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

Reply #: See my earlier post to you on this thread [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 09:44 PM
Original message
See my earlier post to you on this thread

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 15411548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat..."

Where is the attack or threat from Libya to the US?

Obama on presidential war-making powers

"The U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing military force in Libya does not, on its face, compel U.S. involvement, but news reports (and common sense) suggest that American participation is likely. That has led to debates over whether the President is constitutionally empowered to order military action in Libya without Congressional approval, whether it be in the form of a declaration of war or at least some statutory authorization to use military force..."

"SEC. 2. (c)

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Obama: "The President does not have the power Zebedeo  Mar-20-11 09:31 PM   #0 
  - the "reasoning" is that it's a coalition effort  ReggieVeggie   Mar-20-11 09:32 PM   #1 
  - That is absurd "reasoning"  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 09:41 PM   #12 
     - then find a better quote, and stop comparing one country getting on board  Motown_Johnny   Mar-20-11 10:10 PM   #44 
        - But under the Constitution the President can't go to war without a declaration by Congress.  Better Believe It   Mar-20-11 10:23 PM   #48 
  - Why don't you go check out posts from yesterday?  DURHAM D   Mar-20-11 09:33 PM   #2 
  - I'm with you. It has been explained,and explained,and explained.  virgogal   Mar-20-11 09:59 PM   #34 
  - The only thing that I can gather from this thread  TheEuclideanOne   Mar-20-11 10:09 PM   #43 
     - I just pulled out an old bottle of Pimm's Cup No. 3.  DURHAM D   Mar-20-11 10:31 PM   #50 
  - this was a post from yesterday  Motown_Johnny   Mar-20-11 10:12 PM   #45 
  - Pres Obama violated the US Constitution. Bush asked Congress to go to war with Iraq. nm  rhett o rick   Mar-21-11 03:30 PM   #93 
  - Rec. but the UN said so, so we MUST do it  NightWatcher   Mar-20-11 09:33 PM   #3 
  - Yeah, they lied or never meant what they said  jpgray   Mar-20-11 09:34 PM   #4 
  - Perhaps Brazil was in imminent threat, we just don't know....  The_Casual_Observer   Mar-20-11 09:35 PM   #5 
  - The president has 60 days to ask Congress.  shraby   Mar-20-11 09:36 PM   #6 
  - I'm not asking how the action can be justified under the  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 09:43 PM   #16 
  - See my earlier post to you on this thread  slipslidingaway   Mar-20-11 09:44 PM   # 
  - * failed to invoke the War Powers Act  Sonicwall   Mar-20-11 10:02 PM   #37 
     - Dems took impeachment off the table and now we need to look forward :( n/t  slipslidingaway   Mar-20-11 10:34 PM   #54 
     - But Watch The Repug House Move To Impeach Obama For This......  global1   Mar-21-11 12:56 AM   #70 
  - Read it yourself, it specifically states that an attack or threat of attack against the US....  Taitertots   Mar-20-11 10:02 PM   #36 
  - The President has 60 days IF and only IF he orders military operations IF the U.S. is under attack  Luminous Animal   Mar-20-11 11:07 PM   #58 
  - Maybe Obama Thinks This Libya Thing Will Be Over In Less Than 60 Days.......nt  global1   Mar-21-11 01:06 AM   #72 
  - when bush did it DU was aflame lol nt  msongs   Mar-20-11 09:38 PM   #7 
  - The threat is a lack of oil.  Fearless   Mar-20-11 09:39 PM   #8 
  - Non-flame-bait question: Does this participation constitute an act of war? Thanks. nt  gateley   Mar-20-11 09:40 PM   #9 
  - Say 126 missiles, etc., hit the US, launched by a sovereign nation  jpgray   Mar-20-11 09:41 PM   #13 
  - That's not what I meant - I mean technically, legally, constitutionally, does this  gateley   Mar-20-11 09:55 PM   #28 
  - Yes, absolutely it is  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 09:44 PM   #18 
     - I should have explained my question better -- according to the Constitution,  gateley   Mar-20-11 09:58 PM   #31 
        - It's up to the political branches, and by extension us, to determine that.  Hosnon   Mar-22-11 12:45 AM   #110 
  - Since congress passed the Iraq War Resolutions things are much more vague. /nt  still_one   Mar-20-11 09:40 PM   #10 
  - OH NOES, a politician told me what I want to hear...  Teaser   Mar-20-11 09:41 PM   #11 
