Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:10 PM
Original message
Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions
Edited on Wed Mar-30-11 04:16 PM by kpete
Source: Talking Points Memo

Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions
Susan Crabtree | March 30, 2011, 4:44PM


The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.

...............

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without congressional approval. Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific congressional mandate.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/clinton-tell...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. It was a nice republic while it lasted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No kidding.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. yep. because it most certainly is a republic no longer.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Bear Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
48. I know when the republic died
It was when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
62. Yes sireee.
RIP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
85. One more time, with feeling: The Presidency Should be Abolished
It is a threat to democracy, liberty and the rule of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. Clear, official notice that Obama thinks he's above the law
? = ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That notice came when he refused to prosecute BushCo. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. The US has had an imperial presidency for a few decades now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
66. Nothing like what it has been since 911. Constitution in shreds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Now that was Spinely to stick up for the Spineful President....indicating the GOP is flummoxed
Obama is doing exactly what other Presidents had previously done...act with timely and just reasons ...esp to help...

The GOP is Whining as they always will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. The US Constitution is becoming tattered and torn all in the name of
the BOMB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I don't think so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. The constitution has a clause to specifically prevent standing armies.

Which has been ignored longer than anybody here has been alive, and only Congress is supposed to authorize war, so yes, we have torn the Constitution to pieces, even if most of the tears have been pre-Obama, this is only another one, a bit more damaging coming from a purported "liberal" and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Our nation had better address the violations of the Constitution, somehow. Either by amending it to reflect current reality or, better, cutting back on Executive power. Otherwise, nobody knows where the power of the President stops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ttwiddler Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. No it doesn't
It simply says that Congress may authorize one, but there is no prohibition against a standing army.

Attempting to restrain executive power through legal means, instead of political, is just silly. Flexibility is absolutely necessary to run a government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #53
58. Sorry, you're so wrong, yes it does!!

It doesn't just say Congress may authorize a standing army.

I didn't think it was necessary for me to cite it. It's easy enough to find in the Constitution online and use a browser that has a "find" feature, but you didn't even look. You just presumed I was lying or misinformed. Here:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Why would it limit the appropriation to two years after it says Congress has that power? The Constitution doesn't make another specific limit like this on any other power of Congress. It doesn't make it on the Navy, whose Clause is immediately below. That looks like a limit on a standing army to me.

What's the election cycle on the House of Representatives? Two years. In other words, the House (where appropriation bills have to start) doesn't have the power to extend an appropriation for an army (not a military intervention or a war, but the army itself) for two years. Meaning also people would get to vote between the time it forms an army and its next appropriation.

If you're going to say we can't limit executive power by legal means, you might as well just flush the Constitution, because that's the idea behind the entire document. Not doing that is the same view of executive power dictatorships take. Why wouldn't every branch of government need this "flexibility" to "help" the president? Remember, the Constitution is there to prevent dictatorship, and it's odd that you see the necessity for loosening restraints on the Office of government that naturally threatens it the most.

And given Obama's enthusiastic grasping and extension of executive powers that Dubya pioneered, I'd say dictatorship is exactly the threat now.

There are two other places where the Constitution looks decidedly anti-standing army. One of them is the Second Amendment, and if you look at the first draft of it, in the Constitution of Virginia written by Thomas Jefferson, you see that.

