be maddeningly futile because it's a waste of my time to type the same thing over and over only to have you completely ignore it.

[qazplm]

40. couple of possibilities

and one assumption:

Assumption: the purpose section is binding on the president and not merely congressional window dressing

possibility 1, he isn't using any of those purposes. Of course, this leaves it open to Congress to come back and say, you have exceeded your authority, we deauthorize funding for this operation. That they haven't suggests something. They at least at some level are "good enough" with this.

possibility 2, a broad interpretation of purpose 3. See above for the solution should Congress decide his interpretation is too broad.
Of course, given the huge number of these interventions that Congress has not once said no to in the short term, it would seem they share this broad interpretation.

[Rex]

46. Yes Congress and the President are in agreement

on this action...the GOPers notwithstanding and it seems they are going to be quiet about this (Newt doesn't count) even DK shutup about this and satdown. Seems like a good move imo. I can see how he did it now, legally and morally. Thanks.

[no limit]

54. If he isn't meating the requirements of the resolution he isn't abiding by it

correct?

[Rex]

Actually I see what they are saying and he is meeting the requirements

by getting NATO and the UN involved, first. Pretty sneaky, but totally legal.

[no limit]

67. Please see post 18. Even if the excuse is that he has statutory authority granted by the UN

he is actually in violation of the UN resolution.

[Rex]

105. Okay, then why hasn't anyone in the UN called him out for this violations?

If he is violating their charter, then where is the outrage? Or is there any?

[MineralMan]

127. There is none. Russia and, I think China, abstained on the

Security Council resolution for the No Fly Zone. They did not veto it, as they could have. Acquiescence, I think it's called.

[qazplm]

156. well remember his argument is

that none of that matters. We can't possibly look to the actions of the possibly offended party to see if they are actually offended.

[qazplm]

62. who determines whether

he is meeting the requirements of the resolution, Congress, correct?

And it sure seems to me like Congress is satisfied, wouldn't you agree?

Sooooo....?

[no limit]

64. I am not talking to congress, I am talking to you

the war powers resolution is clearly not being followed by this administration as was just pointed out to you. What congress does or doesn't do isn't relevent here. What is relevent is if Obama is abiding by the resolution or not. You don't seem to have an answer other than punting the question off to a body filled with politicians.

[qazplm]

66. and I'm telling you that

the determination of whether "the war powers resolution is not being followed" is not made by me, or you, it is made by Congress and CLEARLY they believe it is being followed, since it's kinda their resolution.

You've decided that you are going to interpret it your way, and thus it's the only way it can be interpreted and clearly others and Congress disagree with you.

[no limit]

69. So again, like I asked you above. Bush never broke the law?

Since congress never decided that he did?

[qazplm]

75. Good grief

first of all there isn't "the law" singular.

There are a whole host of laws both national and international. He may have broken international law and he may have certainly deceived Congress intentionally. That's a whole nother area of discussion.

But ignoring that yes Congress is the body that decides how their laws are interpreted in conjunction with the judicial branch, and the latter is absolutely not going to jump in when the former says everything is just fine. Considering Congress gave an authorization for the use of force before Bush even invaded Iraq, would seem to be ignoring the issues of deception, yes it was legal.

[no limit]

80. You are telling me Bush never broke any domestic laws?

FISA for example?

[MineralMan]

82. And, since Congress is the only body that can act to do anything

to the President, they are the only law that matters. Even the Supreme Court cannot initiate any action against the President. Only Congress has that power.

[MineralMan]

76. The person you're talking to may have an opinion about it, as you do,

but neither you or that person are in any position to do anything about it. The law doesn't allow it. Only Congress can act, and it isn't going to. Your opinion is valid, but only as an opinion, not as a matter of law.

[qazplm]

81. there are only three branches that determine law

None of the three have determined that this is invalid. Congress continues to fund it, the President is doing it, and the judiciary has no controversy upon which to intervene. So it isn't my opinion, it's the current state of things.

[no limit]

85. Can you stop repeating this if you are going to ignore all the questions I ask you

in terms of how these statements of yours relate to Bush?

Did Bush ever violate any domestic laws? FISA for example?

[no limit]

83. Well yes, that's quite obvious.

I am not trying to enact law, I have no power to do that. We are hopefully trying to establish the validity of opinions in this discussion.

[MineralMan]

93. Actually, no. You appear to be asking people to do something for

which they have no competence. I cannot say whether a President did something illegal. It's completely beyond my competence. I can certainly say that I strongly disagree with many such actions, but I really can't say they were illegal. Not my call. Not yours, either, for that matter. You can opine that they're illegal all you wish, though. We all have that right.

[no limit]

102. Did you ever during the Bush presidency think he was doing illegal things?

[MineralMan]

115. Yes, I did. And my thinking had no effect. Since I am not in

a position to do anything about it, I was powerless. I can think anything I like, and I do. You can do the same. My thoughts, however carry zero weight anywhere until election day. Then I can vote for whomever I wish. I did not vote for Bush. I did not vote for either Bush. That is the extent of my actual individual power over elected officials.

[no limit]

122. But you are saying we can't question the legallity of Obama's actions because we aren't lawyers

yet you had no problems questioning the legallity of Bush's actions.

Do you not see the problem in this thinking?

Again, I am not asking that your opinion is only valid if you are in the power to act legally. I am simply asking you for your opinion.

[qazplm]

129. perhaps what he is saying

IN THIS INSTANCE when Congress has clearly interpreted through it's actions, not silence, not lack of actions, but through it's actions, consistently over 40 years on the type of interventions it has allowed, and in the funding of those interventions that in those cases those actions are not illegal, particularly in an area where the entirety of the law deals with determining whether or not it will allow/approve military action by the president.

Do you not see the difference between this principle in such a narrow area and your attempt to expand it to mean something absurdly different?
I mean clearly you don't given the number of times folks have explained it to you.

[no limit]

138. so what you are saying is warrantless wiretapping of american citizens was legal

since when congress found out it decided to allow Bush to do what he was doing and it gave telecoms retroactive immunity.

[qazplm]

142. so basically your question is

was what bush doing legal when congress retroactively made it legal?

Uh, yeah.

If your question was, PRIOR to Congress making Bush's actions and the telecoms legal were they in violation of the statute, the answer was probably yes, thus why Congress was forced to act, one way, or the other. It's why the makeup of Congress is important. A fully democratic Congress with clear filibuster proof margins might have decided not to be so magnanimous or indulgent.

[no limit]

150. Congress didn't make it retroactively legal. Once they found it they made the program going forward

legal. And they gave telecoms retroactive immunity.

So according to you the FISA law was never violated (eventhough it clearly was).

[MineralMan]

132. You can question anything you wish.

And it is not a matter of whether an opinion is valid or not. You're missing the point here.

[PurityOfEssence]

249. Well, you're reading it completely wrong, and here's how:

The consultation is to be done before introduction of forces, but nowhere does it say that consultation can substitute for permission. This is how he must comport himself IN ADDITION to having the specific triggering event that allows him to send in the troops.

You then go on to INCORRECTLY refer to the REPORTING of Section 4 as "consultation". It is not. This section defines how he must REPORT any action taken, which is to be preceded by consultation.

The very section itself is entitled "REPORTING", so how on earth can anyone consider that the stipulations of providing information are somehow substitutions for getting the necessary permission?

If it's a declared war, there's no timetable. If Congress authorizes an action, the President may put that on ice and wait until ready, then send in the hounds (at which point the 60 day clock starts ticking) and report the initiation within 2 days.

How can you conceivably say that there's "There is no part that talks about the president requiring initial congressional approval. None. This isn't a war, the president doesn't have the power to "initiate a war."? That's pure idiocy. It very clearly states that the President may only send in forces with a declaration, an authorization or on his own after an attack. He MUST have Congress' permission unless attacked. By the War Powers Act, it IS A WAR; they define this action as sending armed forces into hostilities or someplace where they're imminent. That's war. This fits. There's no wiggle room. Congress specifically crafted this to make sure that the President could NEVER send in the boys by himself unless we're attacked. It's plain as day. IT'S THE SETTLED DEFINITION OF THE ACT. IT'S NOT THE LEAST BIT MURKY OR OPEN TO QUESTION.

