War Powers Resolution, did Presidnet Obama follow its requirements re: Libya?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
I am not sure as I have not heard one way or another, but I belive he should have.

Does the act not require the President to submit a written explination within 48 hours to the president of the senate as to why hostilities were necessary?

Why is the media now discussing this? Seems to me he should have, and may have, but there has been no discussion of it.
 
Glad I did not go all out against Presidnet Obama based on Yurt's word, last night President Obama comfirmed that he did consult Congress.
 
Jarod said:
I am not sure as I have not heard one way or another, but I belive he should have.

Does the act not require the President to submit a written explination within 48 hours to the president of the senate as to why hostilities were necessary?

Why is the media now discussing this? Seems to me he should have, and may have, but there has been no discussion of it.
Click to expand...

I believe the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional power grab by Congress and should be repealed. The President in emergencies does not need any consent to commit US forces if the President believes it is in our best interest. I believed this when Bush was Pres and my feelings on this topic stand.

Now he definately should consult which I believe did not occur and it is fascinating that this President believes that the UN and Nato have more say on policy than the US Congress; but that is the topic for another debate.
 
What evidence do you have that he did not consult? He said he did in his speech last night.....
 
Presidents have authority to use military force without authorization from Congress when there is an imminent national security threat, which was absent in Obama's Libyan adventure. That is a clear violation of the War Powers Act.



"In 2007, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage asked Obama whether a president would have the authority to bomb Iran without prior congressional authorization. Replied the then-Sen. Obama in the early stages of a presidential campaign (see question and answer #2 on the linked piece):

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

In light of recent development, Politifact review the statement and gave Obama "A full flop."

Michael Kinsley, writing for Politico, is among the latest to join the party on the amazing disappearing congressional power to declare war, but he provides a decent overview of the history and constitutional arguments."

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2011/03/29/27003/obamas_full_flop_on_presidential_war_powers
 
Jarod said:
I am not sure as I have not heard one way or another, but I belive he should have.

Does the act not require the President to submit a written explination within 48 hours to the president of the senate as to why hostilities were necessary?

Why is the media now discussing this? Seems to me he should have, and may have, but there has been no discussion of it.
Click to expand...

This guy does a good job of breaking it down


http://jenkinsear.com/2011/03/21/breaking-libya-legal-according-to-1945-congress/

Now the President said last night that he did consult with the Congressional leadership of both parties prior to commitment of military ordinance to Libya, and this was done in alliance with Nato, the UN and our traditional allies, so basicly all his legal ducks were in a row.

The problem for the neocon GOP is that you have Obama doing a decisive leadership role that is in accordance with national and international law, and performing an action that goes after a dictator who sponsored the terrorist that murdered Americans years ago and was never punished for it. This is counter to their "Obama must fail" agenda.

The problem for the liberal/progressive factions and Dem Party is that Obama has engaged the USA in yet another military venture into the Mid East that essentially DID NOT require the USA to take the lead....which is parallel to the ventures of previous administrations into areas that are oil rich and strategically located for transportation.
 
Jarod said:
Glad I did not go all out against Presidnet Obama based on Yurt's word, last night President Obama comfirmed that he did consult Congress.
Click to expand...

it wasn't my word....members of congress said as much

but of course, since obama has "claimed" he has consulted congress....do provide proof, other than his word, that he did....
 
I have not seen where any member of Congress said he did not. I have heard the President say he did.
 
Jarod said:
I have not seen where any member of Congress said he did not. I have heard the President say he did.
Click to expand...

oh, i see, so when the gop says he didn't and they want him to consult with congress....you don't believe them, rather, you believe obama....it was all over the news....thats why you made this thread

even obama admitted he ONLY talked with a FEW of the leaders....that is not consultation in any meaningful way....unless you're now saying the president only has to talk to a few people and that constitutes consultation...

i guess we don't need judicial hearings anymore...the president can simply call a few leaders and thats that.....:rolleyes:

again, where is your PROOF he did consult....where is the public consultation jarod? or was it all secret with just a few people?
 
Again, I have not seen where anyone from Congress and the GOP say he did not consult Congress.

The WPA does not say he has to conduct a public consultation or that he must consult with every member of Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top