Really, if this is the current reality where we need an expensive standing army, we should amend the Constitution to reflect that. Keeping it the way it is just invites disrespect for the rest of it, where whole sections can be declared "impractical."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #53
70. Legal constraints on executive power are silly? How Nixonian!
You tell Washington, I'll tell the Framers and the people who voted on the Constitution circa 1789.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
84. Congress may authorize an army, but only for 2 years at a time.
Constitution give no one power to authorize a standing army.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
68. Well, as long as YOU don't THINK so, it must be as you say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. don't know if you caught this or not, but brad sherman is a dem..
flummoxed nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. A tad supect despite his many years in office...but linked to Scientology thingy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Of course your ad hominems and narrative are not suspect at all...
... even when you're being exposed wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. The negative narrative in our society has reached imbalanced levels...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Right...
Edited on Wed Mar-30-11 06:07 PM by liberation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
78. Lots of imbalance of all kinds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. suspect in what respect?
and WTF does that even have to do with OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #40
59. A true believer automatically finds him suspect because he's not
cheering whatever Obama is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
67. Remind us which President said he'd override a war vote by Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. The imperial presidency, an impeachable offense.
Sorry to hear it though not surprised unless they make good on their promises to not get more involved. I'm not especially confident that they'd do that dispite what they claim given their steady drift to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. So.....
...what she's saying is: He will "dictate" what is and what is not lawful?

- Constitutional lawyer my eye......


Can you believe they gave me
this? Ha!


K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. Illegal shortcut to war.
no no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. I was sort of for this action on behalf of Libya before I'm now against it. I'm
a flip-flopper but the more I'm getting info on this...not a good idea at all. I'm not liking this more and more as the info is slowly coming out about these "rebels."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. and in breaking news, the President states he will simple ignore the Articles of Impeachment........
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. The repubs may attempt to impeach the President. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iliyah Donating Member (828 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. On what?
Edited on Wed Mar-30-11 04:58 PM by Iliyah
The gopers are hopeful to get a goper into the Prez office. In trying to impeach Prez O they would eff up what they desire the most, total control and one is the ability to go to war w/o approval from congress. Y'know they are itching to attack Iran.

Actually, some gopers want to start WW3.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
89. You're assuming the Koch snorters are rational beings
So what if impeaching Obama would hinder the goal of formally establishing an imperial presidency that can go to war without congressional approval?

Of course, they would ever think of impeaching him for violating the constitution, well, not a real violation of the constitution, any way. They'll impeach him for a blow job. And if that isn't true, then they'll make it up and suborn perjury with a video tape provided by Andrew Breitbart and funded by the Koch brothers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. we don`t have the ability to fight another land war...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
71. Hell, we do not have the ability to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan without driving our
troops nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. What?
That can't be right...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. decider 2: electric bugaloo
fuck me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. Funny, his ardents are always claiming his powers are very
limited, that he is not able to make unilateral decisions, and that Congress holds all the power. Funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. To be fair the extent of their stance has been that if Obama does it, it must be for a reason
Edited on Wed Mar-30-11 06:02 PM by liberation
and thus perfectly reasonable. Which is why these New Dems are totally different from the Old Republicans who used to support whatever Bush did, because it must have been for a reason, and thus perfectly reasonable.


I am frankly very entertained, it is amusing to see a Dem president implement a military intervention (we do not have wars anymore) and seeing some of the die hard Dems use some of the very same justifications (language even) than the die hard Republicans used during the run up to Iraq.


The more things change....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. it will be even more entertaining when the self-fufilling prophecy of president palin..
rears it's fugly head. will the people who support our actions in afghanistan and libya because of a democratic admin still support them? or will the hypocrisy be on full display (again) as their views flip 180 degrees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
102. OFGS...that Palin/Bachman thing is the Powers that Be Pushing to keep Obama in Power...
Don't fall for that stupid stuff the MSM is Pushing at you! UGH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gravel Democrat Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
55. "Funny, his ardents are always claiming his powers are very limited"
A veritable laugh riot!




"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."
Thomas Jefferson, finding himself a tad less than amused...

***

http://costofwar.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #21
60. It's also funny that the only time Obama shows a spine is when
he's opposing left-wing ideas, like peace, and upholding checks and balances.

We would all expect any republican to thumb his nose at Congress this way. Or a professional triangulator like Clinton who constantly tried to act like a Republican. It looks like the only time Obama isn't a coward is when he's emulating Clinton, or his hero Reagan, and setting himself up against the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. So long representative government the last nail went into your coffin. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
24. I don't think a resolution carries the force of law.

