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.
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.
this is more reasonable a postition that it seemed you were making earlier that there was no need to comply with (3).
I don't think I ever stated or implied that there was no need to comply with (3). I was just trying to get you to see that those requirements don't live in isolation in that Act, and that other provisions allow him to deploy the military in the manner he has. And so far, he's been in compliance "by the book".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
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.
I won't even venture a guess as to what legal standing he claimed. Given that everyone knows we weren't fired upon or bombed or in any other way physically attacked yet, even I'm willing to bet his reasoning will be something as convoluted as Jay Bybee's legal reasoning for torturing prisoners (though I hope I'm wrong and his position is more clearly legal than that). I just hope whatever it is, is something Congress can agree to, and subsequently provide Statutory cover for.
Of course not. I was just trying to get you to see that those requirements don't live in isolation in that Act, and that other provisions allow him to deploy the military in the manner he has. And so far, he's been in compliance "by the book". I won't even venture a guess as to what legal standing he claimed. Given that everyone knows we weren't fired upon or bombed or in any other way physically attacked yet, and even I'm willing to bet his reasoning will be something as convoluted as Jay Bybee's legal reasoning for torturing prisoners (though I hope I'm wrong and his position is more clearly legal than that). I just hope whatever it is, is something Congress can agree to, and subsequently provide Statutory cover for.
By the book? What book, the handbook for Dictators, Kings and Queens? Why are you trying so hard to defend this? He was wrong, broke the law, just like other President's have, but that is no excuse.
I am under the impression that 1541 paragraph 3 is clear statement of the powers and limitations of the President as Commander in Chief.
1. There is nothing "clear" about it. If you responded to my post from yesterday, I apologize for having missed it, but an "attack upon the United States" is a massive (and I suggest deliberately constructed) loophole. Is an attack against an American ally "an attack upon the United States?" Is a cyber attack on Google from China an "attack upon the United States?" Is an attack against American interests (an oil pipeline, the Suez Canal, the Ozone Layer) an "attack upon the United States?"
These are purely rhetorical questions here, because only the Congress gets to answer that question in the context of conformance to the WPR.
2. Again... it is the US Constitution, not the US Congress, that gets to define "the powers and limitations of the President as Commander in Chief."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
The issue of constitutionality is not in play until such time as a suit exists. We don’t get to go with “I can ignore that because I think it’s unconstitutionalâ€.
It depends on who "we" are and what our intentions are. If the President's intention was to force a Constitutional challenge then ignoring it would be the single best way to get that particular ball rolling. But again... that would also depend on Congress pushing back because they have judged the intervention to be a violation.
This is the massive cart that you keep putting in front of your positional horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
I have reviewed as best as I can all the military actions we have taken at least since RR bombed Libya and I cannot find one (I could very well be wrong) where there was no clear indication that America or Americans had been attacked as a precursor. Clintons bombing of Serbia might be the exception but I am not really sure. I do know and agree with Clinton that Congress’s funding of the effort in the aftermath was sufficient statutory authority to continue the operation.
Did you miss sending Special Forces to Columbia in 2002 to protect an oil pipeline from rebels? Our 2003 landing of troops in Liberia? Our 2008 helicopter raid into Syria? Our 2002 combat operations in the Philippines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
Maybe this is a matter of semantics but either there are preconditions or there aren’t. The way the act itself reads, it is clear that there are preconditions.
But what actually are they?
What is or is not "an attack on the United States?"
The WPR provides a mechanism for answering that question. It certainly does not always answer itself. And the president has conformed perfectly to that mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
But as has been said, because no one really wants this before the court, we just ignore those preconditions? I find that mind boggling.
I don't believe they are being ignored. I believe that the President is confident he can make his case that they have been met, and I predict Congress will agree.
Obama violates the sensibilties of the majority of Americans.
Violating the war powers act is just another insult. He may have historical perspective but to drag out his decision for 3 weeks and not get legislative approval or even have a discussion, separates Obama from his predecessors. Imminent danger this was not. This guy is a lone wolf with handlers not approved by the electorate.
