Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-23-2011, 11:58 AM
 
20,411 posts, read 12,318,768 times
Reputation: 10197

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
You are completely wrong. What Obama did was well within the WPA guidelines in his actions. But go right on ignoring that fact if you wish. No skin off my back.
I would like for you to explain this fact.... Historian Dude has suggested that the preconditions are declaratory. That I believe is his interpretation and not a statement of accepted legal interpretation. Is that your assertion or do you have a different theory?

How do you negotiate around the prerequisites laid out in the actual law.

At the risk of being iterative, here is the actual wording of the law itself….


(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2011, 11:59 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,419,196 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
Are you privy to the written legal reasoning that Obama has put forth to Congress? Are you on the Memo Distribution List?
There was no imminent threat to the US nor was there an attack. Any attempt to say there was is a plain out lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,239,765 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
There was no imminent threat to the US nor was there an attack. Any attempt to say there was is a plain out lie.
Some of the Obamatrons were point to $100 oil as a plausible case of national emergency and an attack on us. Of course, this MIGHT make some sense if oil was only available in Libya and nowhere else, and oil was $5,000 a barrel. But, of course neither is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,418,283 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post

Nope. Try again. If you are SOOOOOO sure, please provide legal documentation backing up your stance. As it sits now I can find plenty of legal documentation that proves you wrong. Please provide proof that is what it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post

Oh yeah? Please explain:

Fixing the War Powers Act | The Heritage Foundation
Case Closed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post

There was no imminent threat to the US nor was there an attack. Any attempt to say there was is a plain out lie.
Read the thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:03 PM
 
14,905 posts, read 8,527,508 times
Reputation: 7343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
From the link I provided earlier, dear.

Michael J. Kelly, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Research and International Programs at Creighton University School of Law.
"Professor Kelly coordinates the International and Comparative Law Program at Creighton University School of Law. He is the newly-elected president of the U.S. National Chapter of L'association International du Droit Pénal, a Paris-based society of international criminal law scholars, judges and attorneys founded in 1924 that enjoys consultative status with the United Nations."

. . .


Courses Taught:
Comparative Constitutional Law
. . .
International Law
National Security & Foreign Relations Law
And Donald Rumsfeld's legal background is?
Hahahahaha .... wow ... that's rich. And you probably don't even realize just how rich.

"Enjoys consultative status with the UN" ? And just what does the UN have to do with the United States Constitution exactly? I mean, other than thinking itself and it's decisions overriding?

This HACK isn't offering an opinion ... he's supporting an ideological agenda under the guise of some scholarly expertise that he obviously doesn't possess or is unwilling to consult ...... including an understanding of the English language, apparently ... in either common or legal context.

The WPA is plainly clear in language and intent ... but of course Lawyers will argue that up is actually down without hesitation, as is their natural inclination and paid profession to do.

And if $100 was placed in the pot every time this gang of gangster criminals violated the constitution, with their fringe hacks supporting the legitimacy of such overt criminal violations, the national debt would be a freaking surplus.

So, let's not perpetuate the illusion here, OK? The US constitution is an historical treasure valued by the people, and totally ignored by the cabal that overthrew the constitutional government of the "Neutered States of Amerika".

If the constitution was actually being enforced ... That Kenyan usurper without a birth certificate would be violating the constitution by having Tea in the Rose Garden !!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:05 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 7,994,750 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
No Act can or should be read in pieces, isolating them from the other parts of the law. Each part bears an importance as it relates to the Law as a whole.

The WPA allows the President to take military action first, notify Congress second, and provide his or her reasons for doing so in writing later. It is up to Congress to determine, based on this written submission, whether those reasons fall within #3, or, if they do not, to require him or her to remove the troops from the action.

Since Congress as a body has not weighed in yet on whether they agree that the President's written reasons fit within the law, I fail to see how you, personally, can declare that they don't. And until Congress has their say, the President is well within the scope of his power under both Article II and the WPA to continue with the military action he has engaged the troops in.

What part of this is so hard for you to understand is a mystery to me.
What part of, we have no business being there, do you not understand. No one agrees with the President's written reasons or his verbal ones, except Hillary When the American people have their say - he will not be elected a second term.

And that, isn't a mystery to anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:08 PM
 
664 posts, read 772,224 times
Reputation: 922
I don't know if this has been posted before, I haven't and am going to read all 19 pages. It seems like Obama didn't think the president was allowed to take unilateral action without Congressional approval before he became president. So, why is this any different then when Bush was in office? Don't bother answering, I know why. Yet another liberal example of do what I say not what I do. Obama the liar strikes again.

Obama:

Quote:
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,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,418,283 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post

I would like for you to explain this fact.... Historian Dude has suggested that the preconditions are declaratory. That I believe is his interpretation and not a statement of accepted legal interpretation. Is that your assertion or do you have a different theory?

How do you negotiate around the prerequisites laid out in the actual law.

At the risk of being iterative, here is the actual wording of the law itself….


(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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.
I'm with Historian Dude here, in addition to reminding you that the WPA gives the President an opportunity to make his case to Congress as regards (3). As of now, we are not privy to the case he has made, including what "attack" he may have attempted to claim was made against the U.S. or its territories. For all we know, he has claimed there was an imminent threat to U.S. bases in the region, which would fall under the heading of "upon the United States".

What I'm saying is, we're in a "waiting window" period that the WPA allows for. During that window, he is, by default, considered in compliance with the requirements of the WPA.

Until we hear from Congress on this matter, it has yet to be determined if he has violated that section of the WPA or is in violation of his Constitutional limitations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:13 PM
 
20,411 posts, read 12,318,768 times
Reputation: 10197
Here is an odd side note.

Obama's action here is enough for congress to bring articles of impeachement (I do not think they should) but by the wording of the law... that no one wants to challenge in court... they can bring articles.

I do not believe there is an appeal process for a president who is impeahed.

So if the House were to bring charges and the Senate were to convict him of violating the War Powers Act, He would be OUT and the SCOTUS would still have no say in the matter....

Now they wont do this. They should NOT do this. There is no way I would be happy about it even though I dont like Obama, but it could be done and he has put himself in that position.

they wacky thing is, I am certain he could have gotten statutory authority here if he had wanted it. Even though I do agree with Rumsfeld that he likely didnt know what he needed to ask for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 12:16 PM
 
20,411 posts, read 12,318,768 times
Reputation: 10197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
I'm with Historian Dude here, in addition to reminding you that the WPA gives the President an opportunity to make his case to Congress as regards (3). As of now, we are not privy to the case he has made, including what "attack" he may have attempted to claim was made against the U.S. or its territories. For all we know, he has claimed there was an imminent threat to U.S. bases in the region, which would fall under the heading of "upon the United States".

What I'm saying is, we're in a "waiting window" period that the WPA allows for. During that window, he is, by default, considered in compliance with the requirements of the WPA.

Until we hear from Congress on this matter, it has yet to be determined if he has violated that section of the WPA or is in violation of his Constitutional limitations.
this is more reasonable a postition that it seemed you were making earlier that there was no need to comply with (3).

However, I believe the letter sent to congress did not metion any actual attack. I believe you are right that he has claimed "imminent threat" as justification. However, that language is nowhere to be found in the WPA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top