Not happy about all this, mind you. But I'd like to know for sure if the admin is on solid ground in this particular regard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
72. Not so simple. Start with the Constitution, which gives Congress the
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 12:54 PM by No Elephants
EXCLUSIVE power to raise armies and navies (then being the only kind of troops known), the EXCLUSIVE power to declare war and the EXCLUSIVE power to fund wars (or anything else). And, subject to the foregoing exclusive powers of Congress, the President has Constitutional power as Commander in Chief of the troops (though Congress has power.

(That way, a good portion of the people who voted to declare war will answer for their votes at the polls within two years, at most.)

So far, so good, from the Continental Congress until 1950-1962 or so.

However, then came the Korean "Police Action" and the Vietnam Something or Other, where Presidents got us involved in wars without so much as a "by your leave" to Congress, raising serious Constitutional "questions, to put it euphemistically. So, we got the War Powers Resolution of 1963.

Btw, anything passed by Congress and signed by the President (or veto overridden) as the Constitution provides IS a law, regardless of whether they call it "law" or "resolution" or "Harry." However, as with any law, the question arises, "Is the War Powers Resolution a Constitutionally valid law, or does the War Powers Resolution conflict with/violate the Constitution?"

Some say, "It's Constitutional." Some say, "No, it provides for an unconstitutional delegation to the President of Congress' EXCLUSIVE power to declare war." Still others say, "No, it's an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the President as Commander in Chief."

And, now, we have the Executive Branh not only starting a war without a delaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution, but also saying it will ignore Congress if Congress says "Stop," as the War Powers Resolution of 1963 gives Congress the power to do.

As I said, "Not so simple."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Too late to edit, but year of War Powers Resolution is wrong. I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #72
94. Thanks for the response.

And, yeah, my head hurts a bit.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
25. Hope President Obama is enjoying his Nobel Peace Prize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oNobodyo Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
26.  I don't support Obama generally, nor do I support wars
However, Obama consulted with the leadership of both the house and senate before taking action...and then there's this...Senate Resolution 85 which passed on march, 1st unanimously...

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sres85ats/pdf/BIL...

After Bush and Iraq it's easy to fear presidential power but you have to consider that Afghanistan had congressional preapproval and turned out just as bad and in neither case did congress ever formally declare war, nor will you see congress formally declare war again because they recognised with the war powers act that having a presidential scapegoat made politics easier for congress.

So far Libya has been done correctly and it's saved lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Those of us who think that he should follow the War Powers Resolutions,
think that he needs an okay from the House. Just the Senate doesn't do it.

The UN is nice of course, but action under the UN resolution must conform to US law.

I like the rule of law.

No matter who is in the White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. "I don't support Obama generally, nor do I support wars..."
... and yet, here you are supporting both Obama and a war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oNobodyo Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. True enough...
It's not the most comfortable position for me either...

Reality has a way of kicking you in the guts and forcing you to make exceptions to every rule...

I also consider myself to be non violent but I recognise that there are situations where I could be as violent as anyone...Also an uncomfortable recognition of reality vs. my ideals.

Here in this case I believe that stopping a slaughter that was sure to occur outwieghed the ability to wait for the formality of a joint resolution and that Obama did comply with the war powers act.

I also believe that this situation is unique in the fact that it did gain a UN resolution, the people of Libya asked for help.

If they try to take it further than this...I don't know if I can contiune to support this.

Like I said...I reserve judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #37
76. Based on what you've said, you support certain wars.
(No one but a real nutter wants war all the time.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Ness Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
61. "So far Libya has been done correctly and it's saved lives." ????
Except for all the ones we have killed....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
73. What in the Constitutiion gives the Senate authority to pass a Resolution like that?
Please also see Reply #72.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. oh for pity's sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #44
64. Yeah, no shit
Obama may be fucking up a lot of things, but he is still better than the alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. It's awful, but the irony is bittersweet.

