1 Kinetic military action doesn't kill people; people kill people.

2

When the mighty Jon Huntsman shows up, victory will be ours.

3

Poison sandwiches don't kill people, people kill people

- cover of "Guns and Sandwiches" magazine

4 It's not war-war.

5

“Two years ago, we worried that President Obama would rollback Bush administration policies and pursue a peace agenda, but in fact he’s expanded the militaristic Bush approach to counterterrorism. He’s managed to get the U.S. involved in three wars in the Middle East, keep Guantanamo open, and dramatically expand the use of covert CIA capture/kill operations across the globe. We could not think of a more worthy candidate for this award.”

Liberals told me that if I voted for McCain we'd continue the "failed" Bush foreign policies and they were right!   

6

So, if dropping bombs from drones is not a hostile act, neither is launching our ICBMs, right?

 

7

I know there's a practical, historical reason conservatives have bought into the this dubious proposition-- that generally we had a good shot of winning the White House and a rather bad shot of winning Congress, so we have argued for more presidential power, generally.

But 1, that historical happenstance seems to no longer be the rule, and 2, you shouldn't pick your constitutional rules according to what's politically most expedient anyhow.

I think your setting up a straw man of bad motives here.

8 If the president can kill people by declaring it "hostilities" then doesn't that just make it  a work around on the ban on assassinations?

9 So when Israel fires artillery or uses drone strikes to smear Hezbollah rocket sites, they're not engaging in hostilities, since they aren't exposing their personnel to retalitory action?

10 8 If the president can kill people by declaring it "hostilities" then doesn't that just make it a work around on the ban on assassinations?
________

It's an assassination if you know who they are before you kill them. If you kill them, then sort it out, it's not an assassination.

11 I kept calling it the War Powers Act. It's not an Act, as it was never signed into law by a president.

???  Wiki lists it as 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548, passed over Nixon's veto.

12 SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

13 ...Congress can't pre-delegate power in this arena in the form of blank check, but must make the decision each time case-by-case.

IANAL, but...this. For Congress to delegate permanently an enumerated Article I power to the executive requires a Constitutional amendment. A formal declaration of war may or may not be required -- that's another Constitutional/legal question -- but every time the executive branch wants the balloon to go up, Congress has to say okay explicitly.

14 I've already corrected my correction, then said "I don't know," then said My General Point Still Stands.

15 So is Congress going to defund this?  What happened with Boehner talking tough to O?  Or did he just have to buy the drinks after a round of golf?

16 It's now the Nobel "Kinectic Military Action" Prize.

17 I don't remember any veto.   Frak wiki:  Wiki says I'm the Queen of France

It began as the War Powers Resolution, and is an act because it became law

( not just a wish or intention publicly stated and entered into the record by Congress )

and remember, frak Wiki

18 I still think its a classic political question.

19
Ace predicted this.

20 My General Point

Still standing, proud and unbowed, like a penis tweeted to a coed.

Oh wiener, we just can't quit you.

21 Make Kinetic Coital Action, Not Kinetic Military Action!

22 The trusty thesaurus offers the word "fighting" as a synonym for "hostilities," which is just what we are doing in Libya today.

You must understand. It's friendly bombing. You know, between buddies and all.

23
I still think its a classic political question.

The question is moot.

24 It is an act and it was immune to veto.

25 It's an assassination if you know who they are before you kill them. If you kill them, then sort it out, it's not an assassination.

It's an omelet.

26 And it is unconstitutional because there is no 90 days in the Constitution.

27 War Powers thigamajig is the technical term

28 It's just a fireworks display. In June.

29 Bush as wrong not to get a formal DOW on Iraq.

Obama is significantly more in the wrong, in fact at the impeachable level, for not even getting congressional authorization.

Why the heck don't we declare wars anymore?!?

30 So when Wile E. Coyote propelled an Acme boulder with a huge slingshot to squash the Road Runner, it was not a hostile act?

31 If we were to launch former Congressman Anthony Wiener at the Libyans, would we be at war then?

32

>This is the thing about this site: If I tell you true information, you get lazy.

>I want you to exercise your brains and figure out which of the things I've said is true and which of those things is false.

This is why I come here.

33
Obama deserves another vacation for this.

34 I have extensive training in this area.  The correct term is War Powers Penis.

35 So then why are the soldiers and airmen participating in this getting combat pay?

36 @17, that. If Congress had any backbone, they'd defund it.

37 Duck 'n' Cover!

38 I need to brush up on the details of how our  government functions. Time to dust off the old School House Rock collection

39 My General Point

Still standing, proud and unbowed, like a penis tweeted to a coed.

I see you stole my comment theme.  You are welcome!

40

This is the thing about this site: If I tell you true information, you get lazy.

I want you to exercise your brains and figure out which of the things I've said is true and which of those things is false.

 

Anything involving pudding is probably true.

41 Apparently there was a veto (sorry for the extended quote)

In the House of Representatives, U.S., November 7, 1973 .

