Hannity today... picks some eye candy and a hillbilly congressman to gang up on Jerry Springer.
Arguments: Obama needs congressional approval, even W got Congressional approval.
What's not included in the argument:
Ronald Reagan had two foreign invasions where Congressional approval was never gained, but still heralded as greatest Republican Prez since Lincoln.
My thoughts on Obama:
I appreciate the slow, cautious, calculated response. I also appreciate the desire to gain international community alignment given the situation (Muslim nation).
I don't like the entire idea, however, of us intervening in Libya, and don't see a big enough US stake here. I also agree Congressional approval should be required.
This what we should do, take it from big tough Joe,right Joe ? Remember he doesnt use words lightly, sometimes not even words at all will describe him.
This what we should do, take it from big tough Joe,right Joe ? Remember he doesnt use words lightly, sometimes not even words at all will describe him.
Do you feel Reagan should have been impeached also?
And to what extent should Congressional approval be given? For any act of war involving US military?
While I may not agree with the "impeach" language (especially since it seems GOP shifted their position reactively here, and are still trying to find their united position on Libya), I definitely agree with the idea of Congressional authority.
My whole point is the double standard, no republican has ever hollered for impeachement for this kind of thing, previous to this. Big mouth Biden does it years ago,but now is strangely silent. Because its a Dem its ok. So why doesnt he" make it his mission to impeach his boss"? No,i dont think the president should have to in this type of situation.
Do you feel Reagan should have been impeached also?
And to what extent should Congressional approval be given? For any act of war involving US military?
While I may not agree with the "impeach" language (especially since it seems GOP shifted their position reactively here, and are still trying to find their united position on Libya), I definitely agree with the idea of Congressional authority.
you will find what the WPR outlines when a president can use military force both with and without congress. The next 2 sections outline requirements on the president in the days after use of military force.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
you will find what the WPR outlines when a president can use military force both with and without congress. The next 2 sections outline requirements on the president in the days after use of military force.
I recall having a long discussion about this in Poly-Sci back in the day. The summary was here:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
This was post-Vietnam.
Is there something in particular you wanted to emphasize? I didn't read all those links yet. This seems to only further establish the Constitutional role of Congress in going to war.
Linear Mode