I don't think I ever stated or implied that there was no need to comply with (3). I was just trying to get you to see that those requirements don't live in isolation in that Act, and that other provisions allow him to deploy the military in the manner he has. And so far, he's been in compliance "by the book". I won't even venture a guess as to what legal standing he claimed. Given that everyone knows we weren't fired upon or bombed or in any other way physically attacked yet, even I'm willing to bet his reasoning will be something as convoluted as Jay Bybee's legal reasoning for torturing prisoners (though I hope I'm wrong and his position is more clearly legal than that). I just hope whatever it is, is something Congress can agree to, and subsequently provide Statutory cover for.
My arguement is and has always been that 1541 governs all the sections that follow. I guess you are saying that the other secitons stand on their own and are not impacted by previous sections?
I find that odd....
I do agree that congress needs to act to provide statutory cover. I suspect they will in the form of appropriation for the funds needed.
Obama violates the sensibilties of the majority of Americans.
Violating the war powers act is just another insult. He may have historical perspective but to drag out his decision for 3 weeks and not get legislative approval or even have a discussion, separates Obama from his predecessors. Imminent danger this was not. This guy is a lone wolf with handlers not approved by the electorate.
He had a discussion. You aren't privy to what imminent dangers there may or may not have been.
This section provides that the President is not allowed to send U.S. troops into combat unless Congress specifically gives advance approval; the only exception is if the President is responding to a national emergency created by an attack on U.S. territory or on U.S. armed forces.11 Even then, the President must report to Congress immediately and then "terminate any use" of the troops within 60 days unless Congress specifically approves of further action.12
1. There is nothing "clear" about it. If you responded to my post from yesterday, I apologize for having missed it, but an "attack upon the United States" is a massive (and I suggest deliberately constructed) loophole. Is an attack against an American ally "an attack upon the United States?" Is a cyber attack on Google from China an "attack upon the United States?" Is an attack against American interests (an oil pipeline, the Suez Canal, the Ozone Layer) an "attack upon the United States?"
These are purely rhetorical questions here, because only the Congress gets to answer that question in the context of conformance to the WPR.
2. Again... it is the US Constitution, not the US Congress, that gets to define "the powers and limitations of the President as Commander in Chief."
It depends on who "we" are and what our intentions are. If the President's intention was to force a Constitutional challenge then ignoring it would be the single best way to get that particular ball rolling. But again... that would also depend on Congress pushing back because they have judged the intervention to be a violation.
This is the massive cart that you keep putting in front of your positional horse.
Did you miss sending Special Forces to Columbia in 2002 to protect an oil pipeline from rebels? Our 2003 landing of troops in Liberia? Our 2008 helicopter raid into Syria? Our 2002 combat operations in the Philippines?
But what actually are they?
What is or is not "an attack on the United States?"
The WPR provides a mechanism for answering that question. It certainly does not always answer itself. And the president has conformed perfectly to that mechanism.
I don't believe they are being ignored. I believe that the President is confident he can make his case that they have been met, and I predict Congress will agree.
I didnt respond yet to your post yesterday. sorry... posting and busy at the same time.
You are right that what constitutes an attack is vague. however, in this instance, I do not believe anyone can suggest that Libya has attacked us in any way. That is the point here.
those you mentioned I believe carry some indication that American territory was attacked. stuff we own can be construed.... etc...
next post I will address your concern of the words : imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
My arguement is and has always been that 1541 governs all the sections that follow. I guess you are saying that the other secitons stand on their own and are not impacted by previous sections?
I find that odd....
No, I'm saying that the sections don't flow in the order you're placing them in. It's not like a computer program, where you'd see:
Line 1: If A, B or C = Yes, go to line 2
If A, B or C = No, go to line 3
Line 2: Engage troops
Line 3: Do nothing
It's more like:
Line 1: Either A, B or C must be true.
Line 2: At some point either A, B or C have to be proven to be true to Congress
Line 3: The President is allowed to act, prior to proving either A, B or C to Congress
Line 4: Congress has the power to accept reject the President's evidence
Right now we're hovering at Line 3, waiting for the determination of Line 4.
I hope that illustration makes more sense.
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.
When the American people have their say - he will not be elected a second term.
and more
