Evening Howler: In Libya Coverage, AP Invents a Bizarre Synonym for 'Fails to Comply With'
It's been 60 days since America's "kinetic military action" in Libya commenced.
The War Powers Act is relevant in certain circumstances, including (Section 1543) "in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced ... into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat." This would clearly apply to the Libyan situation.
The Act requires timely presidential notification of the commencement of such operations. Though of dubious constitutionality, the Act further requires that (Section 1544) "Within sixty calendar days ... the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" unless Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization ..."
We're at Day 60, and the Obama administration isn't going to comply with any of this. Here is how the Associated Press is headlining and describing Barack Obama's failure to comply (copied in full for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes):
Those who care about such things (i.e., people who don't want to see the press continually corrupt the English language) should note that the dictionary meanings of "skip" as a verb do not include "to fail to comply with a legal requirement."
Nobody can possibly believe that the AP would have engaged in such an obvious dodge if a Republican or conservative in the White House has even considered such an option, let alone gone with the "You wouldn't dare do something about this, would you?" strategy Team Obama is employing.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
They think?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:57am.
In absence of pressure from Congress(that was out of session at this time until Monday)? WH officials think they are on solid ground?
I've seen similar articles and in a lot of their comment sections, most people were pretty much saying the same thing, the same reaction I had, which was "you arrogant SOB."
And I find it not a little disturbing of what his definition of a "limited role" in Libya it is, especially when this was a UN action thus putting the US at the beck and call of the UN instead of leading it as the US has done in the past. More of his reducing the super power status of the US to virtually nothing.
If Congress doesn't take action first thing Monday morning, this country will truly be under a dictatorship. I wouldn't be surprised if he decides to cancel the 2012 election on the grounds that people are going to vote for him anyway, so he deemed it as such.
God help us.
-Jon
Once again the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:17am.
Once again the "constitutional scholar" shits on America in favor of the mugabe method of governance. It's about time to impeach and imprison this kenyan communist.
Impeach and imprison?
Submitted by Joji on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:36am.
Impeachment/imprisonment is too legal and takes too long. We should follow the expeditious techniques practiced by the Poseur In Chief: storm the White House, tar and feather the so-and-so and set him adrift in the sea. Oh, wait...Joe Biden. Damn!
Laws? We don't need no stinking laws.
Submitted by Boil It Down on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:18am.
As usual this administration only complies with the "law du jour" as it is defined by the administration that day. This administration is beyond corrupt, and "news" people like those at the AP are only too willing to cover for them. Corruption all around. There is only a small percentage of the media willing to protect us. -bidn-
IMPEACH.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:32am.
NOW.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Peter Fonda was right!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 6:08am.
Again, Obama trumps his own creepiness.
Absence of pressure??
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 6:41am.
So much for liberals snorting that George Bush did it too!
in the absence of pressure from Congress?
How about THIS and THIS
From the first link:
In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:
Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.
In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day [sic] limit set for termination of all operations.
So much for liberals snorting that George Bush did it too!
In Kosovo, the Congress
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:31am.
In Kosovo, the Congress approved funding, but had also passed a resolution against the war.
I think the argument that the Kosovo war was legit juts because they funded it is shaky.
X
Submitted by serfer62 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:19pm.
You got to be a hippie to think a meaningless resolution carries any weight or that funding isn't approval
There's actually a pretty
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 12:07pm.
There's actually a pretty important reason to not take funding as a sign of approval:
"The head of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs announced that the fleet should not and could not go because Congress would refuse to appropriate the money -- he being from an Eastern seaboard State. However, I announced in response that I had enough money to take the fleet around to the Pacific anyhow, that the fleet would certainly go, and that if Congress did not choose to appropriate enough money to get the fleet back, why, it would stay in the Pacific. There was no further difficulty about the money." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1908
Funding is always done as a practical issue, since the Congress doesn't want to hurt an operation in progress. If we're to say that the Congress has no say except in funding, then it in a de facto sense gives the President almost unlimited war-making powers.
The purpose of a "declaration of war" (which Mark Levin doesn't get) is to make it clear that the President is acting in war as a legitimate representative of the United States government, and cannot be held as a rogue actor.
Hypocrisy 101
Submitted by NickDeringer on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 6:37am.
I remember how the Libs screeched like a bunch of cats stuck in a clothes dryer when Bush invaded Iraq. Trashing the Constitution is OK as long as there's a Marxist in the White House.
Bush had approval for Iraq.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 6:44am.
Bush had approval for Iraq.
If the War Powers Act is unconstitutional - then let's litigate
Submitted by acaiguana on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 6:51am.
We should simply litigate this Act through the Supreme Court and get rid of it once and for all.
It has really only been used as a Propaganda tool against Republican Presidents; and even then proved to be useless as to Presidential fiat.
I am not an isolationist, but I oppose this Libya thing as it appears to have no real outcome or purpose and only exposes our military to yet a third war in the Middle East.
The facade of NATO not being the US is laughable. It is also pitiful.
If Congress wants to stop the War in Libya; pass a bill cutting off spending as the Democrats did for Viet Nam.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Don't worry. Isolationism is
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:15am.
Don't worry. Isolationism is not the same as non-intervenrionism. Isolationism would cut off all ties with other countries including trade. No one I've read or heard is advocating that.
No its not, isolationism can
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:49am.
No its not, isolationism can refer to just a foreign policy position, and mean a refusal to get involved in any permanent alliances or commitments. Early US policy was a version of isolationism, with the refusal of "entangling alliances" and only a commitment to defending the Western Hemisphere under the Monroe Doctrine. With the Monroe Doctrine, it wasn't the most extreme policy of isolationism, but the design of that was also to reduce conflict in the Western Hemisphere and prevent the need for the US to go to war.
