General Discussion

karynnj

(59,498 posts)

58. The resolution does not "declare war", it authorizes a limited action

Reply to Little Star (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:57 AM

Sep 2013

The McCain amendment expanded it beyond what Obama asked, but it still does not "declare war".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Like President Clinton, Obama will strike without UN or Congressional approval IMHO [View all] arely staircase Sep 2013 OP

If he got congressional approval would that mean that congress would have declared the war? Little Star Sep 2013 #1

They haven't declared war on anyone since 1941, so unlikely. nt arely staircase Sep 2013 #2

I know but if they do approve this time does it mean that they are the ones declaring war? Little Star Sep 2013 #5

no. it would just mean they give their approval to the attack. arely staircase Sep 2013 #8

Thanks. But I still wonder what the difference would be.... Little Star Sep 2013 #27

interesting hypothetical arely staircase Sep 2013 #31

There would then not be one - the President is the only one who can commit troops karynnj Sep 2013 #59

i somewhat disagree Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2013 #60

The resolution does not "declare war", it authorizes a limited action karynnj Sep 2013 #58

Clinton had fredamae Sep 2013 #3

The vote in the house hadn't taken place but the senate had already voted yes..... Little Star Sep 2013 #6

Thanks fredamae Sep 2013 #9

I am guessing it was technically illegal under international law arely staircase Sep 2013 #21

Thanks for clarifying fredamae Sep 2013 #26

I agree with most of wht you say but arely staircase Sep 2013 #28

I would have completely fredamae Sep 2013 #42

I think it would play out like this arely staircase Sep 2013 #47

I hope your correct! fredamae Sep 2013 #52

I heard some talking heads saying last night..... Little Star Sep 2013 #25

Thanks---so no one fredamae Sep 2013 #32

Probably not, but the circumstances were different so he was able to get by with it Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #14

Thanks! You make fredamae Sep 2013 #43

If you are right then he can look forward to impeachment hearings Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #4

committee hearings in the house perhaps, but that's it arely staircase Sep 2013 #12

It would be more than committe hearings, the House would almost certainly vote to impeach Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #20

I'm not sure what they could impeach for. arely staircase Sep 2013 #22

I believe that is only the case if there is a direct threat to our national security Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #23

I don't think there is any such requirement. If there is it would be "as determined by the arely staircase Sep 2013 #24

Just because it was violated in the past does not mean it could be violated this time Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #33

Obama would not be violating it if he informs Congress within 48 hours arely staircase Sep 2013 #40

That is not what the law you just posted says Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #48

it isn't a law. it is a congressional resolution, actually. I thought it was a law, but I was wrong arely staircase Sep 2013 #51

Nor did Congress explicitly say No before the fighting began in any of those cases either Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #54

I'm not proposing anything. I am predicting that, like President Clinton in Kosova, arely staircase Sep 2013 #63

A No vote on authorization means no bombing, if Obama bombs anyway he would deserve impeachment Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #67

I don't think the White House will interpret it the way you do. nt arely staircase Sep 2013 #69

Well if the White House does not interpret it that way they will face impeachment Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #70

I haven't addressed "outrage around the world". So I don't know how I am underestimating it. arely staircase Sep 2013 #71

I would not be so sure impeachment would go nowhere Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #73

I disagree. arely staircase Sep 2013 #74

The 48 hours' notification requirement . . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #55

It really doesn't appear there are any requirements. arely staircase Sep 2013 #61

Bush and Cheney and their Junta should be standing trial for Iraq for this very reason. - nt HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #34

I fully agree with that, but the political circumstances were different Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #39

Agree fully with your analysis. There is no double-jeopardy in impeachment either. If they HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #46

An impeachment process would hurt the GOP badly in a mid-term IMO arely staircase Sep 2013 #79

Look, I've voted Democratic in every election since 1980. That's meant holding my nose for HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #80

you may consider it, but I would lay money that not a single Dem. congressperson would. arely staircase Sep 2013 #81

Republicans have the majority in the House (where the impeachment would commence). A Dem HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #82

Chances of Obama being impeached are slightly less than arely staircase Sep 2013 #84

OK. We're debating the chances of a hypothetical, so I guess for now we'll just have to HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #85

so you are going from impeachment to mutiny now? arely staircase Sep 2013 #86

You might take a close look at exactly when and why Obama decided HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #87

Huge +1.......it would be a catastrophic mistake. yourout Sep 2013 #76

I hope he doesn't. It will mean the nightmare of impeachment cali Sep 2013 #7

They didn't impeach Clinton for doing the same thing. arely staircase Sep 2013 #10

different time, different specifics cali Sep 2013 #15

see, I think they will vote it down arely staircase Sep 2013 #18

It wasn't the same thing. . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #56

Clinton didn't have congressional approval; Obama won't arely staircase Sep 2013 #62

They'd have perfect political cover to impeach him if he proceeds to attack without approval. David__77 Sep 2013 #35

If he does... NuclearDem Sep 2013 #11

he will nt arely staircase Sep 2013 #13

If this were Kosovo, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt NuclearDem Sep 2013 #16

I sort of agree w/1914 analogy. And it's why, at this point, we should stay away. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #44

you can't know that. No one does. cali Sep 2013 #17

Of course I don't know. But it is my assessment and prediction. arely staircase Sep 2013 #19

Hello, World War III - nt HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #29

Actually, I don't think that is a foregone conclusion. MineralMan Sep 2013 #30

I think that is a reasonable hypothsis too. arely staircase Sep 2013 #36

Like you, I'm observing from a distance, so MineralMan Sep 2013 #41

Will President Obama ignore all the atrocities committed by the rebels in the meanwhile? Civil HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #37

That was my essential question in the thread at the link below: MineralMan Sep 2013 #38

This is my assessment too. Best to wait. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #45

Thanks. We can let our government know our opinions, MineralMan Sep 2013 #49

Which is why Congress doesn't really want to vote. CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #75

I was thinking along those exact same lines IsItJustMe Sep 2013 #83

If he does, he will face impeachment LittleBlue Sep 2013 #50

which would go nowhere arely staircase Sep 2013 #53

IMHO I think that if he does that, the House will impeach him gopiscrap Sep 2013 #57

If that is the case, which I don't disagree that is a strong possibility, it will be illegal under morningfog Sep 2013 #64

The war will happen. He wants it bad. jsr Sep 2013 #65

Obama Has No 'Intention' To Strike Syria If Congress Says No (NPR - 6 September) struggle4progress Sep 2013 #66

I believe he has no "desire" arely staircase Sep 2013 #68

We shall see. Rex Sep 2013 #72

Will he be wearing a cowboy hat with his codpiece? Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2013 #77

Clinton doctrine Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #78

Congress=know nothing, do nothing, be nothing donna123 Sep 2013 #88