Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't get why it's silly when Obama actually did something unconstitutional.
Now it is true, his opposition in Congress is more than willing to see the President be allowed to wage war without Congressional approval. So they will not challenge him.
But that's their lack of character and principles in fulling their Constitutional role.
If you think President Obama did something unconstitutional you don't understand the Constitution and just as importantly you don't understand the War PowerS Resolution. Don't feel so alone most American don't have any ideal what the War Powers Resoution is or what it entails.
President Barack Obama is in FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION:
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(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.
Quote:
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
If Congress wants the President to withdraw the United States Armed Forces from a military hostility or conflict then THEY SHOULD VOTE AND ISSUE A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TROOPS.
If you think President Obama did something unconstitutional you don't understand the Constitution and just as importantly you don't understand the War Power Resolution. Don't feel so alone most American don't have any ideal what the War Powers Resoution is or what it entails.
President Barack Obama is in FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE WAR POWER RESOLUTION:
If Coingress wants the President to withdraw the United States Armed Forces from a military hostility or conflict then THEY SHOULD VOATE AND ISSUE A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TROOPS.
The War Powers Resolution has never been challenged in court by a Congress principled enough to assert it's Constitutional duty. Only Congress has the ability to declare War, with the exception of an outright attack on the US.
The War Powers act is merely yet another illegal law. Just like the law passed last year punishing ACORN under an illegal bill of attainder. Thrown out because it was illegal. Just as I had claimed. The only difference there was that those that had legal standing to sue, stood up for their rights. Congress is too corrupt to do that.
If you think President Obama did something unconstitutional you don't understand the Constitution and just as importantly you don't understand the War Power Resolution. Don't feel so alone most American don't have any ideal what the War Powers Resoution is or what it entails.
President Barack Obama is in FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE WAR POWER RESOLUTION:
If Coingress wants the President to withdraw the United States Armed Forces from a military hostility or conflict then THEY SHOULD VOTE AND ISSUE A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TROOPS.
"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"
Were hostilities between Libya and the US imminent? Hell no. Imminent hostilities does not equate to the president deciding on his own "Yeah, I'm gonna attack the leader of a foreign country, because i don't like his internal politics."
"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"
Were hostilities between Libya and the US imminent? Hell no. Imminent hostilities does not equate to the president deciding on his own "Yeah, I'm gonna attack the leader of a foreign country, because i don't like his internal politics."
Very true.
Anybody wishing to raise their IQ level on this matter should read this well reasoned argument from a Constitutional Lawyer.
The War Powers Resolution has never been challenged in court by a Congress principled enough to assert it's Constitutional duty. Only Congress has the ability to declare War, with the exception of an outright attack on the US.
The War Powers act is merely yet another illegal law. Just like the law passed last year punishing ACORN under an illegal bill of attainder. Thrown out because it was illegal. Just as I had claimed. The only difference there was that those that had legal standing to sue, stood up for their rights. Congress is too corrupt to do that.
Name a court that has declared the War Powers Resooution unconstitutional and we can talk.
Until then.
If Congress wants to force President Obama to withdraw the troops they need to pass a joint resolution calling for a withdrawal.
So let's see want happens in Congress besides the currenty b*ctching and moaning.
Name a court that has declared the War Powers Resooution unconstitutional and we can talk.
Until then.
If Congress wants to force President Obama to withdraw the troops they need to pass a joint resolution calling for a withdrawal.
So let's see want happens in Congress besides the currenty b*ctching and moaning.
Ok by your reasoning then Bush's illegal wire tapping, torture are legal too because the courts have not ruled on that either.
And the Japanese internment camps were legal because no court ruled against them. ...
If the government does it....it's legal..until a court rules otherwise.....LOL
And Congress will not ask for a a troop withdrawl because Congress doesn't care about the Constitution, they care about looking tough to lazy, ignorant voters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