If a triggering event allows the president to act, he may do so, but if it's not declared war, he has 48 hours from the opening move (which may be months after an authorization) to notify Congress, he must have already been consulting and must continue to do so, and the rest of it is pretty clear.

How much more clear does it need to be made? Now will you please do the right thing by admitting your error and endeavor to set straight the innocent bystanders you've poisoned with your adamant incorrectness?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

58. Feh! That's disgusting.

[Rex]

61. My eyes!!!!

Must...flush out eyes, horrible, nightmare...make it go away!!!! Arggghhh!!!!!

[MineralMan]

68. It's gone.

Thank goodness...and the moderators.

[indimuse]

50. Finally! Thank you!

This invasion is devoid of any kind of sanity. It's unconstitutional.

[ClarkUSA]

74. President Obama has already informed Congress as per U.S. law in accordance with the War Powers Act.

Read the facts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637204

Furthermore, on 3/1, a Senate resolution calling for a Libyan no-fly zone was passed unanimously:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637122

[no limit]

87. "Still, the resolution was non-binding"

Did you miss that part in the link you posted?

[ClarkUSA]

94. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Did you miss this part in the link I poster re: President Obama notifying Congress as per The War Powers Act?

And he did notify the Senate as well.

[inna]

79. geez. what a country.

[Nye Bevan]

84. The Libyan action certainly violates the War Powers Resolution on the face of it.

But it does provide an escape hatch, stating that it is not "intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President." So it's open for Obama to assert that his power as commander in chief allows him to wage war without Congress, despite the Constitution's insistence to the contrary.

Many modern presidents have made such claims, and Harry Truman acted upon this assertion in Korea. But it's surprising to find Obama on the verge of ratifying such precedents. He was elected in reaction to the unilateralist assertions of John Yoo and other apologists for George W. Bush-era illegalities. Yet he is now moving onto ground that even Bush did not occupy. After a lot of talk about his inherent powers, Bush did get Congress to authorize his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, Obama is putting Bush-era talk into action in Libya -- without congressional authorization.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/obama_s_unconstitutional_war

I support the Libyan action nonetheless.

[ClarkUSA]

89. I disagree. On 3/1, a Senate resolution calling for a Libyan no-fly zone was passed unanimously.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637122

<<I support the Libyan action nonetheless.>>

I agree.

[no limit]

92. Was that resolution binding?

[ClarkUSA]

97. See Reply 94. Congress was indeed notified as per The War Powers Act.

[no limit]

101. See reply #35. You are ignoring key parts of the resolution

[ClarkUSA]

108. Why are you ignoring the fact that President Obama sent a letter to Congress?

Read the facts. Don't ignore them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637204

Is it because you prefer to split hairs about the unanimous Senate resolution which was never meant to be binding but was meant to get approval from that body of Congress? That doesn't change the fact that President Obama did not violate The War Powers Act.

By the way, were you calling for Clinton's impeachment when he participated in no fly zones?

[qazplm]

116. because he's decided

that Libya is not a proper purpose under the first section of the act, and even though there are NO SANCTIONS listed in the act for failure to follow the proper purpose, and even though over the last oh say 40 years or so Congress has continued to interpret those purposes very broadly from Grenada to Panama to Lebanon to Somalia to Libya in the 80s and today, because he's determined they don't meet the proper purposes then it must mean Obama (and apparently Congress) has broken the law regardless of whether he followed the notification procedures.

[ClarkUSA]

130. Of course. Thank you for spelling it out so clearly for me.

I doubt there was this type of outrage directed at President Clinton for participating in no fly zones. There certainly weren't calls for impeachment.
But it seems President Obama is held to a different standard in all things.

[MineralMan]

136. Only by some is he held to a different standard. It's odd that

many of those are supposed to be on the side of the Democrats.

[ClarkUSA]

144. Hmmm.... yes, it is odd.

[no limit]

168. Thanks for ignoring what the law actually says

But you dont seem worried about the fact that the facts don't match what you keep repeating. that the president only needs to provide congress with notification:

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

171. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Thanks for ignoring this fact.

[no limit]

192. Is what I just quoted to you not from the war powers act?

[ClarkUSA]

199. The section of the law I stated trumps whatever you have to say.

[PurityOfEssence]

266. No it does not. Those are the LIMITATIONS Congress puts on him AFTER he acts legally

It's really, really, really clear. It's even labeled as "CONGRESSIONAL ACTION"; it's in Section 5.

