|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Syria|
Posted - 8/29/2013 10:21:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
"And you keep conveniently forgetting..."
No, in fact I don't.
Let me educate you:
When a law is passed, the ENTIRE law is in full force and effect and cannot be parsed or segmented. There is no severability clause in the War Powers Act.
The FIRST directive of theAct was to define the conditions under which US forces can be committed to hostilities. AFTER that, the reporting requirement was described.
That DOES NOT mean reporting can take the place of the basic requirements of the Act. Reporting is appropriate ONLY AFTER actions are taken that are in accordance with the ENTIRE law.
Presidents of both parties have parsed the law for their own purposes...Obama by far the worst offender. This DOES NOT mean any of them acted lawfully. In fact they did not.
But we as a nation are disregarding our Constitution all the time and making it up as we go...whatever feels good at the time. We need to get back to the rule of law...and enforce them. Or we need to repeal them and pass new laws in their places. Otherwise we have no commonality that binds the society together...everyone "doing their own thing" as hippies and left wingers were fond of saying in the '60s and '70s.
Posted - 8/29/2013 10:57:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
It is called the "War Powers Resolution."
It is not a part of the Constitution.
Posted - 8/29/2013 11:00:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
Please be accurate. You are, after all, posing on a media professionals website.
Posted - 8/29/2013 11:15:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
What difference, at this point, does it make???
Whew! I never thought I'd be quoting Hillary Clinton.
But I digress.
You make yourself a laughingstock with your apparently compulsive need to highlight infinitesimally small and unimportant details. Title 50, US Code, Sectdion 1541, is alternatively (and unofficially) referred as an act and as a resolution.
THAT DISTINCTION CHANGES NOTHING WHATEVER IN THE DOCUMENT...NOTHING THAT WOULD PERMIT A PRESIDENT TO UNILATERALLY COMMIT US TROOPS TO HOSTILITIES WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS OR A VALID TREATY.
Do you begin to understand why your input to this forum is unimportant?
Posted - 8/30/2013 6:25:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
Let me educate you: blah blah blah
You've tried that "When a law is passed, the ENTIRE law is in full force and effect..." jibber-jabber before. It's gobbledy gook. It still makes no sense, and it's still wrong.
You keep citing those three provisions of the War Powers Act. In your narrow point of view, nothing that comes after that matters--"That DOES NOT mean reporting can take the place of the basic requirements of the Act"--YES, it does.
Congress declaring war is one thing..the president--any president--taking military action immediately without waiting for Congress to come back from a month long vacation is another. Bush Sr. invaded Panama, even forcibly arrested the countrys leader, the Senate even defeated an amendment authorizing Bush to use force there--didn't matter. It was all over with. Where were the articles of impeachment?
Reagan was even worse. Remember the Marines in Lebanon? He also invaded Grenada, BUT, "Reagan’s spokesman said there was no need for him to comply with War Powers Resolution since the troops would be out within the law’s 60-to-90 day time period."
Any president can do pretty much anything he/she wants in two days, whether it's sending in cruise missiles or a couple of Seal Teams. Complying with the War Powers Resolution includes reporting to Congress within 48 hours of the onset of hostilities. It's part of the law. I'm sorry if you can't understand that, but that's the way it is.
Your fixation on those three 'basic' requirements reminds me of a previous argument we had over the Constitution; when I said 'the Const doesn't stop with the Bill of Rights'...and you said "actually it does". You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
You are NOT the legal expert you think you are.
Posted - 8/30/2013 9:00:47 AM | show profile | flag this post
When you show me your law degree
then you'll have some credibility. Until then you're just another left winger embracing situational ethics instead of the rule of law.
Posted - 8/30/2013 9:07:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
To continue your education
"reporting to Congress within 48 hours of the onset of hostilities. It's part of the law."
Exactly right. PART of the law. The rest is that US military CANNOT be committed unless one or more of the three conditions in 50 USC 1541 are met.
When are you situational ethicists going to realize that you cannot just enforce those parts of a law that support your far left agenda and ignore the rest?
Posted - 8/30/2013 9:56:13 AM | show profile | flag this post
you keep talking about the War Powers Act -- but you keep forgetting the Constitution.
Why do you think the GOP never took Obama to court over the War Powers Act when he ordered military action in Libya?
Why did the GOP never take Clinton to court over the War Powers Act in Bosnia or Iraq?
Why did the Democrats never take Bush to court over the War Powers Act over Panama?