Non-interventionism in contrast would not imply we don't have alliances, but just that we don't act as a "world police" either because of some argument about 'American exceptionalism' or commitments with international bodies to intervene and stop "unlawful" wars.
Non-interventionism would have allowed us to enter Europe in WWI and WWII, isolationism would not have.
Another version of isolationism with Britain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation
You're agreeing with me for
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:01pm.
You're agreeing with me for the most part.
I just don't think it has
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:40pm.
I just don't think it has anything to do with trade policy. I've heard some libertarians describe isolationism as a combination of non-interventionism on foreign policy and protectionism on trade policy, when its not. You can be non-interventionist and protectionist without being isolationist.
But it does. Isolationism
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:03pm.
But it does. Isolationism does not allow for foreign trade. To have relations with other countries is inconsistent with the term/ideology. As an example, calling Ron Paul an isolationist is incorrect, because he does not advocate cutting trade or ties to other nations. He is an non-interventionist, believing that we have no business meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations or propping them up through financial aid.
He is an idiot as are you.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:46pm.
How is Ron Paul going to keep the trade routes open for all this trade he wants to allow with his non-isolationist interventionalism?
You idiot milquetoast mollycoddle.
Its possible to have foreign
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:07pm.
Its possible to have foreign policy allies, so non-isolationist, and still have protectionist policies. Or, on the other hand, have no allies whatsoever and be diplomatically isolationist, but have free trade policies. Its not logically inconsistent.
Britain in the 19th century was both free trade and isolationist.
In no way whatsoever was
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 8:00am.
In no way whatsoever was Britain isolationist. Hell, they'e never been isolationists. Never.
Yes, they were isolationist
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 11:22am.
Yes, they were isolationist with everyone that wasn't a colony of theirs :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation
There he goes again,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:53pm.
Incestmo talking about relations.
Oh wait!! Obama now says
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:26am.
Oh wait!!
Obama now says he doesn't need congressional authorization!!
Because, you know, it's only "non-kinetic" support.
OMO!
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:39pm.
Yeah, except for that nagging bit about our pilots involved in actual combat sorties. Opps!
I need duct tape, STAT!
The War Powers Act is not
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:23am.
The War Powers Act is not relevant because it is unconstitutional. The president has no constitutional authority to launch offensive campaigns; the founders clearly denied the executive this ability/power. Only in defensive matters does the president not need to go before Congress. The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process, not through the everyday legislative process, and there has been no Constitutional amendment that revokes Congresses' sole authority to declare war. It's saddening that supposed conservatives who state a desire to abide by the Constitution are clueless about the document and accept the War Powers Act premise.
http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mark-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods168.html
It is, however, the law of the land
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:35am.
If Obama disagrees with its constitutionality, let him litigate it.
He is not exempt from the law, Incestmo. Therefore he must comply or litigate, he can't say "I don't like it, f' off".
He needs to be held in Contempt of Congress.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
He is not exempt from the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:55am.
He is not exempt from the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. No elected official has any responsibility or obligation to follow unconstitutional laws. Neither Obama nor neo-cons like Levin (who, believe it or not, is arguing that Obama has sole Constitutional authority to send troops overseas, cross borders, and attack another country. Don't you find that odd?) have any desire to challenge the Constitutionality of the WPA because it falsely takes authority away from Congress and puts it in the hands of one single man, which both are in favor of. Why would Obama litigate it? Regardless, that's irrelevent from the central issue.
Just what IS the central
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:01am.
Just what IS the central issue?
Are you arguing that Obama need not comply because the WPA is unconstitutional?
(Note to Supreme Court: Don't bother, I have this- Obama)
PS: nice touch there: 3 citations.
Except they are all the same opinion, by the same man, in 3 different articles.
The articles are all part of
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:09am.
The articles are all part of one single discussion. Read them and you might learn something.
Rude bugger
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:17am.
No one is obliged to read your links, Incestmo.
You should be banned for stupidity and gross rudeness.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I did. His conclusion is
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:24am.
I did. Hiis conclusion is that
In short, there is no constitutional support for the presidential war powers claimed by mainstream left and right.
What is your point?
Are you saying that Obama doesn't need to comply with the War Powers Act because it's unconstitutional?
Or that Obama's engaging in Libya was illegal, for the same reason?
Pick one, please.
My point was quite obvious in
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:28am.
My point was quite obvious in my initial post. Again, if you read the articles and blog entries, you would see the arguments of both sides and the evidence laid out for why the WPA is unconstitutional and why the founders and ratifiers did not intend for the executive to have authority to launch offensive campaigns. No president should comply with the WPA; instead, they should go before Congress to seek a declaration of war. Unfortunately, the masses - especially so-called conservatives who claim a desire to abide by the Constitution - accept the premise that the WPA is okey-dokey. For example, nowhere in Blumer's entry is there any mention of the constitutionality of the WPA. This is where the argument needs to be made. Who cares if a president misses the deadline imposed by an unconstitutional act when the actions by the president were unconstitutional to begin with?
Once again, you can't or won't read ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:13am.
You claim:
... nowhere in Blumer's entry is there any mention of the constitutionality of the WPA.
You're wrong. What about ...
Though of dubious constitutionality ...
... Don't you understand?
In a post about the AP's bogus handling of Obama's failure to comply, doing so was optional in any event -- a free bonus, if you will.
Why would you fib about something so obvious?
You're right, I missed that.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:33am.
You're right, I missed that. I apologize.
ETA: Your use of "relevant in certain circumstances" seemed to be an acceptance of the act, believing it has merit.
Fair enough; apology accepted
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:55am.
As to the "is relevant in circumstances," I suppose I could have written "is allegedly" or something on that order, but my assertion of its dubious constitutionality eliminates the chances of misinterpretation.
You're missing a step
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:00am.
A law is not deemed unconstitutional just because you or Obama says it is.
It has to be struck down in the courts.
It is certainly not irrelevant.
Again, just because you say so, doesn't make it a fact, Incestmo.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It does not habe to be
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:08am.
It does not have to be followed, and states can also use nullification (and they have in the past, and Jefferson wrote they are obligated to do so). Nothing prevented Obama from going before Congress to seek a declaration of war. He was not bound to follow the WPA; he could just as easily NOT have sent any troops into action. Presidents are under no obligation to engage troops in acts of war just because the WPA was passed. It most certainly is irrelevant to tne central issue, which is NOT about process.
It is also not about......
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:17am.
reality.
Repeating yourself incessantly
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:20am.
....does not magically turn your OPINION into fact, Incestmo.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
And if the War Powers Act is
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:31am.
And if the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, the Obama should not have cited it back in April, as justification for his action.
He can't have it both ways: using it to start, and then ignoring it when it expires.
Obama is not going to claim
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:39am.
Obama is not going to claim the WPA is unconstitutional. For one thing, he doesn't have any respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. That should've been obvious long ago. Most people do not know it's unconstitutional. Unfortunately, many of them are in D.C.
Are you now acting as the entire Supreme Court?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:51pm.
Or are you, the Stupid milquetoast mollycoddle just acting as one of the Supreme Court Justices.
The biggest mollycoddle at NewsBusters: Most people do not know it's unconstitutional.
Last time I checked, the War Powers Act is POSSIBLY unconstitutional. Seeing as how it has not been brought up and adjudicated before the Supreme Court, only a TRUE IDIOT LIKE SATCHMO would declare it unconstitutional as though that were fact.
Do you believe that because
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:33am.
Do you believe that because the WPA exists, the president is under obligation to send troops to a foreign land and attack another soverign nation? Do you believe that because the WPA exists the president is prevented from seeking a Congressional declaration of war? You have no idea what you're even arguing against or for.
No Incestmo
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:30am.
Because that is not what the WPA stipulates.
Now why don't you just make up some more stupid sh** about what I believe?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I didn't attribute any belief
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:49am.
I didn't attribute any belief to you; I asked you two questions, trying to get you to think for once. If you answered those questions with a no, then maybe you'd realize how close to my "opinion" you are and stop the foolishness of trying to paint it as being out-of-whack. So then you do agree with me that he didn't have to abide by it, that he could've gone before Congress to seek a declaration of war if he believed it to be unconstitutional.
What is there to opine about
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:03am.
The WPA is the law of the land. If it were this way or that doesnt enter into it.
The question is, will anyone hold Obama accountable?
That's not quite accurate. If
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:18am.
That's not quite accurate. If Congress passed legislation that required the president to be at least 45-years old and it were signed by the president, would that be the law of the land? Of course not. The only way the Constitution can be altered is through the amendment process. Neither my example nor the WPA were achieved through the amendment process. Additionally, states may invoke nullification - and they have in the past.
What the heck
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:52am.
If Congress passed legislation that required the president to be at least 45-years old and it were signed by the president, would that be the law of the land? Of course not.
So in your world, how do laws get passed?
Selective quoting. Try
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:03pm.
Selective quoting. Try reading the part that comes after the bit you highlighted.
Goog grief,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:10pm.
You are thick.
You said "legislation", your word, not mine.
If you want to talk about Amending the Constitution, then I suggest you use an appropriate example.
You a deliberately being
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:11pm.
You are deliberately being obtuse. Have a good weekend.
I was?
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:19pm.
Hhmmm,
Have a good weekend.
I will, my youngest is Graduating HS today,
hey, that would make you 2 about the same age.
I'll pass on the Incestmo school of illogic, thanks
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:48am.
You are beyond arrogant, and obtuse to boot.
I don't agree with you about anything, inasmuch as you try to frame your idiocy just like the MsM, "given that yada yada yada..."
And there you go again, putting words/thoughts on my fingertips.
You've been owned again, multiple times, on this thread alone.
Toodles.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Furthermore
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:53am.
So then you do agree with me that he didn't have to abide by it, that he could've gone before Congress to seek a declaration of war if he believed it to be unconstitutional.
Um, no, I don't agree.
Just because it has four legs, a dog does not a table make, Incestmo.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Except you already agreed. Or
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:08pm.
Except you already agreed. Or did you not answer no to my question that the president is not prevented by the existence of the WPA in going before Congress to seek a declaration of war? I didn't ask if the WPA stipulated it. You claim he has to abide by it. Well, he doesn't, because he doesn't have to send troops to a foreign land. He could have done nothing. Get it? Again, you have no idea what you are arguing for or against.
Really?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:09pm.
So, "I don't agree" (twice) equates, in your mind, to agreement?
Really, you are the most reading deficient troll I've ever seen here (as you've proved once again by missing Tom Blumer's assertion, and your subsequent apology....and you were reading impaired on the original disgraceful incest thread as well, as you, yourself admitted).
Bugger off with this "no idea" bullshit. You're the one sans clue.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Divert! Distract!
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:48pm.
Divert! Distract!
