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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last
To: Ted Grant
The US Constitution says “Congress shall have the power .....to declare war.”

It says to declare war, not to “make war”.

You are correct that the form of this Congressional authorization need not say “this is a declaration of war” and many such authorizations have not done so - they use the language “authorization for the use of force” or other phrases.

But the power to declare war is Congress's, not the power to “make war”. Better read that Constitution again.

101 posted on 06/15/2011 2:29:33 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 98 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
What part of the NATO treaty, in your mind, obligated the USA to go to war against Libya absent a declaration of war by Congress?

(1) We did not go to war against "Libya" but we have taken action against the illegitimate dictator Muammar Gadaffi. We are allied with, not at war against, the Libyans who are calling for the restoration of the legitimate Libyan constitution.

(2) one does not need to be "obligated" to act in order to act. One need only be authorized or empowered.

(3) The part of the NATO treaties that carry that authorization are commonly called Berlin Plus.

102 posted on 06/15/2011 2:30:38 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I go to bat for anything that ties that pinko terrorist in knots.


103 posted on 06/15/2011 2:31:05 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Nuts; A house divided against itself cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

The “Govern and Regulate” and “Necessary and Proper” clauses of Article I, Section 8 cannot be ignored. They too apply to the armed forces just as the “Raise and Support” clause does. We have to take the Constitution as a whole.


104 posted on 06/15/2011 2:32:12 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (From her lips to the voters' ears: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: ‘We own the economy’ June 15, 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I sent you the language of the NATO treaty.

What provision, in your mind, obligates the USA to enter into a state of war with Libya absent a Congressional authorization for such?

An attack on the USA doesn’t obviate the duty and power of Congress to declare war. Neither would an attack on a NATO member, that we are under treaty obligation to treat as an attack upon us.

Which NATO member did Libya attack again?

What provision under the NATO charter? There really are not that many to chose from. So which one?


105 posted on 06/15/2011 2:33:01 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 96 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
“It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed.”

That is a common view, but it is not common sense. It's common nonsense and leftist nonsense at that. No conservative, in fact no rational person, should be making such a statement.

The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. Obama is entitled to conclude that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as have all of his predecessors since it was passed. He is free to conclude that the Resolution doesn't apply to circumstances in Libya. The only remedy if he reaches the wrong conclusion is for Congress to stick up for itself, either by impeaching him or by cutting off funds for his misbegotten Libyan adventure. Congress hasn't done either and it won't. On this matter, then Obama gets the final word. That's how separation of powers works.

The executive power of the United States is vested in the President. The Constitution says so in so many words. It doesn't say, or even hint, that the President has to consult the courts to determine what his executive responsibilities require him to do and the idea that he should is absurd. Obama’s legal interpretations are always flawed and frequently ridiculous, but he's President and he's the one with the power to make them. Elections have consequences.

The law suit seeking to enforce the WPR in court is going nowhere. The courts won't, and shouldn't, touch this. It will be dismissed as a political question, probably summarily by the District Court. It's a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch which is none of the judiciary’s business. Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope. This is one of them.

There is more than enough to throw at Obama without trying to resurrect the WPR from its constitutional grave and deploy it against him. The WPR was an artifact of the post-Watergate leftist ascendancy. It was a bad, unconstitutional, left wing idea which deliberately sought to subvert separation of powers and shackle America's military might. It's been dead for decades and good riddance. I'm all for beating up on Obama but not just any stick will do.

It's a shame that Obama’s President, but he is. He gets to exercise all the powers of the office. We can't redefine the office so that it's small enough to fit him without risking permanent damage to the constitutional order.


There are just a whole host of ridiculous statements in this post that make me wonder where in the hell you are coming from.

ie "Obama is entitled to decide…..what is Constitutional and what is not……"
"Obam gets the final word."
"Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope."br>

Those ridiculous assumptions aside, I suggest you re-read post #33:

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.

106 posted on 06/15/2011 2:34:47 PM PDT by brent13a (You're a Great American! NO you're a Great American! NO NO NO YOU'RE a Great American! Nooo.....WTF?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
That is your mistake - in thinking that any treaty can “empower” the President to act - if that act is an act of war - absent the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war.

No treaty can remove that power given to Congress under the Constitution.

What part of the “Berlin Plus” provisions cover our military actions (also know as war) in Libya?

And we are most certainly at war, via the clear meaning of language in the Constitution, with that segment of the Libyan population that supports Gadaffi.

107 posted on 06/15/2011 2:37:19 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 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Yes, I was wrong and thinking of something else. But the rest of the analysis stands: congress need not have to formally declare war to meet constitutional mandate.


