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.
Yeah, good point and I agree with you.
I'd just be careful of that same hypocrisy as Repubs gather to look silly with "Impeach him" slogans, even while their Presidential legends were guilty of the same.
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.
The only thing I have issue with in the above is the "or serious threat".
in practice that has been the case a few times. however, the wording of the act itself, indicates that Americans or American territory or American military must have already been attacked.
you mentioned the Reagan attack on Libya as an example like this Obama action.
If you remember, Reagan responded to a Libyian attack where 2 Americans were killed. He was compliant with the WPR.
I dont see where Obama is currently in compliance with WPR in this action.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I'd just be careful of that same hypocrisy as Repubs gather to look silly with "Impeach him" slogans, even while their Presidential legends were guilty of the same.
when were Republicans guilty of military action that was not compliant with the WPR?
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The only thing I have issue with in the above is the "or serious threat".
in practice that has been the case a few times. however, the wording of the act itself, indicates that Americans or American territory or American military must have already been attacked.
you mentioned the Reagan attack on Libya as an example like this Obama action.
If you remember, Reagan responded to a Libyian attack where 2 Americans were killed. He was compliant with the WPR.
I dont see where Obama is currently in compliance with WPR in this action.
Libya bombing.... and
Iran-Contra
Grenada
The Libya bomb explosion was not immediately directed to Americans. These acts of terrorism abroad are evident all over the world. If that alone is reason for war, I'd be concerned. This was not an incident that escalated into an "imminent threat" on America. I will give some benefit of the doubt to the intelligence community, as they claim they intercepted a message from Gadaffi that the bombing was explicitly to attack Americans. I would still cautious and minimize Presidential War Powers to go before Congress with these findings. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ado_canyon.htm
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The Libya bomb explosion was not immediately directed to Americans. These acts of terrorism abroad are evident all over the world. If that alone is reason for war, I'd be concerned. This was not an incident that escalated into an "imminent threat" on America. I will give some benefit of the doubt to the intelligence community, as they claim they intercepted a message from Gadaffi that the bombing was explicitly to attack Americans. I would still cautious and minimize Presidential War Powers to go before Congress with these findings. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ado_canyon.htm
while I can agree that the Libya bombing by RR was tenuous, it was nevertheless, ample to comply with the WRP as by the letter of the law, Americans had in fact been attacked. There is NO wording in the WPR about imminent threat to the nation. Retaliatory strikes like RRs and also Bill Clinton’s attack on the Sudan Aspirin Factory were both retaliatory in nature and legally compliant.
Grenada was in a state of war and Americans were in harm’s way. Again, RR had cause that qualified under the WPA.
Iran Contra did not involve American Military engaging in military action.
Obama has violated the WPR In my opinion in a way we have not seen before. However, the remedy is not impeachment in this case. We have good cause to be there. Gadhafe is our enemy and we ought to get rid of him. The remedy is for a congressional resolution.
Here is the really funny thing about the WPR. Many people and most Presidents think it is unconstitutional. BUT it cannot be challenged without someone violating it then a federal case being brought. SCOTUS will not adjudicate without these requirements.
Now the only person who can violate this is the President. He won’t bring suit against himself. Congress doesn’t have to go to the SCOTUS. They can just bring articles of impeachment. If they want to do that, they can and if convicted, the President has no recourse. He is just out. Period.
This will absolutely not happen in this case and therefore while Obama is clearly in violation, it doesn’t mean a blessed thing legally.
It does demonstrate Obama’s utter incompetence.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
while I can agree that the Libya bombing by RR was tenuous, it was nevertheless, ample to comply with the WRP as by the letter of the law, Americans had in fact been attacked. There is NO wording in the WPR about imminent threat to the nation. Retaliatory strikes like RRs and also Bill Clinton’s attack on the Sudan Aspirin Factory were both retaliatory in nature and legally compliant.
Grenada was in a state of war and Americans were in harm’s way. Again, RR had cause that qualified under the WPA.
Iran Contra did not involve American Military engaging in military action.
Obama has violated the WPR In my opinion in a way we have not seen before. However, the remedy is not impeachment in this case. We have good cause to be there. Gadhafe is our enemy and we ought to get rid of him. The remedy is for a congressional resolution.
Here is the really funny thing about the WPR. Many people and most Presidents think it is unconstitutional. BUT it cannot be challenged without someone violating it then a federal case being brought. SCOTUS will not adjudicate without these requirements.
Now the only person who can violate this is the President. He won’t bring suit against himself. Congress doesn’t have to go to the SCOTUS. They can just bring articles of impeachment. If they want to do that, they can and if convicted, the President has no recourse. He is just out. Period.
This will absolutely not happen in this case and therefore while Obama is clearly in violation, it doesn’t mean a blessed thing legally.
It does demonstrate Obama’s utter incompetence.
Ferd, where are you reading that the President doesn't need Congressional approval to wage war?
Regarding Grenada, what was the imminent threat to America that was was merited without Congressional approval? We had some students that "could have" been in harm, but were not. "Not a single American child nor single American national was in any way placed in danger or placed in a hostage situation prior to the invasion."
Iran Contra was one of the biggest Presidential scandals. The affair was composed of arms sales to Iran in violation of the official US policy of an arms embargo against Iran, and of using funds thus generated to arm and train the Contra militants based in Honduras as they waged a guerilla war to topple the government of Nicaragua. The Contras' form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."The "Contras systematically engage in violent abuses... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war."A Human Rights Watch report found that the Contras were guilty of targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination; kidnapping civilians; torturing and executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat; raping women; indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian homes; seizing civilian property; and burning civilian houses in captured towns
The point with IC was not waging war, but Presidential action without Congressional authority.
Has anyone watched the new documentary on History Channel on Ronald Reagan? I felt it was quite objective, without being overly mystical toward Reagan's legend status.
IC in no way reflects on WPR. period. I wont get into IC here. suffice it to say, there was not enough to convict RR on the issue. Nothing else really matters.
As for Grenada, pretext was all that was needed.
The WPR specifically spells out when and how a presdient can act prior to statutory authority from Congress. In fact that is what the WPR is all about.
Please see from my post § 1541 (C)(3):
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
This has been interpreted as any American or American territory being attacked or in a position to be attacked. That is the precident. This is what Obama lacked.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
