Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: green iguana

“...he has done nothing unconstitutional.”

The act of ordering military action with circumstances that the US, nor US interests were attacked initially is unconstitutional.

He used the excuse of a UN resolution.

That resolution belonged to the US Congress to debate, and authorize any action, NOT the President.

24 posted on 03/23/2011 10:51:43 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: rockinqsranch

I posted this to a related article - I am not happy about it but it still requires interpretation (lawyer not I am - victim yes).

USC TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVI > § 287d—d000-.html

In this code is written -
“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”

Articles 41,42 and surrounding available here.

I guess we have an article 42 in effect which does not require congressional input.

The War Powers Resolution needs work to clarify procedures in events such as this. I see no reason why the code cannot be modified so as to require Congressional consultation (not just advisement) in situations such as this.

Some suggestion are given in pages 44-48 in CRS RL32267

I like the idea of a Consultation Group described therein.

The whole issue is confused - or in my case confusing.

48 posted on 03/23/2011 12:47:48 PM PDT by PeteCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson