96 replies to this topic

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 24 January 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

It was unconstitutional.

It was regulated by law. The war powers act. Therefore legal and not impeachable. If you don't like the war powers act, you can certainly attempt to get congress to change it. Write to your senators. You must understand that laws passed by Congress are constitutional, legal and not impeachable offenses. They can be repealed, superceded, ignored (by government) or declared unconstitutional by the highest court. But you saying so, doesn't make it so, or impeachable.

Quote

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)^[1] is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

In this decade, it has become somewhat anachronistic. Wars with "major" hostilities can be fought in days. Such was the case in Libya, Congress was notified, and the US turned over control to NATA and scaled down it's efforts after 60 days. Most presidents feel that the War Powers act is unconstitutional. But it's law and they need to abide by it. For the most part the Obama administration did that.

I can see the need for the ability of the president to act in a time of need, by the time congress declares war, it would be over. On the other hand you don't want the president to be starting wars all over the place without congress. The War Powers act should probably be updated.

But again nothing impeachable. Care to try for round two?

Edited by ninjadude, 24 January 2013 - 07:43 PM.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 24 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

It was regulated by law. The war powers act. Therefore legal and not impeachable. If you don't like the war powers act, you can certainly attempt to get congress to change it. Write to your senators. You must understand that laws passed by Congress are constitutional, legal and not impeachable offenses. They can be repealed, superceded, ignored (by government) or declared unconstitutional by the highest court. But you saying so, doesn't make it so, or impeachable.



In this decade, it has become somewhat anachronistic. Wars with "major" hostilities can be fought in days. Such was the case in Libya, Congress was notified, and the US turned over control to NATA and scaled down it's efforts after 60 days. Most presidents feel that the War Powers act is unconstitutional. But it's law and they need to abide by it. For the most part the Obama administration did that.

I can see the need for the ability of the president to act in a time of need, by the time congress declares war, it would be over. On the other hand you don't want the president to be starting wars all over the place without congress. The War Powers act should probably be updated.

But again nothing impeachable. Care to try for round two?

Obama should have had his feet held to the fire over the letter of that law.   Libya was not about to attack the United States.  You need to acknowledge that fact and if you can't even do that, we're done here.

[Yamato]

Here Rand Paul grills Secretary of State nominee John Cambodia Kerry about exactly what I'm talking about.   I can't believe I actually voted for this person.

And what do we find out from the grilling?   That John Kerry doesn't support the Constitution.  He supports Ronald Reagan instead.  And George Bush.  And Bill Clinton.  And the tradition in recent history of violating the Constitution and apparently thinks that even Libya was an important enough reason to do so.   This is absolutely unacceptable.   Kerry is a shill and Barack Obama is a contemptible tool for the establishment for tapping him.

When asked to differentiate Cambodia from Libya, he explains that Cambodia was different from Libya because it was an extension of another war, as opposed to, apparently, the standalone war that Libya was.  Great kool aid John.  Tastes like treason.

[Yamato]

I left an important piece of his explanation out.   To finish explaining Kerry's distinction between Cambodia and Libya, Kerry mentioned that Cambodia was different than Libya because it was an extension of another war that was being waged without the Congress over "a number of years", which means that our rule of law is dependent, according to John Kerry, on how much time the violation continues, and whether that length of time feels excessive or not, to John Kerry.

[ninjadude]

they were different. Anyone can read history and know that.

[AsteroidX]

They were different as peas and carrots. Same veggie group. Lets sit down and tell a veggie tale now NinjaDude or show some shred of fact in your posts.

[Yamato]

Military action

ninjadude, on 28 January 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

they were different. Anyone can read history and know that.

All the aforementioned cases, from Grenada to Panama to Laos to Cambodia to Libya, are unilateral military actions started by a President without the Congress.  

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan; he should have been impeached over that, not Monica Lewinsky.  When these out of control executives get a clue in their heads by their predecessor getting impeached for this kind of illegal activity, we can put a stop to this crap before the next republican party President you happen to have a partisan problem with keeps carrying on the tradition and attacking God knows who.   How lost in the illegal wilderness are we anymore that we're going to give our Presidents cart blanch to attack whoever they want?  

I wouldn't vote for this hypocrite John Kerry unless it was to give him a pink slip on his desk.