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.
But.....this is clearly obama's policy, the very same one he employed in Libya. Are you an obama supporter?
Then let Congress question the President.
Yes, I'm an Obama supporter and, no, I don't like what he did in Libya. While I have no doubt he had the legal authority to commit troops to that operation under the War Powers Resolution, when he later refused to seek Congressional approval under that resolution when the time frame was up, he should have been called onto the carpet about it.
Precedent weighs so heavily in our system of laws that any breach of the law MUST be defended, regardless of the political consequences and the Congress failed in it's duty to challenge the President on Constitutional grounds.
Obama going into Libya with UN approval and then a Friday night memo to Congress.."BTW we're invading Libya tomorrow" set a precedent. Congress sat back and hemmed and hawed and issued a statement but did NOTHING for months and funded it to boot.
It would not have mattered if he sent troops into Libya without a UN resolution. The War Powers Resolution gives him the authority to do so and it was not a precedent. That same process has been used several times in the past by other Presidents.
It would not have mattered if he sent troops into Libya without a UN resolution. The War Powers Resolution gives him the authority to do so and it was not a precedent. That same process has been used several times in the past by other Presidents.
And it also put a time limit on his lone action. That limit came and went and nothing was done about it.
That is the precedent I speak of.
I'm not making excuses, just pointing out that Sessions is asking the Secretary and the General what justification they'd use to make a decision which IS ABOVE THEIR PAY GRADE TO MAKE!
No wonder the witnesses look confused. They must be thinking, "What the hell is he talking about? WE don't set policy, WE don't decide when and under what circumstance the nation goes to war."
Sessions is an old, inside hack who knows how the game is played and he's playing it here. Create meaningless sound bites for the great unwashed and uneducated to swallow. Hand that off to willing water carriers and it's soon all over the place, just like here where there are already at least two threads about it. Before the sun goes down, it's accepted as gospel fact by those who don't really know how their government works.
Are you saying that the current Secretary of Defense and Former CIA Director who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, doesn't know what the Constitution says about going to war?
Why is he serving me? If he doesn't know what a peon like me knows about the Constitution, which i have never sworn an oath to uphold.
Come on! He's college educated, he's the cat's meow. Until he doesn't want to speak the truth.
Are you saying that the current Secretary of Defense and Former CIA Director who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, doesn't know what the Constitution says about going to war?
That should make the world feel safe, our president is a dictator, and only needs enough blood thirsty foreign governments to egg him on, and it's "war on" baby!!!
That should make the world feel safe, our president is a dictator, and only needs enough blood thirsty foreign governments to egg him on, and it's "war on" baby!!!
"Safe and Secure'?
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.