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

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This is the same thing Bush did, he used the War Powers Act, like I said, they didn't bitch then, but they will bitch now...I am still bitching, but hey, I don't like war actions, I see this one as better than some, but still don't care for war.

when did bush use the WPA?

and who is "they"....both sides of the aisle have an issue with this...but i bet you only think its the right. you're weird like that.

 

[christiefan915]

hilarious...you keep trying to pass of a letter as consultation....that does not match the definition of consultation at all.....i say again...meeting with a few to BRIEF them, is not consultation...members of congress has said he has not consulted them....yet you and obama continue to lie and claim he did

anything to protect your messiah

Really, you're only looking for an argument. You move the goal posts all the time.

What point, exactly, are you trying to make?

1. Should we or shouldn't we have gone into Libya...

2. Should the prez have consulted all 535 members of Congress before making the decision...

3. Were the prez's actions covered legally under the War Powers Resolution...

I DO NOT think we should have gone into Libya at all, but I DO think Obama is legally covered under the WPR. Note that's two separate questions and although I believe he was legal, this doesn't mean I approve of the decision.

 

[christiefan915]

This is the same thing Bush did, he used the War Powers Act, like I said, they didn't bitch then, but they will bitch now...I am still bitching, but hey, I don't like war actions, I see this one as better than some, but still don't care for war.

I know. I'm torn about it because of the humanitarian aspect but why couldn't the other countries do it without us?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

E=christiefan915;793704]Really, you're only looking for an argument. You move the goal posts all the time.

what goal post did i move? answer the question, because you usually run away. what goal post....be specific.

What point, exactly, are you trying to make?

quite simple christie - that obama did not formally consult with congress, at least according to what i've seen. he might have.

1. Should we or shouldn't we have gone into Libya...

yes, we should have. though, i believe we should have gone in with the motive to take out gaddafi, and no backing off that. we have seen how that turned out with iraq in 91.

2. Should the prez have consulted all 535 members of Congress before making the decision...

if that is what formal consultation is, then yes. but you continue to claim the "prez" consulted, while actual members of congress (on both sides of the aisle) say he did not. why are you now the expert? why are you now speaking for members of congress?

3. Were the prez's actions covered legally under the War Powers Resolution...

not sure. there was no imminent threat. then again, i am not sure the WPA is constitutional, granted, scotus has not ruled otherwise. imo....obama followed the WPA and is not in violation of it. unless, it can be shown that "in every possible instance" he did not consult with congress. at this point, its hearsay, and the evidence that says he did or did not, is (imo) purely speculative.

I DO NOT think we should have gone into Libya at all, but I DO think Obama is legally covered under the WPR. Note that's two separate questions and although I believe he was legal, this doesn't mean I approve of the decision.

ok....i think you meant WPA...?

 

[Bonestorm]

formal consultation. do i really need to repeat that? secret meetings with a few, does not equal consultation. further, when members of congress state there has not been consultation....that would be my first clue that formal consultation did not take place. no member of congress should claim that consultation did not take place. granted, if someone is claiming it for political points, then ignore them, but you have congressmen from both sides of the aisle stating that obama did not consult with them.

if no member of congress claimed that, i highly doubt we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I just have no idea what "formal consultation" looks like as a practical matter. Does the President have to address the full Senate and the full House? Is just speaking at the full Senate and full House sufficient or does there have to be like a Prime Minister's Questions deal? Does the president personally have to do it or can he send out members of his cabinet to meet with groups of Senators and Congressmembers? And what if Congress is not in session? What then?

Basically, i'm wondering what specific actions must the president take that meet the bare minimum of your "formal consultation" metric?

And I am 100% serious here.

 

[Jarod]

Personally I belvie the president should comply with the WPA, to me its Constitutional and unless and untill its repealed it should be followed.

Secondly, now that the dust has settled, it looks to me like the President did the minimum to get by with having complied.

 

[christiefan915]

when did bush use the WPA?

and who is "they"....both sides of the aisle have an issue with this...but i bet you only think its the right. you're weird like that.

1989 GHWB sent troops to Panama.

On December 20, 1989, President Bush ordered 14,000 U.S. military forces to Panama for combat, in addition to 13,000 already present. On December 21, he reported to Congress under the War Powers Resolution but without citing section 4(a)(1). His stated objectives were to protect the 35,000 American citizens in Panama, restore the democratic process, preserve the integrity of the Panama Canal treaties, and apprehend General Manuel Noriega, who had been accused of massive electoral fraud in the Panamanian elections and indicted on drug trafficking charges by two U.S. Federal courts.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_24

And, the official name is "The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548."

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Since some of you are OK with Obama violating the WPA and the constitution, here's another African adventure that's just crying out for the Unilateral One:

"Heavy fighting wracked Ivory Coast's commercial capital early Friday with explosions heard downtown near the presidential palace and in the Cocody neighborhood where the presidential mansion and the state TV broadcaster are located."

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/01/135033569/ivory-coast-update