PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Democrats talk Obama impeachment


Count Zarth
03-20-2011, 03:50 AM
ROFL

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.

“Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.”

The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded.

The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission.

The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement.

With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass.

They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be.

Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat.

Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger.

Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.

A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure.

On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.

The Mad Crapper
03-20-2011, 07:18 AM
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.


But orange said that they were. :drool:

I just don't know what to believe any more. Foiled again!

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 07:52 AM
Yes, Obama should be impeached for violating the US Constitution because he did not get a Declaration of War or even one of those silly extra-Constitutional "authorizations" to use force. Obama has started a war on a country that did not attack America and poses no threat to America.

He should also give his Nobel Peace Prize back. NeoCon Hitlary Clinton got to him.

Our spineless, in an American sense, Congress should defund this UN authorized move.

Donger
03-20-2011, 07:56 AM
That's silly.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:03 AM
That's silly.

Only to Internationalists and NeoCons—of both parties.:doh!:

You ARE silly Donger.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:05 AM
Only to Internationalists and NeoCons—of both parties.:doh!:

Nothing Obama has done meets (or comes anywhere close to) the Constitutional "requirements" for impeachment.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:10 AM
Nothing Obama has done meets (or comes anywhere close to) the Constitutional "requirements" for impeachment.

I disagree. He has failed to uphold and defend the US Constitution acting under the body of an international organization which subverts that document.
This is why I oppose our membership in the UN. It does an end run around sovereignty including ours.

Not that I expect someone like you to ever agree. Just keep pissing on it Donger.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:14 AM
I disagree. He has failed to uphold and defend the US Constitution acting under the body of an international organization which subverts that document.
This is why I opposed our membership in the UN. It does an end run around sovereignty including ours.

Not that I expect someone like you to ever agree. Just keep pissing on it Donger.

He is the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces, per the Constitution. Does the Constitution state that he can't issues orders to use those forces without a declaration of war?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:18 AM
He is the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces, per the Constitution. Does the Constitution state that he can't issues orders to use those forces without a declaration of war?

You're actually asking me this? Oh brother! :doh!:

You should use the search and jus re-read previous debates. Only congress is authorized to decide if we go to war ( and this is an act of war) per the Constitution. NOT the commander in chief. The president executes the war after congress decides. Congress decides because it's the people's house. Don't take it from me though, read the document. The Framers wanted to do away with the idea of heads of govt making such decisions because it was the kings of Europe that started so many wars. You need to move back to Europe if you prefer that.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:22 AM
You're actually asking me this? Oh brother! :doh!:

You should use the search and jus re-read previous debates. Only congress is authorized to decide if we go to war ( and this is an act of war) per the Constitution. The president executes the war after congress decides. Congress decides because it's the people's house. The Framers wanted to do away with the idea of heads of govt making such decisions because it was the kings of Europe that started so many wars. You need to move back to Europe if you prefer that.

Right, so it doesn't. Obama didn't declare war. He is simply using his Constitutionally-given power to act as the Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces.

I don't like the fact that he's chosen this course of action (I'd rather we do nothing), but it is not unconstitutional and it certainly doesn't meet the threshold of justifying impeachment.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:27 AM
Right, so it doesn't. Obama didn't declare war. He is simply using his Constitutionally-given power to act as the Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces.
Nope. You have it entirely wrong per Article I, Section 8.
It's your residual Europeaness rearing its head again. This leads to false interpretations. You want a king.

I don't like the fact that he's chosen this course of action (I'd rather we do nothing), but it is not unconstitutional and it certainly doesn't meet the threshold of justifying impeachment.

Our membership in the UN has complicated this issue and does away with a congress deciding on issues of acts of war. That doesn't place that organization over our Constitution though.

A president can use military force to thwart a sudden attack....then if he goes to whole war he still has to seek a declaration.


And Donger I don't plan on educating you all afternoon about it when the search will do that just as well.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:33 AM
Meh. It's really pretty simple: The Founders couldn't have envisioned the type of "warfare" that we have today. Would they have considered what Obama ordered "an act of war"? I don't know and neither do you.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:34 AM
Meh. It's really pretty simple: The Founders couldn't have envisioned the type of "warfare" that we have today.