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H.J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:

W. Pat Jennings
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. Pat Jennings
Clerk.

In the Senate of the United States
November 7, 1973 .

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections of the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:

Francis R. Valeo
Secretary.

42 >>38 So then why are the soldiers and airmen participating in this getting combat pay?



It's now hostilities pay......keep up.

43 >>>So then why are the soldiers and airmen participating in this getting combat pay? Because I'm just that awesome.

44 oops, Cornballing sock off.

45 OT: <in sidebar>
I didn't know Gore was in Colorado yeserday. Was he? [rdbrewer]

No RD, but AGW Mitt Romney was.

46

We'll just call it "Nicetilities" and it'll be fine.

47 Don't get your translations or your history from Wiki.   Or ( a special note to some of my students ) your views on Aristotle or St Thomas Aquinas )

"Keine Rosen ohne Dornen",   and Frak Wiki

48 Nobel War Prize ?

I'm about 98.23% sure that this is some sort of joke. I get jokes. 

49

I think the point we should take away is that Republicans have all the ammunition they need to impeach Barack Obama now and would get a lot of votes in the House from Demcorats to impeach.

I could care less if he's not convicted in the Senate. He should still be impeached.

Obama has disregarded the Constitution. He has disregarded the legal advice he recieved from the general counsel of the Pentagon. He has disregarded the legal advice he recieved from teh United States Justice Department and he has disregarded the guidance he has received from the Congress that expressed its wishes via the War Powers Resolution.

If Barack Obama's actions are allowed to stand then yes, it means that the President of the United States can order the United States military to kill anyone he wants for any reason he wants at any time he wants and in doing so spend as much of our money as he wants. There simply would be no check on his power.

That cannot be.

The only question remaining is: Will Republicans impeach him? Do Republicans stand for the Constitution or do they not.

Many Democrats in the House would vote with Republicans for impeachment. They'd be forced to to keep up their fiction with the anti-war wing of their party. And so it would be a bi-partisan impeachment and a really, really good time.

If Republicans can't or won't uphold the Constitution, then really what use do we have for this party?

Impeach Barack Obama. And do it right now.

50

Ace, Ace, Ace.  Your many post corrections are just part of your charm, like a wise-cracking street urchin with a gold-capped tooth who calls everyone a "dame" or a "guido."  You could call him out on his behavior, but in the end he's just too darn endearing with his cute little accent and 1920's newsboy haircut.

...

Okay, the metaphor got lost in there somewhere, but the point still stands.

51 Here's your definition.  If you could the same thing to Chicago, it's not hostilities.

52 You can call it "the Act." or the dirty deed; Either is acceptable.

53 This proves why abortion is genocide.

54 I need to brush up on the details of how our  government functions. Time to dust off the old School House Rock collection

Posted by: George Bluth

 

I'm just a bomb

just a deadly old bomb,

And they're dropping me on Ka-daffy's mom.

 

Well now it's off to Bengazi where the loyalists do hide,

and within a airplane's bomb bay I do get a first class ride,

but that airplane isn't stopping here at all,

but I can certainly say  that I  will ,

and to those folks down below, take a pill

55 51 Nobel War Prize ?

I'm about 98.23% sure that this is some sort of joke. I get jokes. 

Posted by: Chairman Mow at June 21, 2011 04:12 PM (ih+cL)

Hee!  It is a joke.  One of the tags on the linked story is "satire."

But how sad is it that there would be legitimate reason to believe that someone, somewhere, would create a Nobel War Prize just to give it to Obama?

56

So, if dropping bombs from drones is not a hostile act, neither is launching our ICBMs, right?

 

Posted by: Anachronda at June 21, 2011 03:54 PM (IrbU4)

Right , thermo-kinetic military procedure.

57 Vietnam wasn't a declared war but everybody there got 'combat pay'

it ain't "pay", btw.  Google it but don't use Wiki

no declared war since Dec 8, 1941 - Sept 1945

58 War Porn Powers

59 Only in the rabbit hole do we award both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel War Prize to the same golfer.

60

If Quadaffi wins this one, I am pretty sure the press will go feral on teh won.

61

On a related, Obama-is-a-first-class-tool sidenote, how about that Medicaid "anomaly" in Obamacare?  You know, the one that would entitle some 3 million middle class Americans to "free" healthcare?  I suppose it doesn't really matter, since the middle class is going to be an anachronism before the JEF's reign of narcisissm is through.  Still, it does bring to mind the old refrain:

READ. THE. DAMN. BILL. BEFORE. YOU. PASS IT.

62 War Porn Powers

Posted by: Cherry ð the unbanned

 

I love it when you talk like that.

 

Invade me!

 

63 Blue Hen at 57.....keyboard + ice tea = mess!

64

Eye of Newt takes another one

His fundraisers are bailing out now.

Hahahahaha, can you say toast?

