prospect of impeachment ?????? Really ?

Ice Dancer said:
It is obvious that Obama did not have a formal meeting with congress- but as I noted previously the languge used in the WPA is quite general with regards to what that consulting MUST be. Mutterings aside-Obama "claims" he consulted with members of congress-Your link to Boehner's statement was that he wants Obama to consult "more"... Now since you admit you are in no position to "prove" Obama is lying...how about we just concede that Obama certainly has not lived up to the spirit of the WPA and call it good?
Click to expand...

Rep. Allen West: Congress Not Consulted Before U.S. Attack on Libya (Video)

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2011/0...n-libya-video/
 
Ice Dancer said:
Yep he did not formerly in any kind of organized or public manner consult congress...but the WPA does not, as far as I can tell, require him to do so. Now, if you can prove that Obama did not consult a bipartisan group of congress as he claims he did...then you got something!
Click to expand...

Why not just say she's right and put us all out of her misery?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Yep he did not formerly in any kind of organized or public manner consult congress...but the WPA does not, as far as I can tell, require him to do so. Now, if you can prove that Obama did not consult a bipartisan group of congress as he claims he did...then you got something!
Click to expand...


"the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress. Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...-obama-affront-our-constitution#ixzz1HGwNZEIp
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You mean you didn't get Board Nazi Yurt's declaration that any post attempting humor must include at least one smiley to denote it's "humorlishesness"?

He spat out one of his patented angry little tantrums where he accused me of not posting a smiley when I made a joke and how my lack of a smiley confused him.

Don't violate his rules or else the BoardNazi Yurt is gonna getcha!
Click to expand...
I don't know about that episode, but I did see him and Onceler go round and round about the same thing...only it was Onceler complaining that Yurts little smiley didn't sufficiently denote laughter like Yurt claimed....so Yurts tongue in cheek remark had to be taken as a serious comment....so in that case it was Onceler the board Nazi

Don't tell me you're into this petty shit too.....
 
ZappasGuitar said:
How about that? Bravo can obviously READ ONCELER'S MIND!

How else could he possibly purport to tell Onceler what he REALLY MEANT to say?

Yet another typical Rightie who thinks he can channel the Amazing Kreskin to tell us Liberals what we REALLY meant...

How's that special power workin out for ya so far?

Jesus GOD you morons will say or go to ANY lengths to try and spread horseshit about Liberals...and frankly, it's just sad!
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you pinhead, but I can't read Onceler's mind....but I sure as shit can read his posts....
so regardless of what he meant to say...I fuckin' KNOW WHAT HE DID SAY....

You attempt at humor was pretty lame and your attempt at spin to hide the truth even lamer.....as TCLib would say...the chronology of the post is there for everyone, even the the specific posts are mentioned .....7, 16....the lies start with Onceler 2:38 post...I forgot the number....
 
bravo said:
OK dude...I'll keep that in mind....sorry about this....really....

You lost a lot of respect with a lot of people over this silly shit....you shouldn't have let it go this far...its best to man up and move on....you've just given yourself a black eye that gonna haunt you for a long time....too bad.:(
Click to expand...

LOL LOL LOL

Haunt me with who? Braindead hypocrites who worshipped Bush for rogue military action, but agree with the idea of impeachment for Obama when the UN authorizes it?

Yean - that's gonna really keep me up a few nights....
 
Rtber, the purpose of the WPA is so that the sitting president can respond to situations ASAP, and still allow for Congress to check the president from involving the military in problematic and large-scale conflicts at will.
 
Onceler said:
LOL LOL LOL

Haunt me with who? Braindead hypocrites who worshipped Bush for rogue military action, but agree with the idea of impeachment for Obama when the UN authorizes it?

Yean - that's gonna really keep me up a few nights....
Click to expand...
Its like this Mr. Liar...we are governed by a document called the US Constitution....
NOT THE UNITED NATIONS
 
King of 32DDD said:
Rtber, the purpose of the WPA is so that the sitting president can respond to situations ASAP, and still allow for Congress to check the president from involving the military in problematic and large-scale conflicts at will.
Click to expand...


"The War Powers Resolution, generally known as the War Powers Act, was passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions".

http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm


"The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval."

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/world/how-war-powers-act-works.html
 
ZappasGuitar said:
How about that? Bravo can obviously READ ONCELER'S MIND!

How else could he possibly purport to tell Onceler what he REALLY MEANT to say?

Yet another typical Rightie who thinks he can channel the Amazing Kreskin to tell us Liberals what we REALLY meant...

How's that special power workin out for ya so far?

Jesus GOD you morons will say or go to ANY lengths to try and spread horseshit about Liberals...and frankly, it's just sad!
Click to expand...

nannyzappa the hypocrite strikes again. just a few weeks ago you were calling me a liar for claiming my comment about onceler supporting unions was a joke. i even had a joke smilie after the comment. but oh no....you and onceler get to claim i was not joking.

so the both of you did in fact tell me what i meant, yet here you are telling others they can't do that. you're an intellectually dishonest asshole zappa.
 
The question is this, as I see it:

Does talking behind closed doors via phone with a few members of Congress satisfy SEC. 3, which states "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"?
 
Rtber said:
"the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress. Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...-obama-affront-our-constitution#ixzz1HGwNZEIp
Click to expand...



And I posted what Obama himself stated he did- So please provide proof that he's lying.
 
Rtber said:
The question is this, as I see it:

Does talking behind closed doors via phone with a few members of Congress satisfy SEC. 3, which states "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"?
Click to expand...

The answer is "YES" it does.
 
What about when the President consults only with members of intelligence committees about sensitive information? Does that annoy you, Rtber?
 
Ice Dancer said:
According to the way the WPA is worded-and the fact that no charges have been filed against him for breaking the law...ergo~
Click to expand...

"Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain in such situations. The House report elaborated: A considerable amount of attention was given to the definition of consultation. Rejected was the notion that consultation should be synonymous with merely being informed."

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

Now, "ranking member of House Judiciary John Conyers comes out very strong, calling for an emergency session of Congress:

“Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress – not the President – the power ‘to declare war,’ stated Conyers. While the legislative and executive branches have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war, the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance. That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the President. I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in calling for an immediate session of Congress to review United States military engagement in Libya.” Conyers also pointed to a line of legal precedent and history supporting this proposition."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03...r-libya-mission-without-congressional-action/
 
Rtber said:
"Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain in such situations. The House report elaborated: A considerable amount of attention was given to the definition of consultation. Rejected was the notion that consultation should be synonymous with merely being informed."

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

Now, "ranking member of House Judiciary John Conyers comes out very strong, calling for an emergency session of Congress:

“Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress – not the President – the power ‘to declare war,’ stated Conyers. While the legislative and executive branches have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war, the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance. That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the President. I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in calling for an immediate session of Congress to review United States military engagement in Libya.” Conyers also pointed to a line of legal precedent and history supporting this proposition."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03...r-libya-mission-without-congressional-action/
Click to expand...

Why did you forget this sentence in your post as part of the first paragraph?: The House version specifically called for consultation between the President and the leadership and appropriate committees. This was changed to less specific wording in conference, however, in order to provide more flexibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top