Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues (Obama claims he's above the law)
NY Times ^ | 6/15/2011 | Charles Savage

Posted on 06/15/2011 12:44:58 PM PDT by tobyhill

The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012electionbias; ayerscoupdetat; barackswar; dnc4alqaeda; dnccoupdetat; dncrico; dncvsamerica; dncvscongress; dncvsconstitution; doublestandard; firingsquad; illegalwar; libya; noaccountability; noamerica; nodocumentation; noflyzone; nojustice; nolaw4dnc; nolaws4dnc; nolaws4holder; nolaws4obama; notapeacemovement; notaxes4dnc; nothingtoseehere; notruth; obama4alqaeda; obamaabovethelaw; obamaforeignpolicy; obamaswar; obamavsamerica; obamavscongress; obamavsconstitution; obamunism; oup; pelosicoupdetat; warpowers; warpowersact; warpowersresolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last

1 posted on 06/15/2011 12:45:02 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The legal issues only apply to evil Republcans.

When a good Democrat president violates a law such as the War Powers Act, there is always some excuse, some reason, some technicality involved so that the good Democrat doesn’t have to follow the law.

And his fellow good Democrats in Congress, who would be howling if a Republican president violated this law, are silent.


2 posted on 06/15/2011 12:49:01 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


3 posted on 06/15/2011 12:50:01 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

"Is that legal?"
"I will make it legal."
4 posted on 06/15/2011 12:51:31 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“And his fellow good Democrats in Congress, who would be howling if a Republican president violated this law, are silent.”

I believe there are some Dims involved in this. Dennis The Menace, fur shure.


5 posted on 06/15/2011 12:51:54 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I never thought that I would utter the words Dennis Kucinich & correct in the same sentence!


6 posted on 06/15/2011 12:51:59 PM PDT by certrtwngnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

A clearly defined impeachable offense....yeah I can see Bonehead the Speaker pushing that!


7 posted on 06/15/2011 12:52:36 PM PDT by 95B30 ( The Professional Left: "Their morals are crooked, their take logic is flawed, their honor is stolen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Obama is playing a game of chicken. Unfortunately the repugnicans are chickens. Where is the bill to defund?


8 posted on 06/15/2011 12:52:39 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Well, then I stand corrected, if some Democrat congressmen are concerned about Obama ignoring the War Powers Act, and are part of the pending discussion of the issue.


9 posted on 06/15/2011 12:53:31 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Don’t agree with Dems and Repubs suing the president in court.

The Judicial Branch shouldn’t get involved, Congress has a way to fix this.

It is called impeachment, if they don’t have the gonads to do it, they should leave it alone.

These guys want to have it both ways and go to someone else to take care of it when they have the power already.


10 posted on 06/15/2011 12:53:31 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
(1) The War Powers Act is itself of highly questionable constitutionality - it is, at base, a strike against the separation of powers and of very dubious provenance.

(2) The fact that the President believes that he needs to play ball with the advocates of this questionable piece of legislation shows that he shares the leftist attitude of the framers of that sketchy Act.

(3) His legal team is either ignorant of, or does not want to make their case on, the executive power regarding treaties - which is the unassailable constitutional ground this intervention could easily stand on.

(4) It is bizarre that so-called "conservatives" and even self-described "Constitutionalists" would go to bat for the War Powers Act.

11 posted on 06/15/2011 12:54:03 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


12 posted on 06/15/2011 12:54:56 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

"Laws ... are for lesser Kings."


13 posted on 06/15/2011 12:55:35 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Nothing surpasses the complexity of the human mind. - Leto II: Dar-es-Balat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc
Even President Bush went to congress and got votes on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama just thinks he can get by with this one but since a majority of people question why we are even there, he will pay at the ballot boxes.
14 posted on 06/15/2011 12:56:33 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It is bizarre that so-called "conservatives" and even self-described "Constitutionalists" would go to bat for the War Powers Act

It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed. If Obama wants to make the un-Constitutional argument, then he should do so. Until then he's bound by his oath to faithfully execute the law.

On the other hand if the Pubbies had any gonads they'd strip out all funds for this misbeggoten Libyan debacle in the budget.

15 posted on 06/15/2011 12:57:53 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
I am beginning to believe that this guy is impeachable.

Criminally impeachable.

It's a race against the destruction of the US Constitution at this point, and he just may come up short.

