You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #3: The Framers contemplated only wars against nations and the Constitution says [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-27-13 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. The Framers contemplated only wars against nations and the Constitution says
Edited on Mon May-27-13 04:35 AM by No Elephants
that Congress must declare war.

There is a Constitutional issue about the ability of Congress to delegate war powers to the President, as it has purported to do, even before the AUMF, given that the Constitution expressly placed the power to declare war only in Congress, even though the Constitution made the President CIC.

As you may recall, after Libya, some members of Congress, Democrat, Republican and Libertarian, were going to sue Obama for not following a Congressional war power resolution, but ended up suing him for not getting a Declaration of War from Congress

Our poor little Constitution is so shredded, it is not funny.



Anyhoo, in the House, the Authorization to Use Military Force was sponsored by Republican and former Koch brothers Tea Party tool, Dick Armey and co-sponsored by New Democrat and one time Democratic Presidential candidate, Dick Gephardt. (They were probably, at the time, majority and and minority leaders, but I am not sure.)

Only one brave Rep. from either major Party voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force, namely, Rep. Barbara Lee of California.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

In the Senate, the Authorization to Use Military Force was sponsored by New Democrat, Tom Daschle and co-sponsored by Trent Lott (and they were, at the time, majority and minority leaders).

The Senate vote was 98-0, with Craig and Helms not voting.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...


Of course, Hillary, who supposedly will clear the Democratic Presidential field if she announces for 2016, was a Senator then.

Barack Obama had the luxury of not being in Congress then. He was perceived in 2007-08 as the anti war primary candidate.

In reality, though, Obama was pro the Afghanistan War, which he "surged" after taking office and continues to this day. He was, as we learned once he was in office, also pro the global war AUMF. I say he is for it because he has used it more than Bush. He has recently--while being plagued by "sandals," come out against it verbally, but has not committed to stop using it.

Because of prior behavior, I am going to suspect (1) the standard political trick of attempting to change the narrative when the media seems stuck on attacking; and (2) Obama trying to have it both ways, one way in words from him and the White House and another way in the actions of his administration.

Obama was also supposedly anti the Iraq War. However, after taking office, Obama's military tried to get the President of Iraq to agree to either drop the withdrawal date to which Bush had agreed, or push it into the future (I've now forgotten which). The President of Iraq refused. And that is how Obama got credit (from the poorly informed (and/or the idolatrous) for ending the war in Iraq.

Armed drones were developed under Democrat Clinton for covert use by the CIA (!) and overt use by the U.S. military. Supposedly, they were developed to kill Bin Laden. (*great skepticism about a very expensive weapon system being developed to kill one person, when the CIA has long assassinated people abroad by more traditional means*)

However, for better or worse, Clinton shut down a 1998 operation to drone murder Ben Ladin because a couple of innocent bystanders were deemed too close to Bin Laden to survive. And, if the story about killing Ben Laden that we have been handed is true, drones were in fact never used to kill Ben Laden. But drones have been used to kill many others that we know about. And, "the peace candidate" of 2008, the only one from either majjor Party(who also was the only one to win the general) has engaged in many more drone killings than Bush or Clinton.

So much for the "lesser of two evils" when it comes to one of the very biggest evils of all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC