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

[Plow]

Try reading.

I reread every post to make sure before I hit post reply dog.

The closest you came was "especially with the use of drones."


Try actual arguing.

[aurik]

Constitutionally speaking the Pres doesn't have to consult congress to command the military around, even if it is "engaging in hostilities". If congress doesn't like it, they control the purse strings and are free to cut off funding. As such, the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional, but in reality no court will get involved. So the president will continue to do what the fuck he pleases unless congress mans up.

[Kuya]

Constitutionally speaking the Pres doesn't have to consult congress to command the military around, even if it is "engaging in hostilities". If congress doesn't like it, they control the purse strings and are free to cut off funding. As such, the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional, but in reality no court will get involved. So the president will continue to do what the fuck he pleases unless congress mans up.

Yes, that's why the act is called unconstitutional, because it extends Congress's involvement from declaring war to requiring its approval of conflict. The reason is obvious, since conventional warfare with the US involvement is practically a precious unicorn and most of what the US has done in the 20th and 21st century has been described as a slew of conflicts, but you knew this already.

On the other hand, the reason why the act is also considered to extend presidential power is because even in a situation approaching war, no declaration is necessary in order to engage in warfare as long as the president does not extend engagement beyond the enumarated time. The act really limited nothing, not just because presidents don't pay it any attention.

[Kuya]

And at this point, talking about how the Congress should use its power over the purse to control the presidency is pointless, given that Congress, to my knowledge, has never done this nor does it seem likely that it ever will. In fact, this latest squabble is probably not going to deter Obama given that republicans aren't known to ever get in the way of actually pursuing conflict. They're probably just playing this up to gain a leg up and then drop it once they feel they get what they want or they feel they've lost. As for the poor liberals who just want oversight over the president's war making abilities, they're just along for the ride.

[archibaldcrane]

So Kuya, are you arguing that Obama WILL lose this case, or just that he SHOULD?

[Kuya]

What case? This probably isn't gonna go to court since the court will probably either say political issue or tell Congress to use its powers. It's up to Congress.

I wish the presidency had its war powers genuinely limited.

[Kuya]

Not that it matters much since what a candidates says and what a president does can be two very different things, but this is what Obama said a few years ago:

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

What really kills it is that he's not even arguing he can disregard Congress (especially on a law that presidents have ignored and considered unconstitutional since its inception) when it comes to warfare, but he's actually arguing this what's happening in Lybia is not a conflict/hostility/war. I'm guessing that what he wants to do is the former and he's trying to get it via the latter, since the latter may sound stupid as fuck, but it sounds less cynical and mean spirited than the former.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

[NiggaFromHarlem]

Not that it matters much since what a candidates says and what a president does can be two very different things, but this is what Obama said a few years ago:

What really kills it is that he's not even arguing he can disregard Congress (especially on a law that presidents have ignored and considered unconstitutional since its inception) when it comes to warfare, but he's actually arguing this what's happening in Lybia is not a conflict/hostility/war. I'm guessing that what he wants to do is the former and he's trying to get it via the latter, since the latter may sound stupid as fuck, but it sounds less cynical and mean spirited than the former.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

Would you support impeaching the President for this flagrant violation of the War Powers Act (and for continuing to ignore the demands of Congress)?

[test123]

[kuronosan]

I'm not in favor of terrorists, but I don't really see anything wrong with Obama's statement. Let me pick it apart and show you how I interpret it, for example:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Correct. The President does not have this power. I actually agree with this.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

I guess this is also correct, though I don't see how people are not viewing this as an act of self-defense. Congress doesn't approve of Qadafi's behavior, yet they would somehow oppose military strikes and supporting NATO? You know, I'm sure NATO didn't really want to support all the really stupid shit that we have been doing, but I imagine Obama's perspective is that the defense of the world is in the best interests of the U.S.'s self-defense. By supporting these "revolutions" that the people are doing, he is probably hoping to show them that we support the free-will of people without having to send tanks in and blow shit (and civilians) up. How is setting a precedent wrong?