Why did the Democrats never take Reagan to court over Lebanon or Libya?
Because, ever since the Act was passed, it's been believed to be highly unconstitutional. Neither party has ever wanted to test that in court. It serves more as a partisan political tool for the party out of the White House.
Why is it believed to be unconstitutional? Because the Constitution already limits -- but ALLOWS -- the President's authority in the use of force without a declaration of war by Congress, its unclear whether the provisions of the War Powers Act are consistent with the Constitution. (Every President since John Adams has claimed that Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution allows the President, acting as Commander in Chief, to order the U.S. military into action without a formal declaration of war from Congress).
So, until it is challenged in court, Obama simply needs to do what Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have done -- and simply notify Congress in a report -- or through public knowlege -- that the U.S. is carrying out a military action.
If you don't like that -- you and your party have the right to challenge the President in the courts to test the validity of the War Powers Act.
You can argue the War Power Act all day long. But if you or your party is unwilling to take the Executive Branch to court -- it has no teeth.
Posted - 8/30/2013 10:03:43 AM | show profile | flag this post
your imperial president is unwilling to abide by the rule of law.
Posted - 8/30/2013 10:47:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
It galls you that President Obama, whom you so unpatriotically demean every waking moment of every day, is the commander in chief of the military.
That's the whole issue for you, and this ranting is, at base, yet another attempt to call attention to yourself.
Posted - 8/30/2013 4:49:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
It galls me that he ever got elected at all
There has never been a more unqualified and incompetent holder of that office.
The man doesn't know the meaning of co-equal...as in the three branches of government. He thinks he can just command that things get done...his way, of course, or the highway. That's the way a dictator or king or an emperor would think. It is certainly NOT what we expect of an elected president. He works for us, we do not work for him.
Despite his charisma and glib tongue, he is a virtual know-nothing in the field of governmance...and ESPECIALLY foreign policy.
Posted - 8/30/2013 6:17:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
unqualified and incompetent holder of that office.
Are we still talking about Bush?
Posted - 8/30/2013 6:46:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
so now, cruiztwit, who swears by the constitution..
as the supreme law, wants to cavalierly disregard it in favor of the war powers act?..conveniently forgetting his previous "positions"?
in addition to being a narcissistic, overbearing a**hole, now he's going senile..
Posted - 8/30/2013 6:55:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruiser says we should do nothing about Syria
And no one, but no one is better at doing nothing than cruiser.
This ancient mind has sat out all major wars in his life time, doing nothing.
While young men and women have fought and died in the name of our freedom, cruiser has done nothing.
As the economy crashed, cruiser did nothing.
But men like Obama have gotten degrees, been elected to high office, forged national and international policy.
So who is more qualified to say we should do nothing? The president, who does things? Or the champion of doing nothing, brave and bold cruiser?
I think the question answers itself.
Posted - 8/31/2013 9:27:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Obama will seek congressional approval before any military action against Syria"
Yea, like we needed any confirmation that cruise is an assh*le douchebag.
Or was I being too vague with that?
Posted - 8/31/2013 9:59:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
Did Obama come to his senses and decide
to follow the law? I doubt it.
I think the stark realization came to him that any military action must be designed to win...and win decisively...or it is worse than useless. He let his ego overload his ass and got himself into a no win situation. But Obama figures by asking congress for approval (and hoping like hell they'll turn him down like the British parliament did Cameron) that he can save face while sneaking out the door.
Posted - 8/31/2013 11:20:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
win win for Obama
Please don't confuse Barach Obama with a president who thinks of his country first. Anything he does he does with his own image in mind.
He'll bring this to congress and one of two things will happen. If congress agrees he'll have the military push the buttons and a limited, mostly useless attack will ensue; hitting targets that are probably already vacated and no longer of strategic value. He'll feel like a hotshot and strut around saying he (personally) slapped the bad guys...discounting the fact that those also fighting the 'bad guys' are al queda. If congress says no to an attack, Obama will still strut and say he was going to really show those bad guys a thing to two but congress was being a wuss.
He likes win win situations.
Posted - 9/1/2013 12:51:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
"This is your brain. This is blind hatred. This is your brain on blind hatred. Any questions?"
