Hart2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-06-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
| 22. Why revoke a Moot resolution? |
|
Edited on Sun May-06-07 09:04 AM by Hart2008
Everyone needs to read the text of the IWR. Here is the meat of the IWR:
3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
A simple resolution that the terms of the previous IWR have been completed should suffice, i.e., that Iraq no longer poses a threat to the U.S. and has met all U.N. Security Council resolutions.
THEN advise the President he is in violation of the War Powers Act for involving U.S. troops in a civil war in Iraq.
In the end, it won't matter. Impeachment shall be required.
See my previous post above.
|
| -Richardson's call to de-authorize the war requires a supermajority. What about Hillary's? |
ProSense |
May-05-07 05:39 PM |
#0 |
 -
Hillary needs veto override, she cuts back troops to minor training level as in 136 other countries- |
papau |
May-05-07 05:58 PM |
#1 |
| -
Wow, thank you for pulling these together |
karynnj |
May-05-07 05:59 PM |
#2 |
  -
?? - The bill would be one bill - ending IWR 2002 and starting new IWR in 2007 - but I agree |
papau |
May-05-07 06:04 PM |
#3 |
| -
I thought it was 2 bills |
karynnj |
May-05-07 06:13 PM |
#4 |
| -
True as to conviction in the Senate - but my first Goal was to get Bush's attention. As to |
papau |
May-05-07 06:29 PM |
#5 |
| -
Right and with Clinton, you could then say he was impeached |
karynnj |
May-05-07 07:53 PM |
#8 |
| -
her aides later related what she REALLY meant... |
leftchick |
May-05-07 07:22 PM |
#6 |
| -
Hillary supports a phased withdrawal with no permanent bases or permanent occupation |
ElizabethDC |
May-05-07 07:38 PM |
#7 |
| -
"temporary residual force" |
draft_mario_cuomo |
May-06-07 11:47 AM |
#26 |
| -
She hasn't given a specific number |
ElizabethDC |
May-06-07 12:09 PM |
#28 |
| -
End the war, when? 2009, 2013, or 2017? |
draft_mario_cuomo |
May-06-07 01:08 PM |
#29 |
| -
I think it's too soon to tell |
ElizabethDC |
May-06-07 01:15 PM |
#30 |
| -
i wonder if maybe the aides were wrong |
karynnj |
May-05-07 07:57 PM |
#9 |
| -
What did she actually say? - Chris Mathews had made up stuff - but that is his problem - he has been |
papau |
May-05-07 08:06 PM |
#10 |
| -
It's a NYT quote - not Matthews |
karynnj |
May-05-07 08:14 PM |
#11 |
| -
NYT "Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War" notes 2002 vote for IWR -nothing else |
papau |
May-05-07 08:38 PM |
#12 |
| -
Yes, Obama and HRC have essentially the same position on Iraq today |
draft_mario_cuomo |
May-06-07 11:48 AM |
#27 |
| -
she is never definitive when it comes to the ME |
leftchick |
May-05-07 09:55 PM |
#13 |
| -
NO ONE is saying a quick withdrawal---all want a phased withdrawal. |
rodeodance |
May-06-07 07:37 AM |
#19 |
| -
I am not referring to "quick withdrawal" |
leftchick |
May-06-07 08:14 AM |
#20 |
| -
It is NO different |
Jax |
May-07-07 02:00 PM |
#36 |
| -
photo-op BS that will get vetoed in a heartbeat. (nt) |
w4rma |
May-05-07 10:45 PM |
#14 |
| -
A simple majority vote of Congress passes a revocation... |
Polemicist |
May-05-07 11:47 PM |
#15 |
| -
An Excellent Summary, Sir |
The Magistrate |
May-05-07 11:50 PM |
#16 |
| -
Thank you, but I need to clear up a few points... |
Polemicist |
May-06-07 06:34 AM |
#18 |
| -
The IWR is specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Act |
Hart2008 |
May-06-07 08:41 AM |
#21 |
| -
Yes, you are correct about the IWR (AUF 2002)... |
Polemicist |
May-06-07 11:26 PM |
#33 |
| -
The present mission is "nation building" and is not covered by the 2002 IWR. |
Hart2008 |
May-07-07 01:48 PM |
#35 |
| -
Thank you |
WesDem |
May-06-07 06:28 AM |
#17 |
| -
Why revoke a Moot resolution? |
Hart2008 |
May-06-07 08:57 AM |
#22 |
| -
Incorrect! |
ProSense |
May-06-07 10:31 AM |
#23 |
| -
More information: |
ProSense |
May-06-07 11:01 AM |
#24 |
| -
More information: |
ProSense |
May-06-07 11:15 AM |
#25 |
| -
Nope it is correct. A super majority is not required. |
seasat |
May-06-07 01:44 PM |
#31 |
| -
That will have no impact. When Richardson say President can't veto, what is he referring to? |
ProSense |
May-06-07 02:10 PM |
#32 |
| -
Gulf of Tonkin was before the War Powers Act..... |
Polemicist |
May-06-07 11:46 PM |
#34 |
| -
In February, Diane Feinstein proposed de-authorizing the war. |
ProSense |
May-07-07 02:04 PM |
#37 |
| -
That's why we don't "de-authorize" the war... |
Polemicist |
May-07-07 10:02 PM |
#38 |
| -
Not binding (but I still don't see the vote requirement): |
ProSense |
May-07-07 10:46 PM |
#39 |
| -
Vote requirement: |
ProSense |
May-07-07 11:27 PM |
#41 |
| -
But the War Powers Resolution met all these conditions... |
Polemicist |
May-08-07 02:58 AM |
#42 |
| -
Two-thirds majority. |
ProSense |
May-08-07 07:25 AM |
#45 |
| -
SCOTUS might not rule the same way today... |
Polemicist |
May-09-07 10:41 AM |
#46 |
| -
To hell with SCOTUS. Impeach them too if they try to stop this. |
Hart2008 |
May-08-07 07:04 AM |
#44 |
| -
Only congress has the authority to authorize a war. |
mmonk |
May-08-07 06:57 AM |
#43 |
| -
Want to end it with no residual forces? Vote Richardson. |
mmonk |
May-07-07 10:47 PM |
#40 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread