Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SENATE HOLDS VOTE ON SEN. PAUL'S SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION

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
 
jakeXT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:56 PM
Original message
SENATE HOLDS VOTE ON SEN. PAUL'S SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 12:57 PM by jakeXT

SENATE HOLDS VOTE ON SEN. PAUL'S SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. Tuesday afternoon, The U.S. Senate held a vote on a sense of the Senate resolution, introduced last week by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The language of the resolution simply quoted then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obamas 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. The measure aimed to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war. The motion was tabled, 90-10.

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_Ne...

Hey, it was multilateral...





What Happened To The American Declaration Of War?

...

As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.
http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/03/30/what-happene... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. If he had asked congress
would the republicans have voted against it because Obama wanted it. I know they wouldn't have voted against it because they didn't want to go into Libya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. He DID vote on it
In a unanimous consent request. If he objected, he should have done it at that time, it only takes 1 person to stop the unanimous consent.
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 Fri Oct 31st 2014, 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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