Excuses. Some of you guys are as bad as the left when it comes to making excuses for wholesale violations of the document. That's the argument the left uses to destroy it via usurpations—times have changed.

Your citizenship should be revoked. You rever the UN more than America.

Would they have considered what Obama ordered "an act of war"? I don't know and neither do you.

In other words confuse the issue by clouding things that have long been considered an act of war per international law— hurling bombs into a country, blockades and now "No Fly Zones." Gimme a break!

This is the same crap the left pulls on the Constitution. Parsing it a la Bill Clinton as in depending on what "is" means.

I do know. It's you that does NOT know. Or rather, chooses NOT to know because it wouldn't make yourself right or justify this action.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:36 AM
Excuses. Some of you guys are as bad as the left when it comes to making excuses for wholesale violations of the document. That's the argument the left uses to destroy it via usurpations—times have changed.

What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?

Your citizenship should be revoked.

LMAO

banyon
03-20-2011, 08:38 AM
Excuses. Some of you guys are as bad as the left when it comes to making excuses for wholesale violations of the document. That's the argument the left uses to destroy it via usurpations—times have changed.

Your citizenship should be revoked.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242952

Opinions are opinions and sometimes people just like to express their opinions sometimes with no intention of debating, parsing or discussing it.
There is nothing essentially wrong with that. In fact it's a right.

But, we can blast people for them, and claim they are sorry excuses for citizens and they should be kicked out for expressing that right, right?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:40 AM
What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?



LMAO

I already told you.

I already told you I am not going to educate you all afternoon either. That includes answering a million rhetorical questions of yours.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:40 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242952



But, we can blast people for them, and claim they are sorry excuses for citizens and they should be kicked out for expressing that right, right?

LMAO

You omitted the asterisk, which is: "As long you aren't a NEO-FACIST, IMPERIALIST, MERCHANTILIST! Then we banish you forthwith!"

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:42 AM
I already told you.

I already told you I am not going to educate you all afternoon either. That includes answering a million rhetorical questions of yours.

Well, the Constitution just states that Congress has the power to declare war. Obama hasn't declared war, so what has he violated?

The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that he can't use military force.

Perhaps you should re-read it?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:43 AM
LMAO

You omitted the asterisk, which is: "As long you aren't a NEO-FACIST, IMPERIALIST, MERCHANTILIST! Then we banish you forthwith!"
I notice you get nervous laughter when you're wrong or can't refute.

I was not just expressing my opinion. This discussion is about who is authorized to decide matters of war per a document which says what it says about it. So it's about some facts that are in dispute. Sometimes facts are in dispute and sometimes we just disagree about opinions. I think it's a bad move to bomb Libya. That's an opinion. But who decides war is stated in the Constitution. That is a FACT.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:48 AM
Well, the Constitution just states that Congress has the power to declare war. Obama hasn't declared war, so what has he violated?
He has ignored Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that he can't use military force.


Perhaps you should re-read it?

Yes, but he has started acts of aggression on a nation that has not attacked us and is not a threat to us.
That's an act of war something that used to result in a declare if it had been done to us. I mean this is what the Japanese did to us at one time. It is what Hitler did to Poland. It is what Napoleon did in Europe. Keep obfuscating the truth.

Obama is not repelling a sudden attack on us using military force to protect quickly. This a was planned act and is an act of war with us being the starter of aggression.

And you are the one who needs to re-read it. You might even read what the Federalist Society says about it if you need an appeal to authority.

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:51 AM
I notice you get nervous laughter when you're wrong or can't refute.

I was not just expressing my opinion. This discussion is about who is authorized to decide matters of war per a document which says what it says about it. So it's about some facts that are in dispute. Sometimes facts are in dispute and sometimes we just disagree about opinions. I think it's a bad move to bomb Libya. That's an opinion. But who decides war is stated in the Constitution. That is a FACT.

No, I laugh at you when your nuttiness and selectiveness is displayed. You haven't shown how Obama has violated the Constitution, but want him impeached per the Constitution.

You don't think that's funny (in a sad, pathetic kind of way?)?

Donger
03-20-2011, 08:53 AM
He has ignored Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Oh, it's "ignored" now? I thought it was "violated"?

Anyway, let's look at the actual text, shall we?

The Congress shall have Power To declare War

Like I said, Obama hasn't declared war, has he?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:55 AM
No, I laugh at you when your nuttiness and selectiveness is displayed.

This proves my point even more.

This is the argument many on the left, some on the right, and some libertarians used on this very board against Bush.

You haven't shown how Obama has violated the Constitution, but want him impeached per the Constitution.

You don't think that's funny (in a sad, pathetic kind of way?)?

Yes I have shown it. You just refuse to see it because you support the action and need to justify it. It is not justified under our Constitution. There's good arguments to say it's not justified even per the UN's own Charter.

You haven't shown how Obama is following the Constitution either. You can only fall back on ad hominem with "nuttiness." More proof you failed in your argument. You are now projecting what you're doing onto me. That's a sign you've done what you accuse me of.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 08:57 AM
Oh, it's "ignored" now? I thought it was "violated"?

Anyway, let's look at the actual text, shall we?

The Congress shall have Power To declare War

Like I said, Obama hasn't declared war, has he?

He needs to if he wants to engage in an act of war or start a war, Mr. Clinton. Obama does not have permission from the people's house.

Again read the Federalist Society on when something goes beyond repelling sudden attacks and when acts are acts of war....acts of aggression....as in striking someone first.
Historically certain acts have been considered starting a war.

banyon
03-20-2011, 09:02 AM
I notice you get nervous laughter when you're wrong or can't refute.

I was not just expressing my opinion. This discussion is about who is authorized to decide matters of war per a document which says what it says about it. So it's about some facts that are in dispute. Sometimes facts are in dispute and sometimes we just disagree about opinions. I think it's a bad move to bomb Libya. That's an opinion. But who decides war is stated in the Constitution. That is a FACT.

Logic fail again. Donger was the one expressing the opinion and you were the one attacking him for it, even though you had just announced some ridiculous principle of yours minutes ago that it was wrong to do so.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:04 AM
What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?



LMAO

I already told you. So you're wasting your questions. I'm beginning to think this question game you play is a form of nervousness as well.

BTW you're being selective and not in the correct way.

banyon used this same argument I am using against Bush on Iraq. I can't see what he says but I know he's posting because I can see he has. I wonder if he's switched on the argument now that a leftist is president. Geesh! Even Moore is tweeting condemnations of Obama for this act.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:08 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n3_cS_iQ-w0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

banyon
03-20-2011, 09:12 AM
I already told you. So you're wasting your questions. I'm beginning to think this question game you play is a form of nervousness as well.

BTW you're being selective and not in the correct way.

banyon used this same argument I am using against Bush on Iraq. I can't see what he says but I know he's posting because I can see he has. I wonder if he's switched on the argument now that a leftist is president. Geesh! Even Moore is tweeting condemnations of Obama for this act.

You just directly replied to me 50 minutes ago (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7503479#post7503479). Can't you stick with anything?

LiveSteam
03-20-2011, 09:14 AM
Did Reagan ask congresses for permission before he launched attacks on Omar

HonestChieffan
03-20-2011, 09:17 AM
Impeachment talk is absurd. It was absurd when we f***ed away a ton of money and god knows how much time chasing Clinton. It was absurd to discuss it with Bush, and its absurd to consider it now.

Get back to the business at hand. Fix the damn budget.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:25 AM
Did Reagan ask congresses for permission before he launched attacks on Omar

He did? When was that? Why would that make it right?
The Cold War was mostly fought by proxy. I am not aware of RR starting any overt war with any nation.

This is something that's been off the rails for awhile starting with our membership in the UN which was followed by the UN Participation Act. But this can't even be justified under that.

It also does not apply to getting Americans out of a hot spot either. Also I support the Monroe Doctrine. Libya is too far away and was not a threat. If Ghaddafi digs in he may well become a threat or team up with terrorists.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:27 AM
Impeachment talk is absurd. It was absurd when we f***ed away a ton of money and god knows how much time chasing Clinton. It was absurd to discuss it with Bush, and its absurd to consider it now.

Get back to the business at hand. Fix the damn budget.

I your opinion it's absurd....let's at least get that part straight.

Now as to the budget, how do you plan to fix that after spending another 50 million in just a few days bombing Libya?
You can't have limited Constitutional govt doing such things because the whole idea of our Constitution is to limit our govt's actions— especially the presidency which was intended as the weaker branch due to
an emphasis on the legislature.