Where does it say that he can act on his own? The whole beginning of the Resolution labors the point of showing out how he may not act alone unless attacked, and that they're talking about even the smallest kind of action. Article 7 reiterates that later, pointing out that it even pertains to advisers leading foreign troops or irregulars. They're strait-jacketing the President and making it obvious.

You've been shown this over and over and over. Here's the text of the act. It specifically states when he may act, and then lays out the requirements for consultation, notification and the timetable. The ONLY instances of initiation are very clear and in Section 2.

[no limit]

118. Are you going to respond to what I asked you to respond to?

The resolution clearly states Obama must get approval from congress in section (C). It doens't say he must send a letter, it says he must get approval.

Are you ignoring this on purpose?

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

135. FACT: President Obama informed Congress as per U.S. law in accordance with the War Powers Act.

Read the facts. Don't ignore them:

""the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637204

Pres. Obama has not broken any laws, much less violated the War Powers Act.

[no limit]

161. You can't possibly be serious. I never denied Obama informed congress

I said that the requirements set out in the war powers resolution don't only require notification, they also require approval. And I gave you a direct quote from the law which states this.

You keep ignoring that and then claiming things nobody is disputing. Are you doing this on purpose?

[ClarkUSA]

170. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=782640&mesg_id=783582

60 days isn't up yet, so stop ignoring this fact.

[qazplm]

109. and where in the purpose

does it state that he must notify congress before using forces?

And why would the notification require authorization after 60 days if authorization is required prior.
Oh wait yes, that's it, you believe there is a section that says that the notification process only applies to, in effect, things that aren't direct threats.
Of course, it doesn't say that...

[no limit]

126. Its right there, at this point you must be ignoring this on purpose:

(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.

-----------------

This says a president can only introduce american forces in to battle if and only if one of the 3 requirements above are met.

[qazplm]

134. ignoring you say?

Because I asked you where in the purpose it stated the president must get approval before using troops, which you ignored and instead said these are the only times he can do it.

So your answer must be, there is no requirement to get approval before using troops.

And Congress will determine whether or not the CIC has usurped THEIR power, and since they have not only not made that determination but they:

a. received notice
b. continue to fund the operation

then they've affirmatively made the opposite determination, that the President is free to continue for now.
We will learn again 60 days after the notification whether they will continue to affirmatively approve.

Congress could have simply REQUIRED the president to notify them before any use of force short of invasion. They didn't, that means there is room for interpretation and presidential flexibility.

[no limit]

159. It states he can not go to war without approval. Jesus fucking christ

are you not reading the same thing I am? Right there in (C).

[ClarkUSA]

173. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=782640&mesg_id=783582

60 days isn't up yet, dear.

[qazplm]

178. it isnt a fucking war

there is nothing in c that has the word approval in it or any word close to the word approval. I've never seen someone so aggressively wrong in my life.

[no limit]

207. no it doesnt have the word approval. But it says the president must get congressional authorization:

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

225. ... within 60 days of beginning hostilities. You keep leaving this salient fact out. I wonder why?

:sarcasm:

You are wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

98. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636826&mesg_id=637204

[phleshdef]

100. And with that, the OPs silly argument is pretty much obliterated.

[JuniperLea]

124. The truth will be ignored, however...

It isn't in keeping with the picture of Obama and the underside of the bus.

This has been debunked so many times it's not even funny anymore... yet we're still being bombarded with this bullshit... I wonder why that is.

[EFerrari]

166. Claiming that the law has been "debunked" over and over

doesn't make it so.

But here's a good test: find a constitutional scholar besides John Yoo who agrees with you.

[no limit]

169. Or simply read the law:

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

174. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=782640&mesg_id=783582

There's a long time to go before 60 days is up, so stop ignoring this key fact.

[no limit]

193. feels like I'm talking to a fucking robot. Why do you keep ignoring what I keep quoting?

A link to a post you made elsehwere is not proof. The actual text of the law is proof. And I keep providing you with that text and you keep responding with the same programmed response. What is wrong with you?