  - !  Bluebear   Mar-26-11 08:33 PM   #115 
  - Oh, OUCH! Man...words on video....always have a way of coming back  in_cog_ni_to   Mar-20-11 09:42 PM   #14 
  - This, Sir, is Enforcement Of A United Nations Security Council Resolution  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 09:42 PM   #15 
  - Since all UN resolutions are binding, and automatically compel our actions, no?  jpgray   Mar-20-11 09:44 PM   #17 
  - Security Council Resolutions, Sir, If Passed, Are The Dictate Of International Law  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 09:47 PM   #22 
     - No  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 09:53 PM   #25 
     - No Way In Hell, Sir, Would The U.N. Ever Authorize The U.S. To Bomb Iran On Spec  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 09:57 PM   #29 
     - I refer you to the recent Security Council resolution on Gaza aid  jpgray   Mar-20-11 09:58 PM   #30 
     - With all due respect, Sir, U.N. resolution 242 (November 22, 1967)  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-20-11 10:24 PM   #49 
     - That Resolution, Sir  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 11:12 PM   #60 
        - But does render such laws as hypocritical by nature.  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-21-11 12:16 AM   #63 
           - You Have Not, Surely, Sir, Only Just Discovered Enforcement Of Law Is Steeped In Hypocrisy?  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 12:25 AM   #65 
              - An enforcer of one law that ignores another  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-21-11 12:32 PM   #91 
                 - But Still Can Make An Arrest Or Press A Prosecution, Sir, Whether You Trust It Or No  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 03:40 PM   #98 
                    - Which makes it no less corrupted.  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-21-11 04:29 PM   #101 
     - the dictate of international law?  provis99   Mar-20-11 10:33 PM   #51 
     - The United Nations Does Not Declare War, Sir  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 11:15 PM   #61 
        - you didn't answer my point.  provis99   Mar-21-11 01:08 PM   #92 
           - You Made No Point, Sir; You Conjured A Preposterous Hypothetical  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 03:42 PM   #99 
     - That doesnt trump the US Constitution. nm  rhett o rick   Mar-21-11 03:34 PM   #95 
     - I don't think there's any such distinction between Security Council Resolutions  Hosnon   Mar-21-11 05:57 PM   #103 
  - "Unilateral" in Mr. Obama's answer was referring to  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 09:51 PM   #24 
  - Again, Sir, This Is Not What The Present Situation Is  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 09:54 PM   #27 
     - So your position is that  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 09:59 PM   #33 
        - An excellent point.  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-20-11 10:34 PM   #53 
        - You are all over the map on this one.  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 10:51 PM   #57 
           - That was my point as well.  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-20-11 11:08 PM   #59 
        - You Are Invited, Sir, To Examine The History Of Armed Force Employed By the United States  The Magistrate   Mar-20-11 11:30 PM   #62 
        - Thus the enactment War Powers Resolution in an attempt to curb illegal military adventures.  Luminous Animal   Mar-21-11 12:22 AM   #64 
        - Which It Has Not Succeeded In Doing, Ma'am, And Will Not Succeed In Doing  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 12:36 AM   #67 
           - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Mar-21-11 03:57 AM   #85 
        - A few more examples  Lithos   Mar-21-11 01:54 AM   #78 
        - I agree that there are many. BUT THEY ALL ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION.......sir. nm  rhett o rick   Mar-21-11 03:35 PM   #96 
           - And Have Been Engaged In For Just About As Long As The Constitution Has Existed, Sir  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 03:44 PM   #100 
              - That does not make it right. I want the president to ask Congress before military intervention..sir  rhett o rick   Mar-21-11 10:33 PM   #108 
        - I'd like an answer to that question  ohheckyeah   Mar-21-11 01:09 AM   #74 