You cannot have limited and small govt, low taxes and fiscal sanity as in a balanced budget being the UN's enforcer, the cop of the world or acting like a past European empire. ( Dongerism)
This is exactly how all those empires went broke including Donger's former country's empire.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:36 AM
Donger,
What you're referring to is what is usually called a "police action" or a "UN police action" that is how that body gets to justify using a member country's military where it would normally be considered war. That is how that body cicumvents our Constitution and is why true conservatives, Constitutionalist conservatives, oppose our being a member in that body. I don't think you know the history of American conservatism...which is unlike the conservativism of Great Britain which is more to the left than the American brand.

Bottom line still is that body is basically dominated by 5 nations and mostly by the 4 western nations. The world is ruled by power.

J Diddy
03-20-2011, 09:37 AM
He did? When was that? Why would that make it right?
The Cold War was mostly fought by proxy. I am not aware of RR starting any overt war with any nation.

This is something that's been off the rails for awhile starting with our membership in the UN which was followed by the UN Participation Act. But this can't even be justified under that.

It also does not apply to getting Americans out of a hot spot either. Also I support the Monroe Doctrine. Libya is too far away and was not a threat. If Ghaddafi digs in he may well become a threat or team up with terrorists.


Team up with terrorists? I'm pretty sure that's already been done.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 09:42 AM
Team up with terrorists? I'm pretty sure that's already been done.

Umm, that was before he made amends on Lockerbie where Bush re-instated him into our camp which was the direction he was moving in. Look, I am not for Gaddafi — nor am I for his opposition.
Gaddafi has already said he may team up with AQ now. So this already has had an opposite effect with Gaddafi digging in.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 04:30 PM
Kucinich.

Of course.

There is nobody more useless in Congress.

The Mad Crapper
03-20-2011, 04:45 PM
Kucinich.

Of course.

There is nobody more useless in Congress.

At least Dennis Kucinich is consistent. That's more than I can say about you.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 05:51 PM
Kucinich.

Of course.

There is nobody more useless in Congress.

He is correct on this.....other stuff like Obamacare, not so much.

ROYC75
03-20-2011, 06:01 PM
This should be good ! :popcorn:

alnorth
03-20-2011, 06:08 PM
I'm pretty much with Donger on this one. No matter how much we might want it to be otherwise, the founding fathers did not define or give much guidance on what a declaration of war means, vs what the commander in chief can do without a declaration. This pure school of thought that we can't attack anyone for any reason without a declaration was violated almost right away by some of our first presidents, and congress further undercut this interpretation by passing laws (sedition) that are only active with a declaration, but not if we are fighting without a declaration. So, a declaration is now not meaningless, you declare war if you want to activate those laws. (incidentally, the sedition laws strongly discourage congress from ever declaring war now because those laws are rather harsh, yet I doubt there's much appetite to repeal them)

If this ever goes to the courts, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the president. Thats why congress has not sued, they don't want to lose.

If congress wants to stop the president dead in his tracks, they can do so by defunding the military.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2011, 06:11 PM
At least Dennis Kucinich is consistent. That's more than I can say about you.

Eh Dickshunt is a pretty consistent dumbass.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2011, 09:26 PM
Really??? :spock:



LMAO LMAO LMAO

BillSelfsTrophycase
03-20-2011, 09:54 PM
As much as I dislike Obama, this hardly qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 10:51 PM
I'm pretty much with Donger on this one. No matter how much we might want it to be otherwise, the founding fathers did not define or give much guidance on what a declaration of war means, vs what the commander in chief can do without a declaration.

I think you need to read more notes from the original Constitutional Convention then. Donger is flat out wrong on this. Flat out wrong. It is clear the Framers ( save possibly Hamilton) did not want this power to rest in the presidency for the reasons I stated earlier—kings just started too many wars in Europe.

In fact Madison described the " war-making power" as the greatest of all "enemies of public freedom."