So you admit you're reading deficient, yet again?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:17pm.
You missed me saying "I don't agree", twice?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"He is not exempt from the Constitution"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:45am.
Has anyone TOLD Him that? Last time I looked, He pretty much has declared the Constitution out of date and old fashioned, and not very relevant to anything he wants to do.
Authorization? He don't need no stinking authorization, yo!
J,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:26am.
He needs to be held in Contempt of Congress.
He needs to be held in contempt of America.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
He needw to be impeached and
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:34am.
He needs to be - must be - impeached and removed from office.
In 2007, Mr. Obama accurately
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:39am.
In 2007, Mr. Obama accurately told the Boston Globe that, "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."
Just more proof that Nancy Pelosi was right:
There are a number of things he was for. ...on the campaign trail.
MB - Thanks for piecing the
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:33pm.
MB - Thanks for piecing the background info together with what the Usurper In Chief is doing currently. Good work.
That's not true.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:37pm.
"Only in defensive matters does the president not need to go before Congress."
That's not true. Constitution clearly states that the President MUST have Congressional approval for ANY military action. Only Congress has the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," or "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations," as stated in Article 1, Section 8.
In no part of the Constitution does the President have the power to authorize the use of force anywhere in the world, even here in America in "times of immediate threat to the US," like the President claims. The President is the Command and Chief of the military, as per the Constitution, but he can NOT make use of that military in any way without the express approval of Congress. The Founding Fathers did that for a very good reason: They didn't want the President to have unilateral control of the military at any time.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Except it is true, as the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:45pm.
Except it is true, as the links I provided explain.
No, your links are wrong
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:55pm.
No, your links, the opinions given in those links, are wrong in both their premises and their conclusions.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
LOL. Ok.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:05pm.
LOL. Ok.
LOL?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:08pm.
LOL? What are you, 15 years old and using a text messenger or something?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Oh look everyone. Incestmo tried to have an intelligent thought.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:57pm.
Too bad he failed.
The president has no constitutional authority to launch offensive campaigns...Only in defensive matters does the president not need to go before Congress.
Really braintrust? Where in the Constitution is this whole offensive/defensive thing with the President? And what about the Coach? What role does he play in the Constitution?
Obama has nothing to fear from this congress
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:52am.
As to date, he has gotten pretty much everything he wants out of it, and continues to do so.
He has calculated, correctly, that there aren't enough spines within that body to seriously challenge him here (or anywhere else that matters), so once again, he will simply ignore them, as well as the law.
And once again, the republicans, paralyzed with fear over of being called raaaaaaaacists, are going to sit there like mushrooms on a log and watch him do it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
No spine, no stones, all squid
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:12am.
Yeah, and it starts at the top with Boehner. People have been trying to give him every chance to take charge and he has.............very very loosely. I was hoping for a tough guy to come out behind all those tears, but apparently we'll just have to keep on hoping, won't we? Hence the subject, no spine as you said, no stones/balls/testicular fortitude, and all squid as in all squishy and not really tough at all.
I read that the TEA Party Nation, one group loosely part of the Tea Party as a whole, has expressed extreme dissatisfaction with Boehner and are talking to many others about removing him either by next election or sooner.
I'm all for the TEA party but they need to really step it up and realize, especially after these last few days, that we have a huge problem that's in the WH. He's not even trying to hide who he is anymore for pete's sake. Some of the Congressmen get it like Allen West, but we need more than we are getting.
This country can't afford to give him any more chances. More people need to wake up to that and get us the hell out of this nightmare we're in.
-Jon
Hey Jon...interesting post of yours
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:24am.
I was at Allen's latest Town Hall. One of the questions was "Why does Speaker Boehner....". To which Allen West replied "My name is Allen West, maybe you ought to ask Speaker Boehner".
Which leads me to believe there is quite a schism between the Tea Party Republicans and The Speaker.
Allen West, now that he's not a member of the military, also seems to be extremely displeased with the way our military is being employed. It will be interesting to see how his position fleshes out, as he becomes more comfortable as a member of the Congress rather than as a military officer.
I think I may just write yet another e-mail to my Congressional delegation. We should threaten Obama with no funding unless and until he presents his case for the "Kinetic Military Action" (oh wait...now he says it's NOT kinetic, whatever!) to Congress. Or begins to litigate why he doesn't have to.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
the impromtu presidency
Submitted by Kuso Jiji on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:13am.
obama and his know nothings just keep making it up as they go along while the press obediently wags its tail at their master.
pathetic excuse for a president, even more pathetic excuse for a media which is supposed to be the ears and eyes of the people.
WPA unconstitutional?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:41am.
I'm curious... what makes that so?
See my links above.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:28am.
See my links above.
And here's another:
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:58am.
And here's another: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods54.html
Doesn't a court have to issue
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:47pm.
a judgement on constitutionality? I could say speed limits are unconstitutional since the Constitution doesn't place a limit on how fast you drive your car. I'm not offering support for or against the WPA, but one would assume that the measure was scrutinized by the legal community prior to being written into law and to my knowledge, hasn't been challenged in court with a verdict of "unconstitutional". Someone's say-so doesn't make it so.
No, it doesn't. Not on every
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:08pm.
No, it doesn't. Not on every issue, that is. States have the power of nullification, and they have used it in the past (not that the states would be able to nullify the WPA, but other legislation that affects them, such as Obamacare).
The Constitution explicitly states that Congress has the sole authority to declare war, not the president. The only way that can be changed is through the amendment process, and WPA is not a constitutional amendment.
It doesn't need to be
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:16pm.
"WPA is not a constitutional amendment."
It doesn't need to be. The Constitution gave Congress the power to govern and regulate the military and the War Powers Act is one of the ways that the military is governed and regulated. You see, Congressional Acts, Laws, and Bills are how Congress fulfills its Constitutional requirements and enforces its Constitutional powers. For example, a Comprehensive Budget Bill isn't a Constitutional Amendment any more than the War Powers Act is, but that doesn't make those type of bills unconstitutional.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"The Congress shall have
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:21pm.
"The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
It most certainly would need to be if we are going to give this power to the president.
Read the Constitution
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:26pm.
You keep ignoring the part of Section 8 of Article 1 that clearly states that Congress has the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," something that the War Powers Act clearly does. WHY do you keep ignoring that?
You may not like the fact that Congress has decided that, in specific situations, the President has PRIOR APPROVAL for the limited use of the military, but that doesn't change the fact that this is within Congress's Constitutional authority over the government and regulation of our military forces.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Silly Keyser
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:14pm.
You're living in the past, buddy.
Something is deemed unconstitutional because Obama or Incestmo says it is. What century are you living in?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
J-
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:32pm.
I gotta bone up on my history; I mean, I know Obama has some pretty special powers given the no-longer-rising seas (except of course, in Japan, but I think he was talking about The Jersey Shore when he made that comment) and the now-booming economy, but I wasn't aware that Satch has similar gifts.
Hey Satch? Who do you have for the Preakness today?
Because he has a link to a
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:11am.
Because he has a link to a guy that says it is.
'Nuff said.
I thought you read the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:21am.
I thought you read the content I linked to? You could always try to refute the arguments and historical evidence presented in those links, you know.
Not how it works mollycoddle.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:58pm.
You don't link to something expecting others to go read a 200 page treatise on the topic at hand because there might be a sentence of page 134 that kinda, sorta, if you look at it juuuuuust so, might prove your point.
You BRING FORWARD the pertinent passage that confirms your point and then LINK BACK should someone want to confirm you aren't the little bullsactchmo artist you are. And you better make it a real short passage because no one wants to read more than a sentence or two from an idiot like you.
As usual, you got everything ass backwards.
Thw WPA is Constitutional
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:54pm.
The War Powers Act is Constitutional because the Constitution gave Congress the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and the Congressional Act authorized the President to have unilateral control over military force deployment, part of the "governing" of the military, for up to 60 days in specific circumstances without the prior approval of Congress that the President would normally require. A bad decision by Congress, no doubt, but one that is Constitutional.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Once again you cite an
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:16pm.
Once again you cite an irrelevant passage and ignore the relevant passage. "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Ceding Constitutional authority to the president is not governing nor regulating land and naval forces. Even if it were, it does not change the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare war. You are exactly whom I am referring when I say so-called conservatives or those who desire to see government abide by the Constitution. You are presenting a very weak argument. Clearly you did not read the various refutations against arguments for the WPA.
It hasn't been ceded.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:50pm.
Congressional power hasn't been "ceded" to the President by the War Powers Act as you claim. That Act Is Congress's Constitutionality required AUTHORIZATION for the President to use the military in specific circumstances for a limited time. It is Congress's PRIOR APPROVAL for the President to deploy forces in specific circumstances for a limited amount of time. It is CLEARLY within the Constitutional power of Congress to do that, your "various refutations" notwithstanding.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Per the Constitution, only
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:01pm.
Per the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.
The WPA, passed by Congress, "grants" the president the power to unilaterally wage war.
Therefore, Congress ceded its power to the president (and did so in an unconstitutional manner).
How in the world could you possibly argue otherwise? As if a timeframe has anything to do with whether something is war or an act of war or not? Please.
The only means for changing the Constitution is through the amendment process. Do you deny this?
The Constitution isn't being changed, it's being upheld.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:09pm.
Here's what you don't seem to understand: The War powers Act doesn't supersede the Constitution in regards to the Congressional approval for the deployment of the military, it UPHOLDS it! There's nothing being changed or amended in the Constitution by the War Powers Act, nothing at all.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to give the President unilateral command of the military in any situation via prior Congressional approval though the War Powers Act, but that's what Congress has decided is necessary and, as that is within the powers given to Congress by the Constitution to decide just what is necessary or not, there's nothing you or I can do about that.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obviously you didn't read the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:25pm.
Obviously you didn't read the pieces I provided.
I did read them
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:30pm.
I did read them. I just don't agree with the conclusions.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Clearly you didn't, or you
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:39pm.
Clearly you didn't, or you wouldn't be making these same failed arguments that were diligently refuted.
I really did read them
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:50pm.
I really did read them. That doesn't mean I HAVE to agree with the conclusions. And there's nothing in those OPINIONS the refute my arguments.
Just as with your arguments here, the arguments in those opinions ignores several pertinent parts of the Constitution, ones which demonstrate how Congress has the ability to authorize the use of the military in more situations than just the declaration of War. There's also things like defining and punishing "offenses against the laws of Nations," something that Congress has the ability, the Constitutional authority, to do. The military can, for example, be used to meter out "punishment" for the "offenses against of the Laws of Nations." That's entirely up to Congress to decide. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent that.
Since the Constitution has given Congress the power to govern and regulate the military, which means that Congress decides where, when, and how the military may be used, it is within their Constitutional authority to give the President prior approval for the use of that military for however long Congress decides, even if that approval is given prior to a specific need and for any given length of time.
I have stated before, I think it's a bad idea for Congress to do that, but there's NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents them from doing so. I believe that the Constitution allows it, even if that was never the intent of those who wrote it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Nothing in there that refutes
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:58pm.
