Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The President didn't need to go to Congress for authority

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: Presidency Donate to DU
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM
Original message
The President didn't need to go to Congress for authority
He got the authority from the United Nations with Resolution 1973 I hear idiots questioning the President didn't get authority from the Congress once the United Nations gave the authority Congress was out of the picture its the same thing when the first Bush went into Iraq he went to the UN FIRST then Congress followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Then he's just like bush, good for him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Reagan went to the UN first to attack Grenada same thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Reagan never went to the UN about Grenada.
In fact the UN condemned the attack afterwords.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. Never. Where do you get this stuff? The U.N. called it a "flagrant violation of internatinal law".
He got Congress' Approval for Lebanon, and he had a conversation with Tip O'Neill right before Grenada, but never consulted Congress per se beforehand, and he was arguing a "clear and present" danger argument. He never went to the U.N.; it was a surprise invasion.

You are completely wrong in all the contentions you make in this response and in the Original Post.

Do you have no respect for those on the board who may be affected by hyperbole and false assertions? Is this deliberate or merely incredibly sloppy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Yes, he is!
Just like booosh. A War KKKriminal, I tell ya!11!!12.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. so Congress has to do what the UN says?
I've been to one world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've read all year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. NO if Congress did there FUCKING JOB!! like there supposed to they should have declared WAR!!!
but they don't want to do that we haven't declared war on a country in over 40 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. but did you stay in a holiday inn express?? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Nope
The UN is not a branch of the US government and the War powers act specifically deals with the duties and responsibilities of the Executive and Legislative branches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky 13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. So you are saying a UN resolution outweighs the U.S. Constitution?
What about all the other UN resolutions that we have REFUSED to sign on to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Only when it fits your talking point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky 13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Unreal. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Senate approves alliances because an alliance...
can take us to war. This first happened with the Korean war.

Congress approved Afghanistan in the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" which made the war in Afghanistan legal and Constitutional. Congress approved "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" which made the war in Iraq legal and Constitution under U.S. Law. In Korea, United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 authorized conflict and because the Senate approved our treaty and ties with the U.N. that resolution initiated our involvement in the Korean War in accordance with U.S. Law and the Constitution.

The War Poser Act of 1975 covers how the President can involve the U.S. in conflicts and when he must contact the Congress, all in accordance with U.S. Law and the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. But congress....
never declared war with regard to Iraq.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No, but they approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:16 PM by Ozymanithrax
, Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114 as a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
which approved the use of military force in Iraq in accordance with U.S. Law. That made it legal and Constitutional under U.S. Law.

Personally, I think it should require a declaration of real war, but Congress fulfilled their legal obligation.

The War Powers Act of 1975 is another legal document that outlines how the President can use military force and what he must do, especially in actions that involve military conflict but are short of all out war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. I also dont remember Prez Clinton...
getting congressional approval for his no fly zones....what is different about Obama and the other previous presidents who did not get congressional approval....hmmmmm...I wonder what that difference is....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krawhitham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. He was white
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. Yeah, and he took a lot of heat for it, too.
It was a big problem at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
El Supremo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. Oh yeah? In Obama's own words from 2007:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/Candi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. That means Bush was in the right for Afghanistan.
Secondly would suggest that he's in the clear considering this is not a declaration of war and he's not working unilaterally---but in a coalition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
17. Whether Obama constitutionally must get Congress' approval has nothing to do
with what the U.N. approves or doesn't approve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. He didn't really need the UN either the constitution gives the president power to move troops
without the congress if it's not war time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. When is it "war time", then?
If shooting missiles at military targets doesn't constitute war, it's never war time, and Congress's power to declare war is moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. True but we haven't declared war in this country in a long time. I think WW2 was the last time we
did. I'm just glad that Obama did the diplomacy to get the rest of the world in on this. It's still a useless act and really none of our business but at least we'll be out of this one sooner. I know it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things but it's what seperates Obama from bush. I don't like it and I wouldn't have went in though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
22. No, he doesn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. Dupe. nt.
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 02:37 PM by Hosnon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
25. This is hilarious.
Every time Obama has failed, it's been said that he has to work through Congress and that he's not a dictator and he can't just do things without Congressional approval.

Now, though...boy times change huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
26. What a dangerous overthrowing of our Constitutional order
Our entire system of checks and balances can be dissolved by UN fiat?

Is this truly what you're arguing?

This. Is. Insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Insane, I agree
The war making powers of the Congress are not obviated by the UN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. And simply not true
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarburstClock Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
27. Yoo Hoo, he didn't need UN permission either
And he didn't get it from Russia and China there. A POTUS will attack any country he wants to for whatever reason, nobody in any world court will hold a POTUS responsible and dumbed-down Americans will justify the military aggression any possible way they can if they politically align with the POTUS.

That is specifically why a POTUS should act like a leader, not an invader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Whether he needs the UN's permission is debatable, but he DOES need Congress' Authorization
The only time he wouldn't, under the War Powers Act, would be if we were attacked, and even then, he would need to consult with Congress at first opportunity. Obama hasn't even done THAT; he's sent a letter informing them of his imperial whim.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
31. So very, very incorrect in every respect
"this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," This the Supreme Court when deciding Reid v. Covert in 1957.

The Act of Congress that authorized participation in the UN, in 1945 states very clearly:

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONGRESS by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

Bush sought UN Approval and DID NOT GET IT. He DID SEEK APPROVAL OF CONGRESS, because he knew the War Powers Act applied, AND GOT IT.

The War Powers Act clearly states that the President can only wage war with either a Declaration of Authorization from Congress, OR when the country or its forces are attacked, and even then, he needs to consult with them.

Both Bushes and Reagan ALL complied with these laws in at least some situations.

Where do you get this simplistic stuff? We'd NEVER sign a treaty that was in conflict with our Constitution, and there's a safeguard if we do: the Constitution supersedes Treaties. Period.

You are completely and indisputably wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
36. "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Looks like we can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
37. locking
Calling fellow DU'ers idiots that may disagree with your position is a group attack/callout.
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 Dec 25th 2014, 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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