[ClarkUSA]

197. Facts don't matter? Then your demonizing mutterings has zero credence.

You clearly didn't read President Obama's letter to Congress. Neither can you disprove what I'm saying because I am correct.

[no limit]

201. I don't have to disprove what you said, the law I keep quoting disproves what you said

when did I say facts don't matter? I said you posting links to your own posts elsewhere don't constitute proof.

The proof is the text in the law I keep quoting. You have no argument against this text, do you?

[ClarkUSA]

176. Too bad you don't know what The War Powers Act really says.

"the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"
Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=782640&mesg_id=783582

60 days isn't up yet, dear.

[EFerrari]

180. Too bad you have to cherry pick through the WPA in order to make your

and John Yoo's point.

[ClarkUSA]

182. It's called the law as it was meant to be followed. Too bad you can't acknowledge you are wrong.

Cherrypicking what's in the law is what John Yoo did and what the OP is doing.

There's no refuting the facts. Mark you calendar. :)

[EFerrari]

186. No, you didn't cite the whole law. And you don't refute the facts.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

189. Why should I? Neither did the OP. Plus, I cited the part of the law that debunks the OP's concern.

[no limit]

194. You cited a small section of the entire law taken totally out of context.

I am showing you text from the law that says a president must get authorization from congress to use military force. You have ignored it each and every single time. Why? I will repost it for you one more time:

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

198. lol! Wrong. Says you, but it's clear that section of the law is pertinent.

[no limit]

200. You are telling me when congress wrote that part I keep quoting

they were just kidding?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? I am having a really hard time taking you seriously right now.

[ClarkUSA]

202. I'm telling you that your OP claims are garbage and I have debunked them w/a fact you won't accept.

I'm done kicking this useless OP. I've made my point. :)

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

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

[phleshdef]

210. You can continue spamming the boards with that all day. You are still wrong.

[no limit]

216. I asked you a question above about Obama violating the UN resolution

looking forward to your reply.

[ClarkUSA]

226. Moving the goalpost to avoid acknowledging you are wrong? How predictable.

[Name removed]

227. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

162. That would be true if you guys stopped ignoring what the war powers act actually says

and instead you keep wishing what it should say.

This is the text you continue to ignore:

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

172. "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=782640&mesg_id=783582

60 days isn't up yet, dear.

[no limit]

205. the law requires congressional approval

(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.

[phleshdef]

208. The President has specific statutory authorization to answer the call of the UN Security Council.

Period.

[no limit]

212. Let's say he does. If Obama violates the UN resolution will he then be breaking the law?

Should he be impeached if he does?

[phleshdef]

220. Describe this hypothetical manner in which he would violate it.

I think you are getting at the notion that the UN could force us to use our military even when we don't want to, but from my best reading of the associated acts and treaties, there is language to ensure that doesn't happen, at least for the most part.

If a President does something really bad and highly illegal, said President should be impeached and booted from office.

[no limit]

221. Let me better explain my notion

You are saying the president has authority to do what he did under the war powers act because the UN passed a resolution and we have a treaty with the UN which gives Obama statutory authority to act.

So what happens if he violates this UN resolution which gives him the authority? For one example, the UN resolution forbids the deployment of ground troops in to Libya. Lets say Obama does this anyway, is he then breaking both international and domestic law?

Do you think that would be serious enough to warrant impeachment?

[phleshdef]

222. Every situation has its own unique events and reasons, but as a general rule...

...if the President is knowingly violating a treaty beyond a shadow of a doubt, then that President is breaking international law and likely breaking domestic law. If an international law is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, the Constitution takes precedence (which is what some are saying is going on with this Libya situation, though I highly disagree). In any event, if there is no constitutional reason for a President to violate a UN resolution and if there is no other extremely compelling reason for said President doing so, then I'd lean towards impeachment. And by extremely compelling I mean things like mass genocide on an epic scale or a nuclear bomb is about to be fired off, stuff that the UN would approve anyway, but in this hypothetical situation, did not for whatever reason.

[no limit]

224. I agree with you on that

The UN resolution is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution

It says that no member nation can violate the arms embargo and no member nation can have ANY kind of presence on the ground.

We already know that the CIA is on the ground which is a clear violation of the UN resolution. We also know the president is seriously considering arming rebels which would also violate the resolution.