Nothing in there that refutes your arguments??? The entire thing refutes your argument. In fact, your argument was refuted prior to your making it.
That's your opinion
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:57pm.
That's your opinion, and I respect that. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You really ought to
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:03pm.
quit now, Incestmo. You've found one person here who respects your opinion on something. You'll never do better than that, so scuttle on back to PuffHo's or Kos.
Amazing, UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:19pm.
the same thought crossed my mind.
MD
You're being obtuse incestmo
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 4:11am.
Do you think it wise for the Commander in Chief to not have the power to make a quick decision on the use of military forces?
The Constitution clearly gives the utilization of the military to Congress. Congress passed the WPA. Clearly Constitutional. I would only take issue with the sixty days provision, and would personally shorten it to fifteen.
Do you think all decision on the use of military force should wait until Congress can be convened?
He only has that power in
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 8:30am.
He only has that power in regards to defense. The WPA is inherently unconstitutional and the arguments I linked to demonstrate why.
Well then mollycoddling milquetoast sissymo.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 9:58am.
You better write your congressman and tell him to start the articles of impeachment.
President Obama did not get a declaration of war from Congress. So techinically we are not in a state of war using the sissy satchmo's rules. Oh, and someone tell Libya we are not actually at war with them. They might be surprised by that news.
Idiot.
By the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:47pm.
By the way, there is NO "irrelevant" part of the Constitution. It's ALL relevant. We don;t get to pick and chose which parts are "relevant" or not.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Now you're being obtuse. It
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:58pm.
Now you're being obtuse. It would be irrelevant to quote the full faith and credit clause in regards to Congress' Constitutional authority to declare war, or to quote the passage stating each House must keep a journal of its proceedings. You know exactly what is meant by saying you were quoting a passage irrelevant to the issue.
Who's being obtuse?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:10pm.
Who's the one who's being obtuse here? Me, for quoting a part of the Constitution that directly defines Congress's power to govern the military, something that is relevant to the discussion at hand, or YOU for ignoring it altogether?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I've already demonstrated why
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:36pm.
I've already demonstrated why your passage is irrelevant by citing the applicable, relevant passage, the passage in which Congress alone is given the authority to declare war. That is what we are talking about here. You are erroneously trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Congress has power to MAKE RULES for the government and regulation of land and sea forces, not to hand their Constitutional authority over to the president without a Constitutional amendment. Making rules for the governing or regulation of forces is not the same thing as allowing the president to wage war without a declaration of Congress.
Do you deny that the Constitution solely grants Congress the authority to declare war? Yes or no.
But you did not tell us about the Coach Incestmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:43pm.
The President plays defense. Congress plays offense. Who is the Coach? Who has the playbook? Is this old time football or can we use the forward pass?
Retardmo on the upcoming NFL season: The president has no constitutional authority to launch offensive campaigns...Only in defensive matters does the president not need to go before Congress.
You are being obtuse
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:56pm.
The passage I cited deals with the governing of the Military. That means deciding WHERE AND WHEN to use that military. Don't ignore that Constitutional power.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ok...for argument's sake
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:00pm.
Ok...for argument's sake (even though you're dead wrong)...
Was that changed through the amendment process (and will you ignore this question as well)?
No
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:05pm.
No, nothing was changed through an amendment process, and this is because an amendment isn't needed. Congress already HAS the constitutional authority to make laws like the War Powers Act.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
But the president is the one
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:30pm.
But the president is the one who decided where and when to use the military, not Congress. Congress does not have the authority to cede that power to executive without a Constitutional amendment. Nor can they cede their sole authority to declare war, a Constitutionally enumerated power, without a Constitutional amendment.
But you are completely misunderstanding what govern and regulate mean. It means that Congress has the power, for example, to make rules such as setting physical and age requirements for servicemen or granting/denying service based on gender or sexual orientation, etc. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a perfect example of the use of this enumerated power.
Here's a question for you
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:24pm.
Here's a question for you: Why do you believe that a Constitutional Amendment is needed for Congress to assert their military authority via the War Powers Act when such authority is already granted them by the Constitution via their Constitutional Power to govern the military?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I don't believe it's needed.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:33pm.
I don't believe it's needed. I believe that the only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process, after all that process is laid out in the Constitution. However, they do not have that authority in the way you believe. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Obama is asserting power not granted to him by the Constitution (and he hasn't been the only one, either). The WPA is not a Constitutional amendment.
Tell the class mollycoddle.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 10:10am.
How many times has Congress actually declared war. Then tell them how many times our troops have been committed to combat without a declaration of war.
Idiot.
By the way.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:06pm.
"Do you deny that the Constitution solely grants Congress the authority to declare war? Yes or no."
The answer to that question is: yes, only Congress has that power. But that's not the ONLY time the military may be used. There are several other instances, as written in the Constitution, that the military can be deployed without the declaration of war. That's the part you seem to dismiss out of hand.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Wait, yes you deny the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 4:35pm.
Wait, yes you deny the Constitution solely grants Congress the authority to declare war? The answer should have been no.
This is getting beyond disgusting
Submitted by falcon on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:22am.
First, the fact that the Marxist-in-Chief has no desire to abide by his oath (ill-delivered though it was - I knew we were all in trouble when he botched it) to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" - in fact, every action he's taken since January 20, 2009 has been to destroy this nation. Second, the so-called conservative Republicans in Congress are doing nothing to stop him, as is their Constitutional duty. Ever heard of "high crimes and misdemeanors," Congresscritters? They're all a bunch of RINOs, and both parties are two sides of the same coin - the one that wants to turn America into a meritocracy (or an oligarchy, or a socialist regime, or just about anything that bears no resemblance to the nation founded on the Constitution in 1787).