108 posted on 06/15/2011 2:37:43 PM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ted Grant

They have to authorize it for the Constitutional power they have to be observed.

The formal/legal declaration need not say “this is a declaration of war” - there is no requirements under the Constitution for any such specific language. But it is an absolute requirement.

Congress shall have the power.... to declare war.

Nobody else has that power under the Constitution.

It is an absolute.

It is a necessity.

The language it consists of is entirely optional.


109 posted on 06/15/2011 2:40:40 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 108 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The Libyan war is an illegal war that the Congress should remove 100 percent funding immediately. The President cannot be allowed to violate the law. Remember Bush went to Congress to get the authority to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are the WAR protestors? Are the Democrats bombs humanitarian?


110 posted on 06/15/2011 2:44:27 PM PDT by Typical_Whitey (Ask a liberal to explain how tax increases create jobs in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength.

- 1984 George Orwell

111 posted on 06/15/2011 2:45:57 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (No one is more against progress than a progressive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: certrtwngnut

Bush was met daily with media bombardment, accusations and the liberals demonstrating at his home, at the WH and everywhere he went. Now we know those astro turf anti-war people were not anti-war at all they were just anti-Republican.


112 posted on 06/15/2011 2:46:20 PM PDT by Typical_Whitey (Ask a liberal to explain how tax increases create jobs in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The Administration’s argument is so specious, so far removed from reality, that it doesn’t deserve comment. The people who deserve comment are his creepy followers, who would jump all over a Republican who did this.


113 posted on 06/15/2011 2:50:22 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Democrats = authoritarian socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps
Of course it's not worth a hill of beans but it is law and either Obama needs to go to congress or congress needs to cut off funds immediately.
114 posted on 06/15/2011 2:52:44 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"The Executive has no right in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war; that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the Constitution has deemed requisite or proper."-- James Madison, some dude who obviously does not understand the Constitution, but think he does.

"The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be restored to as our guides in this inquiry." Talbot vs. Seeman 1801

What NATO Country did Lybia's army invade by the way?

Thomas Jefferson, another figure who did not understand the Constitution weighed in on Executive Power's ability to make war by stating:

“As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.”

Remember Jefferson's mindset concerning his Presidency and Tripoli? Every decision to cross the line and engage offensive maneuvers came from Congress. Why? Because Jefferson understood that ONLY Congress authorized the use of force when attacking a foreign entity.
115 posted on 06/15/2011 2:53:23 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Let's have a look at Obama's original letter to Congress, shall we?

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

Baraq Obama - March 21, 2011

He believed it applied three months ago. The truth simply is not in him.

116 posted on 06/15/2011 2:58:45 PM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; tobyhill; Nachum

Look at the traffic on this young thread. People are getting angry at the PrezZZZZero.

I wonder if he’s asking for this trouble so he can claim victim status?


117 posted on 06/15/2011 3:02:14 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Ann Coulter's "Demonic" - - Identifies the Democrats in Detail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brent13a
I haven't missed any points; you never had one in the first place. Of course the Dems are hypocritical, and in other news, dogs slobber. They were wrong before and they're right now, at least about the President's constitutional prerogatives. The charge of hypocrisy has no political weight; tossing it around is an onanistic waste of time.

Where I'm coming from should be perfectly transparent. I get annoyed when ignorant twits trash the separation of powers for the sake of scoring a few cheap points on today's President. Focus on something that matters.

The Libyan adventure is idiotic on any number of levels. Attack it on substance, not the silly procedural point that Obama’s consultation with Congress was inadequate. Do you really think America can be persuaded to care about that?! Process is not where the rubber hits the road. The point here is that Obama’s foreign policy is adrift and subordinated to the UN and NATO. Libya is important evidence of that. Getting upset because Obama arguably hasn't complied with applicable law when there's no way to make him do so is beside the point.

Save your outrage for something that matters.

118 posted on 06/15/2011 3:04:29 PM PDT by fluffdaddy (Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
The Libs that bashed Bush all those years could never say that he didn't go to congress and get authorization but there is no defense for Obama because he never even went to congress.
119 posted on 06/15/2011 3:07:34 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
I wonder if he’s asking for this trouble so he can claim victim status?

I don't believe that is his M.O.

If past experience is anything to judge by..
- is that there is a compelling European interest to take over Libyan Oil
- That there are supporters of his that are getting big money kickbacks from this deal
- That other Muslim interests with money are being promised the spoils from this operation
- That they are making us pay for everything - Are using this excercise for further 'hollow out' our military - The communists in this country will somehow benefit

120 posted on 06/15/2011 3:08:24 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Founders give a detailed paper trail on why and how Congress should be the only Body to decide military action.

Executive Branches think they are above Congress concerning Article One Section Eight as well as think they only have the power to control "conflict".

Conflicts become all out war while Congress and the executive Branch play political games

War Powers Act tries to stop this corrupt nature of putting Americans in harms way and draining resources.

In the end, we would not need all these laws if Madison and Jefferson along with many more individuals who played a part in the United States Charter, were actually listened to and not ignored by Central Planners.

In the end we are all


121 posted on 06/15/2011 3:09:42 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; Dilbert San Diego; Nachum; Alex Murphy; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; certrtwngnut; 95B30; ...

The end positive of all of this may at the very least be that we are laying the groundwork for future Republican President(s) to be able to repeat the words of the Obammessiah to future Kucinich’s as to why WPR does not constrain America from defending herself in future (yes Wilma, there will be more) war.


122 posted on 06/15/2011 3:09:47 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Why not Kuwait? Syria? Yemen? Why Libya?


123 posted on 06/15/2011 3:10:52 PM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Until then he's bound by his oath to faithfully execute the law.

Do you really think Obama cares a wit regarding law?

124 posted on 06/15/2011 3:13:35 PM PDT by afnamvet (I stand with Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps

Nobody seems to have standing in this nation any longer. Pay your taxes and shut up is the governments motto now.


125 posted on 06/15/2011 3:13:45 PM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
"Process is not where the rubber hits the road."

Accepting that is admitting partial defeat. Everything about our government is "process". What rubbish to simply ignore it because they chose to ignore it when it suits them and them alone.

"Save your outrage for something that matters."

I apply my outrage wherever it is necessary as a citizen. Right now, in the last 2 years, no matter where my outrage has been applied it's been met with blank RINO stares and continued incompetence from both sides of the aisle.

So if I want to apply it to this, I will. Because it should be.
126 posted on 06/15/2011 3:15:59 PM PDT by brent13a (You're a Great American! NO you're a Great American! NO NO NO YOU'RE a Great American! Nooo.....WTF?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Yes, I agree, but they can meet the requirement by passing a budget.


127 posted on 06/15/2011 3:17:03 PM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Yes, I agree. Take this to court and let the USSC strike down the War Powers act.


128 posted on 06/15/2011 3:18:57 PM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

This isn’t about the War Powers Act. It’s about the Constitution of the United States of America. The President cannot wage war without Congressional approval. Hamilton was quite clear on that in the Federalist papers. That is what separated us from all other 18th century governments at the time in that the legislature and not the executive could commence a war.


129 posted on 06/15/2011 3:21:10 PM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
"The Executive has no right in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war; that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the Constitution has deemed requisite or proper."-- James Madison, some dude who obviously does not understand the Constitution, but think he does.

"The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be restored to as our guides in this inquiry." Talbot vs. Seeman 1801

What NATO Country did Lybia's army invade by the way?

Thomas Jefferson, another figure who did not understand the Constitution weighed in on Executive Power's ability to make war by stating:

“As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.”

Remember Jefferson's mindset concerning his Presidency and Tripoli? Every decision to cross the line and engage offensive maneuvers came from Congress. Why? Because Jefferson understood that ONLY Congress authorized the use of force when attacking a foreign entity.


Obviously these individuals are simply a group of nobodies that should be relegated to the dustbins of unknown history. How dare you bring up quotes of such nincompoops! Their opinions mean nothing unless it furthers a progressive socialist cause only. Don't you know the rules?
130 posted on 06/15/2011 3:21:56 PM PDT by brent13a (You're a Great American! NO you're a Great American! NO NO NO YOU'RE a Great American! Nooo.....WTF?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

It is indeed that simple. But he’s claiming an exemption because Facebook and Facebook’s founder says it’s a really cool thing to do.


131 posted on 06/15/2011 3:23:26 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

If this was so legal, why have LAWYERS announcing this, 90 days after it started? Why not Obama, on the first day?


132 posted on 06/15/2011 3:27:23 PM PDT by PghBaldy (War Powers Res: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; flaglady47; seenenuf; mickie; seekthetruth; Chigirl 26; Bushbacker1; prairiebreeze; ...
Last night when I turned on Brett Baier
I saw a war that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
(That's what I heard Obama say)

Tonight when I turned on TV
The war was waiting there for me
Obama took the screen to call
There really is no war at all

So he can't see what we all see
His lies are quite far-fetched
His head is just a little tetched......
It's time for him to be impetched !

Leni

133 posted on 06/15/2011 3:27:40 PM PDT by MinuteGal (Bring Back the MISERY INDEX! Obama's INDEX! Include Food & Energy in a TRUTHFUL INDEX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ted Grant
Only if the budget specifically authorizes funding for specific military adventures could it be deemed a Congressional declaration of war.