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

This isn't really the same thing. When you're talking about full-scale war on an entire country, such as Iran, and supporting allies in NATO from allowing a dictator to slaughter his own people and starve them because he doesn't want to lose power, I would think stopping nuclear weapons production is something that really needs discussion while keeping a ruler from slaughtering his own people is something that nobody should stand for. It's like the difference between watching a bunch of people robbing a bank versus watching somebody rape this helpless little girl in the alley and being too afraid to act.

In short, I don't really think it's fair to judge Obama for wanting support NATO, albeit minimally, without Congress' approval.

[Rhinox]

More rahrah team politics. A lesson I learned in Obama's Presidency is that the left is just as retarded as the right just different principles.

Another lesson learned was just so long as Obama doesn't change the (D) to an (R) the assholes here and pretty much everywhere else believe he could do no wrong. If he does wrong? well thats ok cause the GOP would be worse!

[Rhinox]

That is especially the case with gays.

Obama now made it so gays can openly die in wars too! Historic! What a champion for the cause!

Except he believes Marriage is between a man and a woman. He's okay with you getting the same rights as married couples just don't call it marriage.

[Kuya]

I'm not in favor of terrorists, but I don't really see anything wrong with Obama's statement. Let me pick it apart and show you how I interpret it, for example:



Correct. The President does not have this power. I actually agree with this.



I guess this is also correct, though I don't see how people are not viewing this as an act of self-defense. Congress doesn't approve of Qadafi's behavior, yet they would somehow oppose military strikes and supporting NATO? You know, I'm sure NATO didn't really want to support all the really stupid shit that we have been doing, but I imagine Obama's perspective is that the defense of the world is in the best interests of the U.S.'s self-defense. By supporting these "revolutions" that the people are doing, he is probably hoping to show them that we support the free-will of people without having to send tanks in and blow shit (and civilians) up. How is setting a precedent wrong?



This isn't really the same thing. When you're talking about full-scale war on an entire country, such as Iran, and supporting allies in NATO from allowing a dictator to slaughter his own people and starve them because he doesn't want to lose power, I would think stopping nuclear weapons production is something that really needs discussion while keeping a ruler from slaughtering his own people is something that nobody should stand for. It's like the difference between watching a bunch of people robbing a bank versus watching somebody rape this helpless little girl in the alley and being too afraid to act.

In short, I don't really think it's fair to judge Obama for wanting support NATO, albeit minimally, without Congress' approval.

I don't know why you took the entire quote and felt the need to write paragraphs about it given that its purpose was to show how Obama's views before the presidency contrast with his views after he became president, namely the needing approval from Congress part.

And your argument can basically be summed up as good intentions justify law breaking. The great thing about good intentions is that they justify everything.

[aurik]

In my mind, being a contributing member of NATO is protecting the US's interest. As I alluded to before, if Congress has to explicitly approve every skirmish that the US is party to through NATO or other alliances, might as well withdraw from those alliances now because eventually some conflict is going to end up a political football (see: Libya), and who will suffer when that happens? Your allies.

In order to be a strong ally, the president needs the unilateral ability to honor alliances, and that's what I see the very limited engagement in Libya as.

[Kuya]

Questions about Congress' legitimacy as a representative body aside, what you're asking for is essentially giving the president control to do with the military as he pleases without any input from the country's representative body. This is what the military has been reduced to already, a cynical tool for foreign policy rather than a tool for defense for the american people, and what you're suggesting only further reduces it to the former.

My guess is that precisely what you want is what the administration wants: reducing democratic oversight on the military as much as people so the presidency's powers over it are further increased. It's pretty consistent with trends of the last century.

[aurik]

Congress always has the option to cut off funding. It's only "not politically realistic" because congress is full of self-interested douchebags, with a few exceptions.

Also the military has always been under the exclusive control of the executive branch. Letting congress get their dirty mitts on it is a very, very bad idea.

[Kuya]

It's sad, but the US military hasn't been the people's army, flamboyent rhetoric aside, for decades. I suppose it's only fitting that it becomes the president's personal vanguard, and Congress has as little say about its use as possible (at least when it comes to deciding when and where it is used).

[aurik]

Hello? It's always been the president's army. Read the constitution.

[tyven]

u r c'ing this way 2 black & white, kuya darling.

[aurik]

That's why we have the right to bear arms.