I would hope that those in this nation that are as sick and tired as I am about this can come together and mobilize as one group, not as a bunch of splintered TEA Party factions, and demonstrate our true might against Congress and the Presidency. And if Bill Ayers is right, and Obama decides that 20 million American deaths are "necessary" for him to remain in the White House, then let's get ready to rumble. We're all stuck in neutral as the Administration is stuck on Marxist (they're not stupid; they may be incompetent, but they're not stupid), and NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT THIS!
It almost makes me wish that old Harold Camping was right, because without Divine intervention, this will not end well. But just because the old man missed the date doesn't mean it won't happen someday.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Actually, wasn't it twice?
Submitted by pockets64 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:40am.
I seem to recall that Bush went to Congress twice before Iraq. He got a positive answer both times.
NPR is even worse
Submitted by sherlock1 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:24am.
NPR doesn't even lay the issue at the door of the White House! They are reporting this morning that "Congress has failed to act" to pass a resolution against the Libya attacks. Yes, the bank robber isn't guilty - the damn police failed to stop the robbery!
What a shameless whore NPR is showing itself to be. The stench must be awful there.
That's a good point.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:09pm.
The AP is blaming Congress for failing to act on what is now the ILLEGAL use of the military in Libya by Obama! Let's hope that Congress at least censures the President for that, along with denying any further use of OUR military in Libya until Congress approves it via Congressional Authorization.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I don't agree with it
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 4:28am.
But it is not illegal, at least not according to the WPA, which you have defended as Constitutional. Where exactly do you stand on this?
Only Congress has the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 8:04am.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president.
Why don't you tell the class when the last time they did that.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 10:02am.
Tell them mollycoddling milquetoast sissymo.
Tell them how many times the President has commited troops without a declaration of war.
Shut up Stupid Butt Hurt Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:22pm.
The President has the right to send troops anywhere on the planet as Commander in Chief. Congress has the right to cut off funds should he do so. Period. The Constitution is 5000 words. Try to actually read it sometime instead of whatever it is that you get to feed the jello that is your brain.
You know, some of you aren’t going to like what I have to say because I don’t believe in politicizing the Constitution,” Levin said. “I believe the Constitution is the rock of the society. All this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war – that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous. There are many occasions where we don’t have a declaration of war because a declaration of war would require that we use all of our might to destroy our enemy. So you can be involved in certain battles or military activities that would not require a declaration of war. You can look throughout American history to prove the point. You can actually look at the conduct of the Founders when they were in government, soon after the establishment of our government. Just be very careful about your arguments and think them through for a principled point of view. Don’t listen to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and satchmo the perve, unless you want to be entertained. Stick with the Constitution.”
Levin explained Congress could ultimately stop the military action against Libya if it wanted to – by defunding the war effort. However, he said neither Speaker of the House John Boehner, nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has shown any indication they want to do so.
“What amazes me is – is Congress passive, or is Congress dormant?” he said. “Congress could meet tomorrow and cut off funds – tomorrow, if that’s what Congress wants to do. Has Boehner proposed an emergency session of the House of Representatives, to cut off funds? No. Could he? Yes. Would he get the votes? I don’t know, but he could try. Could Harry Reid do the same? Yes. Will he? I don’t know. He could try. So it’s not like Congress is without recourse.”
Shut up Stupid Butt Hurt Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:32pm.
The is the idiot that is the Stupid Butt Hurt Satchmo Troll. Then there is Mark Levin. 2 brains. But only one with intelligence. Guess who that would be.
Why didn’t the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress? If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that? What of offensive military actions taken to prevent imminent threats? What of covert operations for that matter, or extended wars fought over decades but mostly through surrogates (such as the Cold War)? What must be declared and when?
– I repeat, the Congress — has funded every kind of military and covert operation — untold numbers of them — without issuing a formal declaration of war in the vast majority of cases. What stops it? It does not need permission or a request from a president to issue a formal proclamation. It issues proclamations about meaningless things all the time without being asked. The Constitution says Congress shall have the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water …”
When members of Congress vote to fund these activities, they are giving their formal, official consent to the operations. More than voting to declare war, they are actually voting to fund war — all kinds of war. Interestingly, in most of the cases in which Congress has formally declared — which is World War II — there was never any doubt that the president would use all possible military force to protect the nation, and Congress would fund it, even without any declarations. The declarations were not used as constitutional requisites for war, but to rally the nation and assert our resolve. But once Congress has funded a military operation, and it funds virtually all of them, it is undoubtedly helping to make war for without the funds there can be no war. Thus, in each instance, it is declaring war its support for the military actions
What of military operations launched by a president where the president uses funds already appropriated by Congress before the operations began, but which were approved for general national security purposes — that is, where Congress has not actually voted on funding a particular operation? Without question Congress has the power to withhold appropriations or defund operations, if it can muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto. Congress rarely does so, although most notably in ending the Vietnam War. Congress has the power to enforce its decisions by impeaching a president and removing him from office should he continue to prosecute military operations after it has formally acted to end them. Hence, comparisons between the president and a monarch are ridiculous. These are very powerful tools, should Congress decide to use them. However, even now, when the president has directed military operations in Libya, is Congress even considering cutting off funding? What about the Republican majority in the House? No. But there is no question that congressional authority respecting war powers is significant, which distinguishes our system from many, including a monarchy. But make no mistake, it is not significant enough for the neo-anarchists, who cherry-pick their way through history to promote a dogma.