So, the GOP finds themselves being the peaceniks verses a purportedly weak, Democratic president? I never thought I'd see the day. I can't wait for them to organize sit ins and marches for peace, armed to the teeth. This is Vietnam: The Farce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
38. This still getting to be a worse nighmare than the day before...
and I'm feeling trapped. Drained and trapped. Where did my energy go? :shrug: Fighting fascists was never on my life's menu, but there it is, fascism du jour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #38
79. "Fascism du jour." Did you just make that up? I'm jealous.
(Charlie Sheen voice) Stealing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
39. Okay hold it - since Reagan was in office we have been TOLD they could deploy
troops for up to 60 or 180 days (I forget which) without Congressional approval

Did this change? Am I remember this wrong? Are we mind-erased by the media?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. It's 60, although that was an expansion, too, iirc. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #39
81. Please see Reply 72.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 07:36 PM
Original message
Go ahead. Make him ignore them and then do what you need to do Congress
Edited on Wed Mar-30-11 07:37 PM by Catherina
You're the people's representatives, not the President. He there to serve us not the reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
43. and what is it that you think they'd need to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
88. Nothing will be done, except maybe more bloviating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. I'm not holding my breath either. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
42. I've always thought that the War Powers Act had Constitutional
flaws. Obama apparently reached the same conclusion. Since he's a former law professor, perhaps people will listen this time.

Congress' hammer in this area is to cut off the funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Obama was "lecturer in law" was not a "professor", and there is a difference.
Professors of law are subject to the "publish or perish" rule of all academics. Lecturers are generally exempt, and are more like adjuncts.

Obama has not published any significant legal scholarship on this or any other legal topic. If he had, I'm sure that we would have heard about it by now. At Harvard in his day, members of the Law Review were not forced to submit legal scholarship to be published in the Law Review. This appears to be different from many law reviews and journals, particularly that of Yale, Harvard's competitor, where at the time Obama was in law school, each member of the Law Journal had to write a substantial piece of legal scholarship that was of publishable quality.

It has been reported that a friend of his from the Law Review, who is now a real professor at Georgetown Law School, that Obama found the Constitution to be a flawed document, but I don't recall that the professor disclosed details of Obama's views, which I think would be helpful here.

In sum, Obama was not a professor and published no material that would give us a real idea of how his legal mind works or what his theory of the Constitution actually is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #47
57. Politically flawed, morally flawed - yes. Constitutionally flawed - no,
since it is supreme in our country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #57
87. Wha? Are you saying the Constitution is not Constitutionally flawed since
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 02:52 PM by No Elephants
the Constitution is supreme in our country? What a soup salad word sandwich!

Anyway, no one even argued that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the U.S. Why the straw man?

And, wasn't the issue whether Obama's alleged status as a law professor gave what he said about the War Powers Resolution some sort of extra credibility, or even more?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #42
86. Many think that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, BUT that analysis
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 02:33 PM by No Elephants
cuts both ways. Please see Reply 72 (as amended by Reply 80).

Since he's a former law professor, perhaps people will listen this time."

Obama has had no He's had no legal education beyond 3 years of law school, like any lawyer who did not pursue his or her educatiion beyod law school.

Obama then got a job as a lawyer and a part-time job teaching Constitutional law, which he did for a number of years (10?). None of that does means Obama is at the level of a constitutional law scholar or expert.

Lifelong Constitutional law scholars disagree about the War Powers Resolution. What in hell would make someone who taught Constitutional law on a part time basis the final authority on these issues?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
45. Why, how very special.
I am forcing myself to sit quietly and not say anything to upset anyone . . . .







mothe . . . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
46. And somehow everyone neglects the fact that we didn't put any people on the ground in Libya.
Also, any resolution passed by the House that didn't pass the Senate has no force of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. It has been reported this evening that the CIA is on the ground and has been for some time.
British SAS and MI6 are reported to be there, as well.

So maybe we don't have boots on the ground, but it looks like the wingtips are there.