Posted - 9/1/2013 2:20:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
I really wish we had a written record
of what you Obama haters said 'back then'. You know, like when
St. Reagan sent in 5,000 troops to invade Grenada for no goddamn good reason. Where was the declaration of war cruise? Where was your "national emergency has been created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Grenada attacked us? Must have missed that. Reagan also attacked Libya. No "national emergency" then either. We did manage to lose a few hundred Marines in Lebanon too, but 'whoopsie--my bad', he's REAGAN after all, so all is forgiven. That walking mental patient put our people in harms way 16 times in a total of 12 countries
Tell me cruise. When you say "He thinks he can just command that things get done...his way, of course, or the highway. That's the way a dictator or king or an emperor would think" Were you referring to Obama or Reagan?
His successor was no better. Bush 41. Invaded Panama. For no good reason other than 'we didn't like the guy', and of course, there were casaulties. He also sent troops into Somalia, which culminated later with 'Black Hawk Down'. And oh yea, there was that whole WAR THING. Bllions spent, thousands dead, but that was a white guy Republican; so no harm done. donchaknow.
And then we get to the Grand Poobah of 'You mean I've got the Army on speed dial?' Dubya. 36,000--at least--American casualties. Perhaps 100,000 civilian casuaties. $2 trillion, and mounting, in costs. But that--now THAT was okay--because "we rescued the Iraqi people" donchaknow.
THIS POTUS is doing everything in full view, with actual evidence, and actually asking for Congressional approval, before he does anything--which is only using a relatively cheap method of war involving no risk to American lives.
And for that--he is to be condemned by the Obama haters. That's it in a nutshell, IMO.
Posted - 9/1/2013 3:05:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
just one. if you know the effects hate has on your brain, why keep drinking the haterade libs?
Posted - 9/1/2013 3:12:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
What an egregiously bad case of verbal diarrhea!
And it stinks.
This dude cannot...CANNOT...refute what I posted so he tries with all his might to change the subject.
The subject is: Obama let his ego overload his ass and got himself into a no win situation. Now he's hoping the congress will deny him the authority to "punish" Assad so he can save face while backing away from his chest-thumping (but known worldwide as toothless) threat.
I just don't understand why left wingers think they can justify bad behavior by citing what they think is other bad behavior.
IF YOU THINK IT WAS WRONG FOR REAGAN AND BUSH...BUT I NOTICE YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE CLINTON WHO INVADED KOSOVO...THEN WHY IN THE HELL IS IT O.K. FOR OBAMA???
What a transparently partisan idiot.
Posted - 9/1/2013 3:44:19 PM | show profile | flag this post
history. a written record. please learn........
reagan had support from congress- democrat controlled congress calls reagan's actions in grenada "justified". do people in grenada still celebrate that day?
some would call attempting to get a newclear weapon, exporting terrorism, attacking our allies a "goddamn good reason. "
"We did manage to lose a few hundred Marines in Lebanon "
which the new york times and cbs news shares in the blame....
bush had the support of congress- including democrats- bill clinton-well has most of the world for actions taken in somalia.
bush got bipartisan approval and support from congress for actions taken in panama.
actions taken by reagan and bush had overwhelming support from american voters- something dear leader doesn't. must be because dear leader is black.....
"That walking mental patient"
has always, stay classy libs....
Posted - 9/1/2013 4:25:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here is the subject (find it in Page 1, Post 1, of this thread):
Now what do we do?
Honest to God, I don't know. Anyone with a soul had to be disgusted by those pictures of 'what appears to be' a chemical attack by Assads forces. (Though they've been trying to avoid it) A WH "official, in a carefully worded written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians.”
On the Sunday morning shows (of course) there was plenty of criticsm of Obama to go around (He's a wimp coward--let's bomb 'em now--so we can accuse him of being a war criminal Dictator later) But I did watch Fox this morning, and the Repubs they had on generally expressed the view they would support what Obama would/could do
I just see this a lose/lose...but there's the tragic/inevitable 'something has to be done'.
Posted - 9/1/2013 4:31:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here's a link to Page 1 of the thread, so you yourself can verify and remember the subject:
Hang on to that URL, and when you get another urge to pull the thread onto yourself, how stupid everyone is but you, how omniscient you are about Obama's thoughts, blah, blah, blah -- plug in the URL and remind yourself to stick to the topic.
Posted - 9/1/2013 4:44:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
since the election of obama- "see they did it too!" is the best the left has to offer- worked well for them on the playground- here in the grow up world ? not so much
cruiser isn't the only one who thinks obama hoperates a smack down from congress in order to save face.
least obama is going down the road of becoming muscular- mockeration is a b*tch.
grateful deadline lecturing someone about posting on topic?
what's next? proudlib lecture on bulltin board decorum?
least grateful is learning use of urls.