Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya - By Ron Paul

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not going to pull a "what is the meaning of the word 'is'" on the definition of hostilities here. Just because some people try to disagree, doesn't mean we get to throw out the english language Aurik, especially when no court has ruled it means anything other than the common sense definition.

If this was peacekeeping troops only, it would be a much different argument, but we're actively trying to kill their leader.

[Day]

idgaf anymore. doesn't matter if I support it or not... I could argue on a forum all day about it and it has zero percent impact. I'm against pretty much any unwarranted bloodshed but I'm just a middle class worker bee... so fuck it. they all hate us any how, lets drop the big one now. lets save Australia though, don't want to hurt no kangaroo.

[aurik]

And my position might be debateable, but it's certainly stronger than yours, because your stance amounts to saying that i'm not 100% right.

Actually you aren't addressing my position at all because I haven't taken one, I'm just pointing out that you are making assumptions that are definitely questionable, and saying "la la la I'm right I'm right I'm right" to anyone questioning those assumptions.

[aurik]

I'm not going to pull a "what is the meaning of the word 'is'" on the definition of hostilities here. Just because some people try to disagree, doesn't mean we get to throw out the english language Aurik, especially when no court has ruled it means anything other than the common sense definition.

If this was peacekeeping troops only, it would be a much different argument, but we're actively trying to kill their leader.

How many courts have ruled on the War Powers Act?

[archibaldcrane]

How could anyone be supportive of this action? Even from a non-legal standpoint.

Preventing mass-slaughter of civilians, encouraging democracy over dictatorship, creating a potential new ally in an unstable region, oil, whatever.

There's plenty of reasons to be supportive of the US involvement in Libya.

Being supportive of Obama saying fuck you to congress and the War Powers act? That's a little harder, but it goes more towards not giving obstructionist Republicans another chance to have a negotiating chip by disingenuously pretending that they don't support this military action, when the only reason most of them would be opposed is because it's Obama's war. (Ron Paul excluded here)

[Kuya]

Actually you aren't addressing my position at all because I haven't taken one, I'm just pointing out that you are making assumptions that are definitely questionable, and saying "la la la I'm right I'm right I'm right" to anyone questioning those assumptions.

That's what i'm saying. You're simply chidding me for being cavalier rather than saying i'm wrong. The only aspect where you really have an opening is in saying that there is enough plausibility in the War Powers Resolution being unconstitutional, enough so that if the Supreme Court feels like being in a particularly pro-executive mood, they might actually rule that way, but what punches a hole in that argument is the fact that no president since Nixon has questioned the constitutionality of the Resolution, and this naturally includes Obama. He can always reverse course though.

[archibaldcrane]

no president since Nixon has questioned the constitutionality of the Resolution

I just don't think that's true Kuya.

No president has challenged it in court, yes, but they haven't had to either since many have ignored the fuck out of it without repercussion.

[archibaldcrane]

If the Republicans were on their game though, they'd impeach Obama for the violation.

[Kuya]

Legally, assuming that Obama did violate the War Powers, they could impeach him, but i don't think republicans like to use impeachment unless there's sex involved. I've gathered that a lot of them are fine with subversion of laws and abuse of power.

I just don't think that's true Kuya.

No president has challenged it in court, yes, but they haven't had to either since many have ignored the fuck out of it without repercussion.

Which is probably what Obama is gonna do, assuming Congress doesn't do anything, and that's usually a good bet.

[aurik]

That's what i'm saying. You're simply chidding me for being cavalier rather than saying i'm wrong. The only aspect where you really have an opening is in saying that there is enough plausibility in the War Powers Resolution being unconstitutional, enough so that if the Supreme Court feels like being in a particularly pro-executive mood, they might actually rule that way, but what punches a hole in that argument is the fact that no president since Nixon has questioned the constitutionality of the Resolution, and this naturally includes Obama. He can always reverse course though.

Right. You construct a solid argument on a very shaky foundation, then flat-out refuse to address the shakiness in the foundation because that's a far harder task than simply clobbering people on the argument. To recast it as a reductio ad absurdum, if there was a proven-constitutional, binding law that required the president to give every TV address in the nude, you would be absolutely right to castigate him for wearing a suit when he announced that Bin Laden was dead. But there isn't a proven-constitutional, binding law that requires him to do so, and the same can be said about the requirements laid out in the War Powers Act.

As a point of fact, up to present, every president since the inception of the Act has actually held the official opinion that the Act is not binding. However, they generally fulfill their supposed "obligations" to avert political distraction.

[Demosthenes11]

If the Republicans were on their game though, they'd impeach Obama for the violation.

I think they understand the precedent of that though. They know they will be doing the same shit in office

[Plow]

It's pretty cool how congress having the power to do whatever they want with the military and tell the president to go fuck himself is balanced so evenly with the commander in chief not being able to do anything without their express permission.

[archibaldcrane]

I think they understand the precedent of that though. They know they will be doing the same shit in office

lol like they give a fuck. They'd have a case for impeachment (if not the votes necessary) - you really think that fears of hypocrisy ...register, at all? Congress approved both Afghanistan and Iraq, and hunting al queda wherever, they're pretty covered as far as the specifics of the War Powers act go.

Hell they can construct a narrative that Republicans obey the War Powers act and Democrats (Obama, Clinton) flagrantly violate it, if they like.

[Kuya]

It's pretty cool how congress having the power to do whatever they want with the military and tell the president to go fuck himself is balanced so evenly with the commander in chief not being able to do anything without their express permission.

If anyone took this post seriously, they might get the impression that the last 60 years has been a continous episode of the legislative branch ursurping power away from the executive branch, whilst cavalierly taking us into many a wars for imperial reasons.

Yea

[Day]

say cavalier again

[Kuya]

I mean yea, people say the executive is the imperial presidency and that Congress is useless and spineless, because Congress has taken over the powers of war making turning the president into the legislative branch's bitch.

Yea

[Demosthenes11]

plow's gonna plow

[archibaldcrane]

I mean yea, people say the executive is the imperial presidency and that Congress is useless and spineless, because Congress has taken over the powers of war making turning the president into the legislative branch's bitch.

Yea

If he was trying to make a point (no idea) it would be that Congress has plenty of power, they just fucking suck at using it.

[Kuya]

I really liked the part where he said the president can't do anything without congress's express permission. lol

[archibaldcrane]

I really liked the part where he said the president can't do anything without congress's express permission. lol

Well, the War Powers act says he can't do what he's doing in Libya without congress's express permission (no 60-90 day stuff even), since this has nothing to do with "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."