I Applaud this Statement by Obama

#76
#76
volinbham said:
That would be the grounds but at issue is:

is this legally a war?

if it is, the Constitutional remedy is that Congress can vote to defund and Obama would have 60 days to cease operations.

some debate about constitutionality of War Powers Res. itself and how it gets resolved.

tons of precedent where Congress did not authorize war but military action taken.
Click to expand...


What about the fact that Congress, including the Speaker, were personally consulted before military action taken? What role does that play in this?
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
What about the fact that Congress, including the Speaker, were personally consulted before military action taken? What role does that play in this?
Click to expand...

I think it's completely irrelevant.

If it is a violation of law that would be insufficient. If is not a violation of law then it is a moot point.
 
#78
#78
volinbham said:
Sure. First it has to be a clear violation of the law to be considered not valuing the rule of law.
Click to expand...

It is a clear violation. They can't amend the constitution through legislation. Anybody that thinks they can is skewed by their big-government bias. Obama thought so himself even though he has a big government bias.

It's as clear as day. Show me in the constitution where the president has this power. If it's not in there, it's not legal. Amendment X.
 
Last edited:
#81
#81
nbakerld said:
It is a clear violation. They can't amend the constitution through legislation. Anybody that thinks they can is skewed by their big-government bias. Obama thought so himself even though he has a big government bias.

It's as clear as day. Show me in the constitution where the president has this power. If it's not in there, it's not legal. Amendment X.
Click to expand...

If it is so clear why is there no legal challenge?

Where is any public indication of this legal violation?

You sure you know the law on this one?
 
#82
#82
i very much doubt obama asked for permission, nor should he have to frankly. the president has to have the ability to make short term military decisions.
 
#83
#83
volinbham said:
If it is so clear why is there no legal challenge?

Where is any public indication of this legal violation?

You sure you know the law on this one?
Click to expand...

Like I told you, nobody values rule of law. Also challenging the Federal government through a Federal court system is usually a waste. It'd be like playing the Yankees and letting them select and pay the umpire.

It's really this simple. Find in the constitution where he gets this power. If it's not in there then Amendment X says it's illegal. It's not in there.
 
#84
#84
nbakerld said:
I agree that Bush did worse, but the point is Obama's shown many times to be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Name a single president that hasn't been a hypocrite. The POTUS is always going to be labeled a hypocrite by "some" because he/she will always change their stance on certain issues. "Some" think that is hypocritical behavior. I happen to think the POTUS, regardless of who it is, must have a willingness to change their position on certain issues.
 
#85
#85
shortgameVol said:
Name a single president that hasn't been a hypocrite. The POTUS is always going to be labeled a hypocrite by "some" because he/she will always change their stance on certain issues. "Some" think that is hypocritical behavior. I happen to think the POTUS, regardless of who it is, must have a willingness to change their position on certain issues.
Click to expand...

Most presidents suck. I don't think there's been a good one in my lifetime. Does that mean we can't complain about Obama? There aren't many presidents that called something unconstitutional and then commit the unconstitutional act 4 years later.
 
#86
#86
nbakerld said:
Most presidents suck. I don't think there's been a good one in my lifetime. Does that mean we can't complain about Obama? There aren't many presidents that called something unconstitutional and then commit the unconstitutional act 4 years later.
Click to expand...

3-4(Kennedy,Nixon,Reagan,Clinton) in my lifetime have been pretty decent, but I would have to agree on the rest of them
 
#87
#87
shortgameVol said:
3-4(Kennedy,Nixon,Reagan,Clinton) in my lifetime have been pretty decent, but I would have to agree on the rest of them
Click to expand...

That's an eclectic mix of preferences there. I don't like any of those guys. I'd say Clinton is the least bad of my life time (born in 1982).
 
#88
#88
After coincidentally talking to my friend in DC, who has nothing to do with this level of politicking by has friends who are the underlings of some important people, I am even more confused. She said something about Obama having 60 days to consult/include Congress in these sort of actions. Anyone know where that came from? She didn't, she was just relaying something someone told her.
 
#89
#89
IPorange said:
After coincidentally talking to my friend in DC, who has nothing to do with this level of politicking by has friends who are the underlings of some important people, I am even more confused. She said something about Obama having 60 days to consult/include Congress in these sort of actions. Anyone know where that came from? She didn't, she was just relaying something someone told her.
Click to expand...

he has 60 days in a war to get approval or the troops have to be pulled out. It has always been this way. I believe Bush did the same, sent troops and then got approval.
 
#90
#90
nbakerld said:
That's an eclectic mix of preferences there. I don't like any of those guys. I'd say Clinton is the least bad of my life time (born in 1982).
Click to expand...

Not surprising.

I would have figured you would be a huge Reagan guy, but then again, you're almost too young to remember his presidency
 
#91
#91
IPorange said:
After coincidentally talking to my friend in DC, who has nothing to do with this level of politicking by has friends who are the underlings of some important people, I am even more confused. She said something about Obama having 60 days to consult/include Congress in these sort of actions. Anyone know where that came from? She didn't, she was just relaying something someone told her.
Click to expand...

War Powers Resolution states that he has 48 hours to notify Congress. Furthermore, the President has 30 days for initial conflict and 30 days to withdraw combatants without further Congressional authorization. Not sure where else she would be getting the 60 days.
 
#92
#92
bam15 said:
War Powers Resolution states that he has 48 hours to notify Congress. Furthermore, the President has 30 days for initial conflict and 30 days to withdraw combatants without further Congressional authorization. Not sure where else she would be getting the 60 days.
Click to expand...

This has to be the 60 his friend is talking about.

Of course Congress will approve it.

And of course like Droski said, at day 6 of the IRAQ war we thought we'd be gone in a few weeks.

I just can't believe we are in another war with actual boots on the ground. For the love of God, can we just focus on our country?
 
#93
#93
shortgameVol said:
Not surprising.

I would have figured you would be a huge Reagan guy, but then again, you're almost too young to remember his presidency
Click to expand...

Reagan was a big government guy though he professed to be otherwise. I love Reagan in word, but not so much in deed. He grew the national debt and the power of the executive. He popularized legislation through executive signing statements which have been severely abused by his successors. I've read two biographies on him (one a glowing account and the other by a critic who attempted to be fair), but yes I was too young to know what was going on when he was in office.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
MUR73 said:
Obama just can't do any wrong in some peoples eyes , huh?. You know i bet the missiles that Obama fired are full of Confetti , ballons and candy to feed and entertain the Libyans too. Right?

The point that was being made was that Obama , like many other politicians,(ex.no new taxes by Bush sr.) lied.Do not spin it.

ALSO VPm Biden told Chris Mathews he would have impeached Bush for going to war w/o permission from Congressiden. wonder if he is getting the ball rolling on the Proceedings for Obama as we speak?
Click to expand...

I'm simply making what I see as an objective point here. Most of the criticism against Obama is warranted, and some of it isn't.

Stick around for awhile, you'll find plenty I disagree with Obama about.
 
#95
#95
KentheOrange said:
You're not old enough to remember Viet Nam are you? You should be able to remember the start of both actions against Iraq.
Click to expand...

At this point you are still extrapolating out. When boots hit the ground in force I'll start comparing. None of us are privy to all the information and we don't know what is going to happen if/when Ghadaffi steps down. I just think at this point it is pre-mature to start comparing Obama to Bush as the warlord of the middle east.
 
#96
#96
I don't think it's premature, I just think people have to be consistent.

Ghadaffi isn't going to step down. He'll have to be exiled or otherwise removed. Venezuela would take him, so he doesn't HAVE to be killed. But they may be the easier option.
 
#97
#97
rjd970 said:
At this point you are still extrapolating out. When boots hit the ground in force I'll start comparing. None of us are privy to all the information and we don't know what is going to happen if/when Ghadaffi steps down. I just think at this point it is pre-mature to start comparing Obama to Bush as the warlord of the middle east.
Click to expand...

IMO if Gaddafi doesn't step down it will turn out just like Iraq I did after the coalition left. If he does then it will probably be chaos. Just can't see this going well at all without troops going in (either US, European or blue helmets)
 
#98
#98
utvolpj said:
IMO if Gaddafi doesn't step down it will turn out just like Iraq I did after the coalition left. If he does then it will probably be chaos. Just can't see this going well at all without troops going in (either US, European or blue helmets)
Click to expand...

exactly even if the rebels can win without ground support i can't see there being no need for a peace keeping force
 
#99
#99
I love that we about to place "rebels" into power who we know NOTHING about.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top