16 posted on 06/15/2011 12:59:04 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (If Sarah Palin really was unelectable, state-run media would be begging the GOP to nominate her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This will be just like the “debt ceiling”. Obama and Bernacke will just keep printing money.


17 posted on 06/15/2011 1:00:59 PM PDT by radioone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

It’s time to stop all funding for it,,, and Impeach Obama. He is becoming a dictator.


18 posted on 06/15/2011 1:01:33 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Usurper illegal alien hussien obama claims he is above the law.

And if Congress doesn't act, he is.

19 posted on 06/15/2011 1:02:08 PM PDT by FreeMaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

When a Republican tries something like this, the Democrats and media accuse him of “using the Constitution for toilet paper” or some such.

A Democrat president does it, and the reaction is quite different.


20 posted on 06/15/2011 1:03:04 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Has anybody picked up a pattern here?

Obama doesn’t think the War Powers Act applies to him?

Obama thinks he doesn’t have to enforce our immigration laws as written.

Obama thinks he can give health care waivers to all his union cronies and campaign contributors while forcing the rest of us peasants to obey the law.

Obama thinks he and his cronies are immune to his own transparency policies.

Obama thinks he is an exception to his own Gitmo policies that he campaigned on in 08.

Obama thinks he is an exception to his own Iraq policies that he campaigned on in 08.

Obama laughs at the fact that his stimulus package was a huge failure when he said it would save the economy.

I have just listed every talking point that could defeat Barack Obama in 2012 and the Republican Party is nowhere to be found.


21 posted on 06/15/2011 1:03:09 PM PDT by radpolis (Liberals: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

So they keep their ‘ full-blown “hostilities’ just low enough so 0 can do
what HE wants.


22 posted on 06/15/2011 1:03:38 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (VOTE out the RATS! Go Sarah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 95B30

They impeached Bill Clinton, and what good did that do? The Senate has to vote to remove from office, and that’s never going to happen.


23 posted on 06/15/2011 1:03:45 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
All Bills regarding funding shall be begun in the House of Representatives, or something to that affect. The House is not serious or the DE-FUNDing would have already begun.
24 posted on 06/15/2011 1:04:06 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Obama saying we pulled out and saying NATO is in charge is a sad joke. We are NATO. And we are not pulled out. He lies.

Besides...TheWon better wake-up and realize it is a bipartisan anger on this...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2735162/posts


25 posted on 06/15/2011 1:04:49 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Allen West 2012 Make it happen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
It only takes a few minutes to read, then everyone can stop guessing:

War Powers Resolution

Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement 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) 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 thereof.

(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.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation 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.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) 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) 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

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

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

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment. CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same. Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives. W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative. Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

26 posted on 06/15/2011 1:05:20 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Immediately stop all funding.


27 posted on 06/15/2011 1:05:29 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Insisting that the President get a Congressional declaration of war for ongoing hostilities he initiated is not a defense of the War Powers Act - it is a defense of the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war.


28 posted on 06/15/2011 1:05:29 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

If this were Bush the media and Obama would have held impeachment by now.


29 posted on 06/15/2011 1:06:06 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Allen West 2012 Make it happen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radioone

Stunningly, most of the comments at the NY Times are against Obama on this. I believe he is reading the tea leaves on this one wrong. Even democrats are starting to get upset.


30 posted on 06/15/2011 1:06:21 PM PDT by TN4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

>>> War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues (Obama claims he’s above the law)

No, Obama did not claim he’s above the law. Because if you do not call it a war, it is not a war war.


31 posted on 06/15/2011 1:06:36 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

The difference is that Bush actually got a vote and approval but they still tried to hang him out to dry because they claimed he “lied”.


32 posted on 06/15/2011 1:06:36 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Then you have COMPLETELY missed the point, and have been living on another Planet for the last decade.

It’s not the War Powers Act itself. It’s that Dems DEMANDED IT under Reagan, DEMANDED (including OBAMA) that Bush comply with it after 9/11, and now UTTERLY IGNORE IT.

It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. And the media KNOWS they became so biased under Bush, that they DO NOT DARE report the facts about this now.


33 posted on 06/15/2011 1:07:38 PM PDT by tcrlaf (You can only lead a lib to the Truth, you can't make it think...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Whether or not the act is correct, he can’t simply take it upon himself to decide that he doesn’t need to abide by it.

Bush and the other presidents since its enactment have abided by it (Republicans more than others).