So even if your argument is that Obama has authorization under the UN resolution what he is doing is still illegal since he is in violation of that very resolution.

[phleshdef]

231. Dead wrong. The CIA is NOT considered an "occupying force".

I imagine you are referring to this part of the resolution.

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

According to the UNs own definition of occupation:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

In other words, an occupying force is a force that comes in and takes something over. It doesn't mean "just being there". Our military personnel stationed in other countries are not considered an occupying force in, say Germany or Japan or Thailand, for example. Simply having CIA officers in the country to assist rebels and gather intelligence(as if they weren't already there before this even started) in no way qualifies as an occupying force.

As for the arms embargo, I've not seen enough on the story, but it hasn't happened. And if it does, I imagine the UN will sign off on it first. The President didn't follow the UNs way of doing things so closely, so far, just to suddenly go the other direction. Remember, they asked us to take action to begin with.

[no limit]

232. So you are saying the UN resolution doesn't prevent ground troops

since they wouldn't be technically a occupying force.

What if the CIA is providing the rebels with arms? You agree that's illegal, correct?

[phleshdef]

233. They aren't an occupying force unless they participate in an occupation.

That one isn't a very hard thing to understand.

And Yes, I imagine arming the rebels without UN approval could have some legs to stand on as far as causing a legal stir.

[phleshdef]

99. Were you calling for Clinton's impeachment when he participated in no fly zones?

[no limit]

104. I was too young to have an opinion.

But if I was old enough back then I would probably have a pretty serious problem with the Clinton administration killing half a million Iraqi children then saying it was worth it.

[qazplm]

107. you are confusing and mingling

the legality of the action itself, and the legality of any acts that may have been conducted during the action.

Focus.

[phleshdef]

120. My point is, President's have been engaging in international no fly zones in this manner for ages...

...and nothing President Obama did is any different from the way many past Presidents, going all the way back to Truman, have engaged in them. I'm not sure why NOW people are suddenly raising a constitutional concern over it. If Bush was President and did this, in this way, I would not oppose it. I opposed the war in Iraq once it was known that they based it on faulty intelligence that was obviously faulty. Thats why I thought legal action should have been taken against the Bush administration, because it seems that they may have knowingly pushed intelligence that they knew to be highly questionable. If Saddam Hussein had been in the middle of offing thousands of people over political protests and Bush would have joined a multilateral effort to enforce a no fly zone that was backed by most of our allies and the entire Arab League, I would have been behind his actions 100%. Thats not what happened.

[qazplm]

157. exactly

the problem with Iraq was not the invasion itself, it was the manner in which the administration convinced Congress to go along with the invasion, through deceit.
But the problem is, once Congress decided to continue funding even after that deceit was unveiled, they tacitly acceded to the war's continuation.

[EFerrari]

184. "They all do it " isn't a defense although you are right,

there has been powers creep for a long time. And every time, people do raise this same objection, there's nothing new or sudden about that. Every time, the new president tacks on a little more authority to the office until you reach the day when the Secretary of State openly is saying the President will ignore Congress.

I'd like to see the evidence that Gaddafi was "offing" thousands of people. The Libyan protests unlike the Egyptian ones did not stay non-violent past the first day. Bush did have a "coalition" and the entire Arab League did not vote in favor of and does not support this action. In fact, they started protesting it the very next day after the vote.

[ClarkUSA]

188. Repeat: "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves."

Read this again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=782640&mesg_id=784069

There is no "powers creep" here.

<< until you reach the day when the Secretary of State openly is saying the President will ignore Congress >>

What's the full quote? Congressional resolutions are non-binding, so yes, they can be ignored.

<< I'd like to see the evidence that Gaddafi was "offing" thousands of people. >>

Ask for proof from: the UN, the French and British embassies, and the Arab League. Frankly, they are more credible than anyone here. BTW, not sure if you care, but Gaddafi threatened genocide:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=762178&mesg_id=763683

<< In fact, they started protesting it the very next day after the vote. >>

Wrong. It was one loudmouth who spoke out, then recanted the very next day, according to New York Times coverage. There hasn't been any complaints since; in fact, Qatar and the IAE are part of the coalition now.

[no limit]

203. Repeat: the law requires congressional approval before the president can act

this has been repeated to you over and over again along with the quoted text from the law itself that proves this. You responding like a robot over and over with links to your own posts as proof doesn't change the facts. That fact is that the law says the following:

(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.

[ClarkUSA]

223. ... within 60 days of beginning hostilities. You keep leaving this salient fact out. I wonder why?

:sarcasm:

You are wrong.

[PurityOfEssence]

258. The 60 days are the time limit imposed AFTER he performs an act that's legal

That's when he has to stop or request time to withdraw. It has nothing to do with permission or anything of the sort. Section 2 defines the ONLY 3 instances a President can introduce forces. Section 4 is about his REQUIREMENT to report 48 hours after the first action, and the timetable is Section 5.

[phleshdef]

206. Precedent matters.

This Libya thing isn't "tacking on new authority". This is the way Presidential power to participate in UN sanction actions has been accepted for longer than Barack Obama has been alive. Multiple Congresses and multiple generations of voters have recognized the same process President Obama used to participate.

We know for a fact that Ghaddafi had over a thousand people killed in one day not that long ago. No one owes you evidence of shit. Thats as low as holocaust denial.

[DevonRex]

153. LOL!!!! I'm sure you'll get a lot of new members for that site you're advertising

[no limit]

165. Just spammers mostly so far. But thanks for your concern

[MineralMan]

175. I just noticed that. Funny that I missed it through all those

posts. I went over there. Not very busy, the forum. I can see why he's advertising it here. You need a certain mass of members for a forum to succeed, I think. I've never been tempted to start one. Too darned much work, really.

[DevonRex]

177. I just noticed today.

But now a few things make sense.

[EFerrari]

181. When all else fails, attack the poster. n/t

[DevonRex]

183. What attack? I laughed at the content of the OP. Then I commented on his website.

But alert on it if you feel so strongly.

[EFerrari]

185. Do you have anything to say about the issues in the OP

or is giggling the sum of your contribution?

[DevonRex]

187. What I had to say was "LOL.".

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[Occulus]

191. Jealous much?

I just signed up. Can't hurt anything, and I might read something there that doesn't appear here, or scrolls off the main pages too fast.

That site can also do attachments, which would be very handy here if it were implemented... which it isn't. I don't think DCForum+ can serve attached files, truth be told....

[DevonRex]

195. Good for you.

And for your info I laughed at the content of the OP. Then I said he'd get lots of members from du. I'm not quite sure why I'm getting attacked for saying that. And apparently he fact that I mentioned the site has drawn attention to it's existence. I'd think that would be a good thing for a new website.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

230. UN sanction to do it

Unlike Boosh.

Epic fail.

[no limit]

235. Does arming rebels fall under the UN sanction?

[PurityOfEssence]

267. He got the UN, but violated US law. Bush failed to get the UN, but obeyed US law.

The very act of answering the UN's call in this instance is SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL.

Bush's lying to Congress is certainly a breech of US law, and the forcing of a vote 2 weeks before the first national election after 911 is downright dirty pool, but by publicly obeying the War Powers Act, Bush at least didn't actively help destroy a very important restraint on monarchic power.

Obama is dealing a body blow to the sense of responsibility to respect the law, and the concept of pluralism. What he's doing is far more destructive to the Republic, and it is a flagrant, arrogant and aggressive act of sheer illegality. He is also in direct violation of the UN Participation Act, because he needed Congress' Authorization to engage in such an operation. This is deeply, deeply ugly and immoral as well as solidly illegal on all counts.

[RegieRocker]

242. Man this police action ploy has been going on for a very long time. We would

have to dig a few up to arrest them all.

[Taitertots]

248. War powers resolution requires an attack or threat of imminent attack

If there is no attack or threat of attack than Obama can't claim his actions are covered under the war powers act. 48 hours or 60 days are irrelevant because no attack or threat of attack existed.

It is certainly illegal when Obama does it.

[pokerfan]

260. Our "interests and values" were attacked

Whatever that means.

[Kalun D]

250. Just Another Notch

in the gunbelt of the

two faced corporate bagman in the White House

and the continuation and expansion of the unitary executive

the more power you can concentrate in the one branch of government that's represented by only one person, the presidency

the easier the rich corporate greed pigs can control the country.