Also reports of indeterminate reliability that the White House is considering mercenaries. You know, Xe f/k/a Blackwater. American feet, but not in government issue boots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. CIA is in Libya and likely Special Forces.
Nato is not ruling out ground troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. CIA is in every country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
83. No boots on the ground = no war?
Somehow I think that if some country were to start bombing the US but not send troops we'd still somehow manage to see that as a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
103. You don't think there are "boots on ground" in Libya? CIA wears Sneakers?
Yeah...there's a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale. :eyes: We already have American Educated "Shadow Government" we allowed back into Syria that is in place to "manage the coup" if and when Ghaddafi leaves. So, this is already Orchestrated. It was in the NeoCons Plan back under Bush.

The sad thing is that Obama and Hillary are following the NeoCon Plan. I didn't vote for Obama for MORE NEO-CONS! Did YOU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
51. Obama is building a precident for an imperial "presidency". asdfasdfsda!!! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ttwiddler Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
54. This is stupid
I'm amazed she would say something this dumb. While it's true that every president since 1973 has regarded War Powers as unconstitutional, definitely not without justification, this kind of comment only makes Congress mad for no good reason. I don't mean just the idiots on the right, but everybody. This is patronizing to an equal branch of government. I'm rather ambivalent on the whole Libya bit myself, or maybe just indecisive, but this is not a situation where you tell Congress to go to hell. Libya just doesn't justify a fight with Congress over War Powers. The difference between who wins and loses there is extremely important to Libyans, but it will minimal impact on most Americans' lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
56. Queen Hillary got the warfever
She'll twist your arm right outta the socket if you get too close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #56
63. Did it say "Hillary Would Ignore Your War Resolutions?"
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 10:31 AM by Avant Guardian
I swear it said 'Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions'.

Perhaps I need new reading glasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. I just have the feeling that this is Hillary's War, and Obama is being dragged along
I've felt it from the start - creepy, I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #74
91.  Is your hypothesis that he's lame, helpless, not too bright, too easily led??
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 04:55 PM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. No, I just think Hillary wants Moe's head on a stick and she's gonna by gawd get it
It's just a feeling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #56
92. That dog won't hunt, Obama's her boss. She does his bidding, not the other way round.
And if he were doing her bidding, he'd be way too lame to hold the most powerful office in the world.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
98. Maybe the Queen has aspirations for higher office. You can't tell me she's not out for blood.
Stranger things have happened - when her and Insane McCain are talking the same language it freaks me out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
65. I agree with Obama/Clinton on this one.....
...since any "anti-war" resolutions coming out of the House, at least, would be entirely political, and we all know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #65
77. We can ignore laws, even the Constitution, at will? Please see Reply # 72.
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 01:32 PM by No Elephants
Does a Republican President have the same "right?" Isn't every vote taken by politicians political? Why have any laws at all, then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #65
101. Must be more to it than just the RW...though. That's a pretty harsh statement from her..
Is she speaking for Obama Administration or Clinton Administration. I always felt that Hillary and Obama were very close.

Strange....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
69. Isn't having an Emperor grand? What could possibly go wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
75. Emperor in chief. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F Bastiat Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #75
90. They wanted to anoint George Washington as King.
He reminded them that they just finished fighting a war to get rid of one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
82. Yeehaw! Let's kill us some ferriners
we ain't need no congressional approval for a kickass new war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
93. I recall folks saying Obama could not possibly have the $$ to close Gitmo unless Congress voted.
You'dda thunk the CIC and Pentagon were budgeted to the penny, just like some of us peons.

Somehow, though, he apparently found enough loose change under the cushions in the Oval Office to do all kinds of things to Libya. How many hundred million do you suppose we've spent so far?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
97. "The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya..."
....Hillary knows it doesn't matter what the Constitution says about war as long as fat tony and the fascists control the game....

....every Washington politician understands that the President declares war and we schmucks pay for them....it's called a 'division of labor'....how else would we ever be able to maintain our assembly line of perpetual war....

....think it, do it, but don't say it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
99. How would Senator Obama respond? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
100. Oh My..That's pretty harsh. Hard to know what's going on with that...
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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