“But Mark,” asks the outlier professor, “here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever.”
Consulting Congress? Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject. I’ve been at this now for the better part of a week. I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site. I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons. In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations. I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress. Why would they? But that was not the issue. Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war. So, the outlier professor would be misstating what I said and dodging the issue, apparently something he has been accused of before by another professor, Ronald Radosh http://hnn.us/articles/10493.html You don’t have to agree with Professor Radosh’s views, but he raises a serious concern.
Anyway, there you have it folks. Either you are convinced or you are not. If not, then you have to conclude, as they do here, that Ronald Reagan was a neo-con, monarch, warmonger, or whatever. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html I have to move on, but I am sure the Paulite dead-enders will carry on.
(By the way, Russell Kirk despised libertarians. I am not of the same mind in that regard. Some of my best friends are libertarians – just not of the neo-anarchist kind.)
Irrrelevant. Erroneous. Obtuse. Refuted. Ignorant. Inaccurate.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:54pm.
Foolish. Clueless.
Rinse and repeat.
Yep---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:56pm.
SatchelMouth is a sidestepping, backsliding, willfully selective, pseudo-intellectual, insulting, in a rut, pea-brained mook when it comes to pushing his arguments.
And that's on a good day.
If, however, you want to get into something as downright American and constitutionally relevant as incest between 'consenting' blood relatives, why, SatchelMouth is your boy.
I point this tired old fact out only because SatchelMouth is so g*d-damned stupid that he has not yet, after all this time, recognized that every single time his username appears, the mind flashes back to the irredeemable insanity he posted regarding that most bestial of crimes.
It is a sign of complete mindlessness that this fool would continue to belabor these threads with his unadulterated blind bullshit.
A fool, indeed.
MD
I've heard more mature discussions from middle schoolers.
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 3:19am.
What, exactly, does the name-calling accomplish?
As a relative outsider, I have to say that because of the pointless ad-hominem attacks, I was tempted to give more weight to Satchmo's views.
It's alright to attack people's ideas. It's not very grown-up to attack people because of their ideas.
It would be more conducive to mature conversation if you simply shot down an idea with silence, debate, or logic, then disengaged from a conversation.
Although, we wouldn't want to deprive anyone else the pleasure of inventing a nickname like "Incestmo," would we?
There's good reason for incestmo's name
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 4:22am.
Perhaps if you actually read the threads here, you would know that according to incestmo, if a daughter of "consenting age" she is fair game to her father. Incestmo is no Libertarian, or Constitutionalist, he is a pervert that wants to justify his desires for his sister.
That is a deliberate lie.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 8:09am.
That is a deliberate lie. What I said is that the government has no business telling two consenting adults who they can or can't choose as their sexual partner. Countless times in that thread I said that incest is irrational and disgusting, but I can still recognize that government should be out of the way of adults making their own decisions regarding their own lives.
Wrong.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 10:08am.
Satchmo: I believe incest should be legal.
Funny that you defend Sachtmo, JRowe
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 3:46am.
...(and Satchmo makes some good points on occasion), given that your account here at NB is a mere 1 year and 38 weeks old, and you have but five posts to show for it.
Hmm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Three of those posts were
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 2:02pm.
Three of those posts were threads Gone4Good created himself, with no replies. The only other thread involved more condescension for NB members and having Satchmo playing defense for him. Interesting coupling given these are the only time Gone4Good has engaged on threads not of his own creation.
Coincidence? It's not as though the only poster receiving concentrated negative responses is Satchmo.
Heh, more of the same. If
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 4:27am.
Heh, more of the same. If anyone bothered to be friendly, engage on the level of ideas, agree to disagree, or otherwise talk to me like an adult, I'd interact more often. I don't have the patience that others do, apparently, because I'm not willing to wade through the crap to get to the gems.
Instead, you get insinuating attacks on character, ad-hominem bullpuckey, and a total disrespect for differences in opinions.
You, Dave, and other responders to my posts, are the reason I don't have more than 5 or 6 posts.
You couldn't possibly just take it at face value, say "hey, this guy might have a point, it's really not very mature to call people names" and leave it at that.
Pardon me for trying to make the world a little more polite. Don't bother responding, I won't be back. It might bear considering that when attempting to enlighten people, as this community and site is wont to do, a little politeness and civility makes conversation bearable. Unfounded attacks on my character (thanks Dave, etc, <3) are exactly the reason you drive people off. It's got nothing to do with conservative vs libtard vs disinterested, and everything to do with behaving with a modicum of dignity. We're real people on the other side of these posts.
When you get attacked for differences in opinion, called names, and mocked, there's no point in staying. What a beautiful community this is.
Cue self-righteous dismissals, etc.
Oh okay
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 4:37am.
C-ya.
That's out of order
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 6:47am.
You should have started your post with "Cue self-righteous dismissals, etc." or made that the subject. Then your post would have made more sense as that is all it contained.
Well, Gone4Good - see ya. ACA
Submitted by acaiguana on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 7:05am.
Is it good being you?
Come here and dismiss everyone from your lofty perch high on the hill looking over the mere plebes who mill about in confusion, now do we?
Good luck in all you do; you can't go anywhere but up.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Gone4Good---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 8:37am.
comes out shooting zingers and then complains about "unfounded attacks" upon his august self.
That's rich.
MD
Treason
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 11:03am.
and that makes obama a dictator. How can we keep turning a blind eye to this man's actions?