That is quite a stretch that unless they remove funding they authorize war. Or that by allowing funds to be used they have de facto declared war.

That which is not forbidden is mandatory?

134 posted on 06/15/2011 3:28:27 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 127 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
...what exactly is “defensive” about the Libyan excursion? Answer: NOTHING.

My point, exactly.

135 posted on 06/15/2011 3:51:17 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Essentially, what Congress wants is the pretense of power, but with sufficient insulation from responsibility to be able to convincingly blame failure - or disaster - on someone else, without ever having to explain themselves. Profiles in courage they are not.


136 posted on 06/15/2011 3:59:27 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
I had to search through 116 posts before I found a Freeper who knows that

Obama invoked the War Powers Resolution as the reason to start action in Libya!!!

There are at lease two other times in your link where Obama invoke the WPR.

Freepers: see Hoodat's link.

137 posted on 06/15/2011 3:59:46 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

138 posted on 06/15/2011 4:19:47 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

He’s broken so many, what’s one more?


139 posted on 06/15/2011 4:20:00 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I don’t think that much specificity is required. I may be wring. Do you have USSC precedent?


140 posted on 06/15/2011 4:23:15 PM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Here is my basic position on the “War Powers Act:”

Constitutional or not, it was passed by Congress and has not yet been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS or repealed by Congress. Until such a time as those two things happen, it must be followed, regardless of political party of the POTUS, who controls the House, etc.

Whether it SHOULD be found unconstitutional or repealed is a very worthy argument, but until it IS I expect our POTUS and Congress to abide by it. Otherwise it sets the precedent that any piece of legislation can be ignored on the grounds that the POTUS “doesn’t think it is constitutional” or “doesn’t think it applies.” If we agree that it is unconstitutional then we should also agree, I feel, that it should be removed in a constitutional manner.

Just my $0.02, as it were.


141 posted on 06/15/2011 4:25:14 PM PDT by HushTX (I make libs rage quit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ted Grant
I suppose if Congress said “Hey we authorized funds specifically for the war effort” that might serve as a de fact declaration of war - but it would be a rather indirect way for them to exercise this sole and supreme power for declaring war that the Constitution gives them.

There would be no SCOTUS precedent until some Congress were lilly livered enough to try it and were then challenged on it.

So far they have always seemed to pass a declaration of war/ authorization for the use of force/ or whatnot directly.

Specificity is not there, but it (IMHO) needs to be explicitly stated, not implicit in continued funding.

142 posted on 06/15/2011 4:31:08 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 140 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

For this “STUPID” war !@!!!


143 posted on 06/15/2011 4:58:33 PM PDT by Deetes (God Bless the Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Another campaign issue. He thinks he can do whatever he wants and the press follows along, ‘nothing to see here’. The only way he will answer for not abiding laws and his pathological LYING(call it what it is) is for his opponent to make him answer for it. Palin will assuredly do it. I’m looking forward to him having to answer for Palin putting it out there for the public. He’s so blatant and caught up in hypocrisies he went after Bush for and part of a pattern, but beyond that this punk thinks he has to answer to no one.


144 posted on 06/15/2011 5:06:59 PM PDT by mrspeelwerneeded (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
meanwhile, headline story from the media is:

WAG THE WEINER

145 posted on 06/15/2011 6:11:30 PM PDT by KTM rider ( patriot turned rebel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

We need to learn that the US Constitution is above Party and politics. When any President makes an end run around the Constitution he needs threatened with impeachment regardless of his Party. That is the only way to assure that subsequent Presidents will tow the line and abide by law.


146 posted on 06/15/2011 6:13:16 PM PDT by apoliticalone (Honest govt. that operates in the interest of US sovereignty and the people, not global $$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I did NOT have war with that country.....


147 posted on 06/15/2011 7:33:52 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (DEFUND NPR, PBS, THE TSA AND THE U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

All praise King nobama. All praise the king.


148 posted on 06/15/2011 7:35:03 PM PDT by hal ogen (1st amendment or reeducation camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

I have made this argument including the fact that after they did it to Clinton he rose in the polls. It excited the base and made Republicans look bad. All I got was hate mail, which I am still in the process of replying to .. maybe


149 posted on 06/15/2011 7:48:45 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The WAP is unConstitutional. The question is, why has it never been challenged? The answer is, no one in congress understands the Constitution.

Although, in fairness, some Presidents, since it’s passing, has said it was unConstitutional. Nixon vetoed the damn thing as unConstitutional. But congress overrode his veto, with a 2/3rds majority.


150 posted on 06/15/2011 8:28:46 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Repeal the 16th amendment . Send Islam packing to their homeland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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