This pure school of thought that we can't attack anyone for any reason without a declaration was violated almost right away by some of our first presidents, and congress further undercut this interpretation by passing laws (sedition) that are only active with a declaration, but not if we are fighting without a declaration. So, a declaration is now not meaningless, you declare war if you want to activate those laws. (incidentally, the sedition laws strongly discourage congress from ever declaring war now because those laws are rather harsh, yet I doubt there's much appetite to repeal them)
It's not a pure school of thought. It is what the document says. (I hope you don't enter into contracts with people.) There is zero language giving this power to the chief executive and the reasons for it are just as sound today as they were then.

Who was that? Don't give me the Barbary pirates because Jefferson was in touch with congress throughout and they passed legislation to deal with such acts which he used.

I think you have some of our earlier presidents confused with some of our later officials like Rep Henry Hyde who simply felt a declaration was out-dated. Even if you don't, just because an earlier president didn't follow the Constitution, and some of them did not in other areas, doesn't make it Constitutional. It's accepting that as an excuse.

I discussed this at length and put up links to how the Federalist Society views this, which Roberts was a member of. We don't declare war, and no nation does anymore, because we are members of the UN and we passed the UN Participation Act which means police-keeping actions are just not considered wars.( which is just a bunch of Newspeak....as in war is peace).

If this ever goes to the courts, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the president. Thats why congress has not sued, they don't want to lose.
No one can predict how the SC will rule and even if they do they are placing our Constitution under the UN treaty. No treaty should do away with parts of our Constitution. This is another reason that the War Machine on the East River is a threat to sovereignty and at Trojan Horse for global governance.

If congress wants to stop the president dead in his tracks, they can do so by defunding the military.
Or they can refuse to have it's powers taken away from them like spineless wimps to the UN or do both if one doesn't work.

Nevertheless, is very clear from the Framers writings that they did not want this power in the Presidential branch based on Europe's experiences. The presidency was intended as the weaker branch. You probably just support the strong and powerful idea of a presidency which was never intended.

alnorth you're pretty liberal for a Republican. You support a living breathing interpretation of the Constitution, as does Donger.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2011, 10:57 PM
...'er Donger's model. Ya' know True Brit.

The Framers of the Constitution vested in Congress the sole and exclusive authority to initiate military hostilities, including full-blown, total war, as well as lesser acts of armed force, on behalf of the American people. The constitutional grant to Congress of the war power, which Justice William Paterson described in United States v. Smith (1806) as "the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war," constituted a sharp break from the British model.

The Framers were determined to deny to the president what Blackstone had assigned to the English King—"the sole prerogative of making war and peace." The president, in his role as commander in chief, was granted only the authority to repel invasions of the United States.

But what the Framers sought to deny to the president has become a commonplace. Indeed, executive usurpation of the war power in the period since World War II has become a dominant characteristic of American foreign relations as presidents have routinely committed acts of war without congressional authorization.

Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/The-Constitution-The-war-power.html#ixzz1HCt3qpfg

craneref
03-21-2011, 06:39 AM
I applaud Kucinich credit for remaining loyal to his beliefs, of course we don't see Nancy Pelosi scraming about this being illegal liek she did against President Bush. I don't agree with Kucinich, but I have a lot of respect for him for his consistency, no matter whcih party is in the White House! :clap:

chiefsnorth
03-21-2011, 06:45 AM
Just put BEP on ignore people. It makes this folder so much more readable.

oldandslow
03-21-2011, 07:49 AM
IMO, the constitution is plain about the subject of going to war. Bush was wrong then, just as Obama is wrong now.

It amazes me how many "conservatives" wrap themselves around the second amendment and much of the rest of the constitution, but ignore the parts they don't agree with.

HonestChieffan
03-21-2011, 08:06 AM
It amazes me how many people wrap themselves around their favorite amendment and much of the rest of the constitution, but ignore the parts they don't agree with.

FYP. Stupid is across all parts of the political spectrum.

alnorth
03-21-2011, 08:53 AM
alnorth you're pretty liberal for a Republican. You support a living breathing interpretation of the Constitution, as does Donger.

:spock:

You are apparently confused by predictions of "this is what I think the courts will do", interpreting that to mean "this is the way I wish our constitution was written/this is what I think ought to happen".

I'm just saying that legally speaking, a declaration of war doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. If I could re-write the constitution, would I require the president to get more signoff before attacking? Yes. Is that the way our constitution is written now? No. Would I support a constitutional amendment to put it in? Yes.

alnorth
03-21-2011, 08:56 AM
...'er Donger's model. Ya' know True Brit.

