Skip to comments.Where is the Constitution? 'Obama considers U.N. to be higher authority than Congress'
Posted on 03/21/2011 1:52:02 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it.
Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.
Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.
He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged without the knowledge or approval of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Henry Lamb MEGA-PING!
no muslim can ever be loyal to the United States, because it goes against their faith.
Yes Obama is a UN puppet.
Has been elected as such in order to weaken USA and give up to the muslim world, China....meanwhile he is waging fake wars
zero is a traitor, just a half step away from legal prosecution and the feckless republicans are discussing NPR.
It is the New World Order and it is right in front of our noses.
The Bamster don’t need no steenkin’ Constitution.
We still get two more wonderful years of 'the recovery.'
Barry must be thrilled. Time for some hoops. Time for some ice cream. Time for a swim. Up yours America.
There's so much to hammer on here with this administration.
Time to step up Republicans!
Where oh where is our Republi-tard leadership in Congress?
Is there not ONE (not even Bachman?) willing to stand up and call for at the least, hearings, if not impeachment?
Have they ALL been cowed and neutered by the fear they will be demonized by the Leftist, Lame-Stream Media and be charged with being "Anti-Military" (as has been wrong-headely, IMHO, suggested here by some Freepers) if they should criticize the Fascist Dear Leader for hin UNCONSTITUIONAL, unilateral, actions?
Have the Demo-Rats suffered the least for having taken this Hate-America/Military, "Surrender and Defeat" attitude since Nam?
Of course with its inability to ever frame a debate in such a manner which would reflect favorably on itself--thus proving their ineptness going back for 40 years and willingness to simply roll over, time and again on every major issue--the Pubes are doing what they do best: simply hiding under their desks, fearful to open their mouths.
What a bunch of spineless, wusses.
They disgust me...all of them!
Why would anyone expect BO/BS to follow the Constitution when he is illegally occupying the Oval Office because he doesn’t fulfill the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?
The second paragraph of the Declaration specifies how these matters should be handled.
“...when a long train of abuses and usurpations...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The question is; do we have the sand anymore?
BO/BS is positioning himself to be world leader since the term for the current Secretary General of the U.N. expires at the end of this year.
I can’t recall a single US President/ or Congressman for that matter-since I was discharged that didn’t consider the UN indispensable—if not believing we were subject to its goals and decisions. some have pretended they could lead the UN to act on our behalf—But all of them have said we can’t kick them out —nor withdraw.The Muslim from ? is just more manifest in his subservience to foreign leadership.
American diplomats and American politicians are going on British television and stating, repeatedly and vociferously, that America is NOT effecting a war of aggression against Gaddaffi - in fact, they’re even saying that Gaddaffi himself isn’t a target. Why do you think that is?
The War Powers Act doesn’t just talk about declared states of war. It also discusses “specific statutory authorization” which means a scenario other than a declared state of war... for example, situations described persuant to the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act (1976). “Peace keeping missions”. Multi-lateral action. Treaties which America has signed with regard to protecting an ally. And so on.
Congress and the Constitution have to allow for the possibility that a situation might arise in the future where POTUS and the Joint Chiefs agree some form of military assistance or action is necessary but it falls short of declaring war, BUT the action has to be both immediate and decisive.
These days, one guy with something in a rucksack can lay waste to a city block, and a country’s economy can be decimated by someone tapping away on a keyboard. You can’t expect Congress to spend a couple of days making an informed debate if things are that fluid. It’s not like Korea and Viet Nam where there was ample time to get Congress on side and the incumbent POTUS couldn’t be bothered to go through the proper channels.
The retrospective Congress approval is catered for in your legal process precisely because Congress knows it can’t always react in time.
Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.
He’s got two unhappy choices: take an executive decision to save the ally and let the diplomats sort out the diplomatic fallout later... or don’t.
Ultimately any POTUS has to be able to make an executive decision to act in those situations. This time round it just happened to be Obama exercising that decision and you don’t agree with what he’s done or how he’s gone about it, but one thing’s for certain: he’s not the first POTUS to do it and he won’t be the last POTUS to do it.
There’s no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But I’m not sure it should be closed.
Hard cases make bad law.
“Theres no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But Im not sure it should be closed.”
I don’t see that Libya is that much different to Iraq. If Congressional approval was necessary in the one case, why not the other?
It certainly wasn’t a bomb in a suitcase matter.
Obama was allowed to piss on the Constitution by Congress when they did not positively verify his nationality. From that point on, it allowed to go on and on and on.
It was a question BEFORE he was elected and now we pay the price.
“Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a friendly nation.”
I’m at a total loss on the logic of this statement. How about Israel taking care of their own business? What would happen if the dirty bomb exploded as the attack occurred? What if innocent women and children were killed or injured?
No, No, No! ONLY immediate action that perils the United States directly are to be acted upon under these directives...NOT THE UN!
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.