prospect of impeachment ?????? Really ?

Onceler said:
Since Iraq & Libya are identical situations, aren't you equally curious as to why bravo supported Iraq, but is on the side of impeachment w/ Libya?
Click to expand...

why do you think iraq and libya are identical issues? "where is the right now!!!!" thats all your post smacks of. i already talked about how i feel about being for impeachment here vs. iraq. why don't you stop being a whiny pussy and read what i said. you and zappa believe you're the board nannies, thats fine. have at it....

what is hilarious, is that you seemingly support this military invasion, but you don't support iraq. at least dungheap has the honest consistency to be against both.
 
bravo said:
Its obvious (to non-pinheads) that Iraq and Libya are not identical situations...nevertheless, The Iraq WAR RESOLUTION was voted on and passed by both houses of Congress...the same procedure should have been followed in this case...and in ALL CASES that ask troops to kill in the name of the United States.
Click to expand...

the war powers act gives the president the ability to engage in military offenses without prior approval from congress. the issue is -- is libya a threat? if you're going to say no, and claim this military action is unconstitutional....how do you reconcile that with bush invading iraq? granted, bush had much more congressional authorization for iraq than libya....i'm just curious how you differentiate the two.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I am not aware if there was a congressional vote on Iraq's 1993 NFZ? I believe I recall one for Bosnia? Do you know?
Click to expand...
I think it was instigated by the UN as is the usual case....Democratic presidents seem to usually let the UN run the show, rather than show US Presidential leadership....same with Bosnia...
 
Yurt said:
good point. given the president's war powers, do you believe this military action is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I do.

Article 1, Sec. 8 states that only Congress has the authority to declare war.

50 U.S.C. 1541-1548 states that the president may undertake the use of military force if "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

It also says that the President MUST consult with Congress.

"in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities"
 
Yurt said:
the war powers act gives the president the ability to engage in military offenses without prior approval from congress. the issue is -- is libya a threat? if you're going to say no, and claim this military action is unconstitutional....how do you reconcile that with bush invading iraq? granted, bush had much more congressional authorization for iraq than libya....i'm just curious how you differentiate the two.
Click to expand...
There is alittle more to it than that....take a minute or two and read the US Code title 50
 
Don't buy it. This is a set-up by the most liberal members of congress, along with some of the most naive fiscal conservatives, to paint The Obama as less than liberal. It's all about making him look main-steam moderate.
 
Yurt said:
the war powers act gives the president the ability to engage in military offenses without prior approval from congress. the issue is -- is libya a threat? if you're going to say no, and claim this military action is unconstitutional....how do you reconcile that with bush invading iraq? granted, bush had much more congressional authorization for iraq than libya....i'm just curious how you differentiate the two.
Click to expand...

You type that line I put in bold and just gloss over it....
THAT IS how the action is reconciled.....Bush had Congressional approval...as the law requires
 
Last edited:
Rtber said:
I do.

Article 1, Sec. 8 states that only Congress has the authority to declare war.

50 U.S.C. 1541-1548 states that the president may undertake the use of military force if "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

It also says that the President MUST consult with Congress.

"in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities"
Click to expand...

obama has not declared war. that is the tricky thing with the war powers act. unlike iraq, it does not appear that the president has consulted with congress. it is possible he has. like iraq, if congress tacitly supports the military action, then thats it. the judicial branch can't step in, so by silent caveat, the executive and legislative branch are working together. and it appears, according to the law you posted, that such action might be unconstitutional. however, it would take congress to make such a motion or statement. if congress is silent, then, IMO, you have approval by ommission or silence.

if obama just launched over a hundred missiles at libya with zero congressional consultation.....we might see the war powers act end up in court and defined or thrown out. and perhaps it should be. it does seem like we have given our president the ability to engage in, "war" (military action), anywhere, anytime around the globe, basically unchecked. iraq is a prime example. now we have libya.
 
Madame Secretary Clinton had this to say on the issue a few years ago:

"If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing".

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQA/
 
Yurt said:
obama has not declared war. that is the tricky thing with the war powers act. unlike iraq, it does not appear that the president has consulted with congress. it is possible he has. like iraq, if congress tacitly supports the military action, then thats it. the judicial branch can't step in, so by silent caveat, the executive and legislative branch are working together. and it appears, according to the law you posted, that such action might be unconstitutional. however, it would take congress to make such a motion or statement. if congress is silent, then, IMO, you have approval by ommission or silence.

if obama just launched over a hundred missiles at libya with zero congressional consultation.....we might see the war powers act end up in court and defined or thrown out. and perhaps it should be. it does seem like we have given our president the ability to engage in, "war" (military action), anywhere, anytime around the globe, basically unchecked. iraq is a prime example. now we have libya.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ Yurt...are you hitting the bottle already?
obama has not declared war?.....Obama doesn't have the authority to declare war...

it does not appear that the president has consulted with congress. it is possible he has.
Are you implying they can have a secret vote to go to war and bomb a soverign nation?
judicial branch can't step in, so by silent caveat, the executive and legislative branch are working together.
They get away with shit like this because of presidence....its been done before....it would take congressional action to stop this kind of behavior and clarify the US Title 50 LAW!
 
Rtber said:
Madame Secretary Clinton had this to say on the issue a few years ago:

"If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing".

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQA/
Click to expand...
Holy mother....I'm becoming a Democrat.....God help me....
Now I'm agreeing with Hillary and Maxine Waters both.....:palm:
 
UOTE=bravo;789122]Jesus Christ Yurt...are you hitting the bottle already?
obama has not declared war?.....Obama doesn't have the authority to declare war...
Click to expand...

you know what i meant.

it does not appear that the president has consulted with congress. it is possible he has.
Are you implying they can have a secret vote to go to war and bomb a soverign nation?
judicial branch can't step in, so by silent caveat, the executive and legislative branch are working together.
They get away with shit like this because of presidence....its been done before....it would not take congressional action to stop this kind of behavior and clarify the US Title 50 LAW!
Click to expand...

i never implied congress [DAMO fix the typing slowness!] can have a secrete vote fot go war. but the president,

i gtive up the type reponse time is to slow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top