If he feels it’s wrong, he should challenge it and announce that he’s doing so, not simply ignore it and pretend he has the right to do whatever he wants...which has been his approach to every single US law (and even the more vaguely defined checks and balances) since day one.


34 posted on 06/15/2011 1:07:59 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

35 posted on 06/15/2011 1:08:05 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Obama is using the United States military and taxpayer money to conduct offensive military hostilities (aka wage war) against a sovereign nation that posed no clear and immediate threat to US national security, under the pretense of humanitarian aid, under the banner of NATO, and has done so in recent weeks in violation of current US law. It’s just that simple.


36 posted on 06/15/2011 1:08:35 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

And the sooner the better.

The damage he is doing to America is on the edge of irreparable. He has already placed America at greater risk through empowering his African Caliphate and doing nothing other than aiding Iran.... who is welcoming Obama’s consolidation of the Mid East. There is totally new trajectory in place. Iran has already stepped up with their umbrella proposal for the newly consolidaed mid east. I wonder if they and the MB sent cash or a wish of allah akbar to the bammer, for his good will at America’s expense.

He has placed all of America in harms way.


37 posted on 06/15/2011 1:09:41 PM PDT by himno hero ("Armageddon is well seeded, America will pay"... Barrack Obama's vision)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

So we're bombing Libya, just not in a hostile manner.

38 posted on 06/15/2011 1:09:53 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Task 1: Accomplished, Task 2: Hold them Accountable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
They can call it what they want but Obama is required to comply with it.
39 posted on 06/15/2011 1:09:59 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

See post # 25 dems are ticked off. And there are full blown “hostilities” if they aren’t why are we there? Obama is political burnt toast and even the dems are sick of and don’t want to scrape him off.


40 posted on 06/15/2011 1:12:06 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Allen West 2012 Make it happen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities”

Anybody else think this is Obamas “what is IS moment”? It seems every Dem has one....


41 posted on 06/15/2011 1:12:11 PM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

The next argument he will have is that since we are using unmanned drones we are not really there.


42 posted on 06/15/2011 1:14:17 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“We are acting lawfully”

“I am not a crook”


43 posted on 06/15/2011 1:15:33 PM PDT by NRPM (We have to come to terms with the fact that governments have made promises they will not keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The same libs that support this are the same libs who stamped up and down over Iran Contra......


44 posted on 06/15/2011 1:16:09 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I agree with you completely. The War Powers Act was enacted by a Democrat-dominated 93rd Congress to hamstring future Chief Executives from the lawful exercise of their constitutional authority to commit US forces in defensive actions short of a declaration of war (an enumerated Congressional power). Presidents of both parties have ignored it as an unconstitutional usurpation of Executive authority and one not textually supportable under a rational interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause that was used to justify it.

President Obama's predilection for expanding Executive power in other respects notwithstanding, I think the correct course for Congress would be to defund the military effort, should they decide that our involvement in Libya does not serve the national interest. In my view, the United States has an insufficient national interest there to justify a direct military presence. But Congress must act to pull the plug by denying funding after a given date.

45 posted on 06/15/2011 1:16:48 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Wasn't it thoughtful of Congress, 40 years ago, to exempt Libya for Obama? Too bad they didn't have the same foresight with the Community Reinvestment Act.
46 posted on 06/15/2011 1:18:04 PM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

>>> (Obama claims he’s above the law)

History didn’t start with Obama. From Nixon onward no president has agreed the WPA superseded their inherent authority as Commander in Chief.

As I recall some Congressman also tried to take Clinton to court over the same issue regarding Kosovo. The court citing Separation of Powers between the Executive and Congress refused to intervene. Libya is not a good faith war but that’s a separate political issue. Constitutionally Obama as CinC is probably on solid ground.


47 posted on 06/15/2011 1:19:04 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Gee,,,, remember back when NATO was a defensive alliance, meant to protect Europe from an attack?

Now it’s the aggressor, attacking outside of europe?


48 posted on 06/15/2011 1:19:16 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
It was a desperate tactic anyway. Plenty of GOP presidents ignored it.

And to expect the Cryer to do anything is just idiotic.

49 posted on 06/15/2011 1:19:16 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The War Powers Act isn’t worth a hill of beans if the courts don’t bother with it. The case of Campbell v. Clinton was dismissed for lack of standing even after congress voted down action in Yugoslovia. SCOTUS declined to hear it.


50 posted on 06/15/2011 1:19:24 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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