  - Participation is not required, and even if it did, national law takes precedence  PurityOfEssence   Mar-21-11 12:41 AM   #68 
  - It Is Binding International Law, Sir  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 01:03 AM   #71 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-21-11 03:55 AM   #84 
     - No. The Constitution supersedes Treaties; a Congressional Declaration or Authorization is necessary  PurityOfEssence   Mar-24-11 03:01 AM   #113 
        - +  Bluebear   Mar-25-11 04:05 AM   #114 
  - It still is in violation of the US Constitution. nm  rhett o rick   Mar-21-11 03:32 PM   #94 
  - It is explained on the DU link below  Tx4obama   Mar-20-11 09:45 PM   #19 
  - The First and Second Barbary Wars were BOTH authorized by Congress  PurityOfEssence   Mar-21-11 12:48 AM   #69 
     - Not, Sir, Until Well After Naval Forces had Been Dispatched With Orders To Engage  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 01:09 AM   #73 
     - Yes, but this was after the Pasha of Tripoli declared war  PurityOfEssence   Mar-21-11 03:24 AM   #80 
        - To Me, Sir, It Seems A Step Forward That The U.N. Accepts Preventing Atrocity As Grounds For Action  The Magistrate   Mar-21-11 03:41 AM   #81 
           - Agreed, but the threshold should be quite, quite high, or it's prone to abuse  PurityOfEssence   Mar-21-11 06:11 PM   #104 
     - Here is the full quote from another website  Tx4obama   Mar-21-11 01:20 AM   #75 
        - And another interesting comment quote ...  Tx4obama   Mar-21-11 01:24 AM   #76 
  - Obama the "Candidate" was replaced with a pod version to be Obama the "President"  yourout   Mar-20-11 09:46 PM   #20 
  - LOL!  in_cog_ni_to   Mar-20-11 09:48 PM   #23 
  - He's right  ProSense   Mar-20-11 09:47 PM   #21 
  - He has to earn the Nobel somehow  WatsonT   Mar-20-11 09:53 PM   #26 
  - So what?  Sonicwall   Mar-20-11 09:59 PM   #32 
  - Bush asked for and received the Iraq War Resolution from  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 10:01 PM   #35 
     - But he did not ask for the invocation of the war powers act  Sonicwall   Mar-20-11 10:05 PM   #38 
     - Uh, I think your history and math are not right  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 10:12 PM   #46 
        - Yes, I know what a trillion is  Sonicwall   Mar-20-11 10:34 PM   #52 
     - Are you a Chimp guy?  Sonicwall   Mar-20-11 10:07 PM   #41 
        - You sound a bit bloodthirsty  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 10:45 PM   #56 
           - I want a purge of corporatists. And I don't care how it's done  Sonicwall   Mar-21-11 08:13 PM   #107 
  - Yay! Three wars going on at once!!  Taverner   Mar-20-11 10:05 PM   #39 
  - In reality, it's just ONE big war for one thing.  Amonester   Mar-21-11 02:48 AM   #79 
     - This isn't about oil. It really is about freedom.  tcaudilllg   Mar-21-11 04:48 AM   #87 
     - That's what has been predicted  Taverner   Mar-21-11 09:32 AM   #90 
  - "unilaterally"  Motown_Johnny   Mar-20-11 10:07 PM   #40 
  - "unilaterally"  Zebedeo   Mar-20-11 10:20 PM   #47 
  - Yes...oil. We fight wars because of oil.  RickFromMN   Mar-20-11 10:08 PM   #42 
  - "unilateral"  Blue-Jay   Mar-20-11 10:34 PM   #55 
  - That was SENATOR Barack Obama...This is PRESIDENT Barack Obama  Toucano   Mar-21-11 12:31 AM   #66 
  - He's probably not right. The minutes of the Constitutional Convention  Hosnon   Mar-21-11 01:52 AM   #77 
  - You don't seem to understand the concept of war.  tcaudilllg   Mar-21-11 04:46 AM   #86 
     - Bollocks. Not every "conflict between states" is war.  jefferson_dem   Mar-21-11 05:02 AM   #88 
        - +1. Very well put. nt.  Hosnon   Mar-21-11 05:54 PM   #102 
  - "Do as I say not as I do" seems to be the motto of this administration.  McCamy Taylor   Mar-21-11 03:43 AM   #82 
  - Impeach him by his own words?  tcaudilllg   Mar-21-11 03:54 AM   #83 
  - Nonsense. Two points:  jefferson_dem   Mar-21-11 05:08 AM   #89 
  - Has this been tested against the US Constitution? nm  rhett o rick   Mar-21-11 03:36 PM   #97 
  - From the text:  Abq_Sarah   Mar-21-11 06:35 PM   #105 
  - Why does everyone forget that this isn't against Libya...  JuniperLea   Mar-21-11 06:38 PM   #106 
  - Nothing inconsistent here  treestar   Mar-21-11 11:03 PM   #109 
  - He must have forgotten Poland. nt  Liquorice   Mar-22-11 12:57 AM   #111 
     - !  Bluebear   Mar-24-11 01:24 AM   #112 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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