If that was their intention, then the framers completely failed to write it.

Its not hard to write that we can not attack another country (except in an emergency, however you want to word it) without a vote.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 09:36 AM
Meh. It's really pretty simple: The Founders couldn't have envisioned the type of "warfare" that we have today. Would they have considered what Obama ordered "an act of war"? I don't know and neither do you.

If Mexico lauched cruise missles into America to take out our Air Force what would you consider that?

ClevelandBronco
03-21-2011, 09:50 AM
At least Dennis Kucinich is consistent. That's more than I can say about you.

WAS consistent. He folded like the Broncos DL on Obamacare.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 10:31 AM
If that was their intention, then the framers completely failed to write it.

Its not hard to write that we can not attack another country (except in an emergency, however you want to word it) without a vote.

Now, see this is where you are wrong. This just is NOT factual. It's actually written and it's unambiguously written at that. Even if the style of writing and the vernacular were different then.
If the document states that the powers in that document are "specific and enumerated" and it includes a list of the powers of Congress, and one of those powers under that list is the power to declare war—then only someone highly illiterate would make a claim it was not written.

Also, "declare" at that time clearly meant to people to "commence" war as opposed to thwarting war—something where a president may act on his own. Libya and Iraq did not commence war. We did. Japan did. Even that Federalist Society ( a legal site) link I provided years ago states starting an aggressive war requires a "declare."

If that's not enough, when it frankly should be on this provision, you go to the notes at the Convention or the Federalist Papers ( like our own SC judges have) to fill in more meaning. It's WRITTEN in the document and it's not ambiguous though. Saying otherwise means someone needs to read the document with a good dictionary nearby.

The Convention's notes and Federalist Papers merely expound on it and give it more backing as it shows what they discussed and shows what they did not want and why.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 10:35 AM
:spock:

You are apparently confused by predictions of "this is what I think the courts will do", interpreting that to mean "this is the way I wish our constitution was written/this is what I think ought to happen".

I'm just saying that legally speaking, a declaration of war doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. If I could re-write the constitution, would I require the president to get more signoff before attacking? Yes. Is that the way our constitution is written now? No. Would I support a constitutional amendment to put it in? Yes.

Nope

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 10:37 AM
Just put BEP on ignore people. It makes this folder so much more readable.

Awe, the little Nazi can't deal with a opinion he doesn't like and goes into full-blown hate. Intolerance of political opinions you don't agree with and can't defend is a trait I associate more with the left. You must be a NeoCon and this should be censored because it's not PC enough for you and your beloved war machine.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 10:46 AM
I saw this on another board: Did Obama say it?

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~ Sen. Barack Obama speaking about George Bush's military actions in Iraq

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 11:09 AM
Originally Posted by Donger View Post
Meh. It's really pretty simple: The Founders couldn't have envisioned the type of "warfare" that we have today. Would they have considered what Obama ordered "an act of war"? I don't know and neither do you.
You mean the kind that we START? With conventional modern weapons? O.M.G.

FishingRod
03-21-2011, 11:13 AM
While I think these guys are a little batshit loony I do appreciate the consistency and moral fiber in having the same objections to A Democratic President as they had with the previous administration. I suppose we have about as much justification for Bombing Libya as we have had for most of our Post WWII military actions but, I think we need to be a little more cold and calculating as to the cost/benefit. I believe we need a clear objective with a equally clear benefit to the citizens of the USA before we put our people in harm’s way and waste a bunch of expensive weapons on antiaircraft guns mounted to the back of a camel.

alnorth
03-21-2011, 12:27 PM
Nope

Well, then you are deliberately distorting what I'm saying for some odd reason.

We've got a disagreement on the facts of what the document said, not a desire to change what it used to mean. A "declaration", in any era and under any context, whether its the 1800's or 2011, is a statement describing what has occurred, not the act being described by the declaration. I don't see how the lack of an announcement that we are at war prevents the president from committing an act of war.

If the founding fathers wanted to require a vote before an attack, then the founding fathers have failed us in this regard.

The Mad Crapper
03-21-2011, 12:32 PM
WAS consistent. He folded like the Broncos DL on Obamacare.

Nice catch. :thumb:

I stand corrected.