65 C'mon already. Admit this was from The Onion.

66 Okay, Nixon, did veto it, but it wasn't a veto-veto

Congress overrode the veto, yada yada yada.   Watergate was in Full Glory back then and I remember a lot of finagling, as me Ma used to say

and Frak Wiki

67 58 MWR

I didn't see the satire tag. My 1.77% of doubt is due my desensitization to all things Obama. It just would not shock me one bit if the Nobel committee created a special award just for their boyfriend President Golfbag.  

68 Thanks for pointing out it's not an Act, it's a resolution. And it's only as strong as the will of the Congress to do anything about it. The "it" being a president getting all up and involved in wars and shit. Since Obama bestrides the earth as a god, and as the most consequential president since King Richard the Lionhearted, it is unlikely that brave Boehner or Harryh "the war hawkiest war hawk" Reid is going to do dick about Obama going after Libya for no good reason (well, other than Sarkozy made bock bock bock noises at Obama). So, yeah, the WPR (or WPA) means nothing, it's not a law, it's a political statement. And since the law doesn't apply to libs and will be applied harshly without humor to conservatives (as has been tacitly accepted by conservatives as being the one true function of law, to hamstring themselves), it means dick.

69 WPA is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the President's powers to make and execute foreign policy and as C-in-C.  The Constitution nowhere grants Congress the power to restrict the powers of other branches except as explicitly provided.

Congress may already restrain Executive adventurism by cutting off the money, impeachment, or any number of less drastic measures to express their displeasure to the President.

The Constitution does grant Congress the authority to declare war.  Nowhere does it say our forces may not engage in hostilities unless war is declared (nor does it specify any particular form for declaring war).  It is within the President's discretion to take such actions and within Congress' discretion to limit them.  This is one of the many cases which are intentionally left vague, to be worked out between the branches.  And yes, on a "case by case basis," as Ace suggests.

70 OT: South Africa's President couldn't meet the First Lady, so he sent the Prison guard guy.

/ beware this topic

71 For Constitutionality on this.

Two clauses from congress' enumerated powers. 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So one could easily interpret this as, Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. Congress has the law making power to enforce their enumerated powers. If the Presidents authority as Commander in Chief is used as a defacto method to declare war on a foreign nation, Congress may as both necessary and proper make laws preventing him from doing so.

I'm going to have to agree Ace, WPA seems like a clear case of Congress marking their enumerated power territory using the N&P clause, which is what it is for.

I think if the President takes this to the Supreme Court he loses. So you're wrong Mark Levin. THERE I SAID IT!!

72 Hey!  Don't work yourself into a lather!  He's a lawyer.  He taught law.  He obviously can recognize a law when he sees one. 

73 / beware this topic I wouldn't touch that topic with a Congressman's pole.

74 So, since it's not a law and it's politics, then the rule that all conservatives must shoot their own party in the face and no liberal will ever, ever think for themself in the face of party dictat, most of us had better be thankful that we're too insignificant for Obama to start bombing our communities. Because congress is going to do nothing.

75 But it is a law, joe.  See above.



A thought experiment:  What if Congress declared war on some country, and the President did nothing? 

76 I think the ability to declare war by congress does not negate the president's ability to wage military actions without congressional approval. A declaration of war carries with it a lot of diplomatic baggage and significance which congress is rightfully in charge of, but the founding fathers saw no problem with using the military without congressional approval (see Jefferson against the pirates).

77 What if Congress declared war on some country, and the President did nothing?

What if the President declared war on his country, and the Congress did nothing? 

78 Why the heck don't we declare wars anymore?!?

Posted by: 18-1 at June 21, 2011 04:06 PM (7BU4a)

1. Obama isn't the only one that doesn't want to be have a traceable record of how he voted.
2. Politicians don't work for the country anymore, they work for themselves, so they don't want to give any apparent advantage to their opposition by agreeing with a common agenda (unless their name is McCain or Graham in which case if it is evil and stupid, they will sign on immediately).

79 Oh come all without, come all within
You'll not see nothing like the mighty Huntsman
Come all without, come all within
You'll not see nothing like the mighty Huntsman

80 It is a law:  It is legislation; on the books, etc. 

What it actually means is...............

81 A law which can not be enforced because the people responsible for enforcing it refuse to do so is worthless. If a Republican were in office doing the shit this guy has done he would have been impeached in the first 6 months.

He is thumbing his nose at them with impunity because he knows he is invulnerable to impeachment. Congress has no Kryptonite for Super Obama. He is protected by the Democrat race card which shields him from all cares, woes, and legalities

82

I want Barry to continue to piss on the MFM until they finally tire of getting pissed on so they will start holding this pile of steaming poop to some miniscule standard.  If / when that happens, Barry's toast.

83 Okay, it's a worthless law.   Those are really really rare  /

84 If it is a law, one that was never signed by president or whatever, then the way the law works is that the law does not apply to liberals. Obama is a liberal. ergo, it does not apply to him. Second, ergo, this one being a less cynical take is that Americans sort of always support their war hawk bombing presidents. Especially against shit bag dictators (even ones that recently started playing ball). Thought experiment, congress declares law and president does nothing? They can always go privateer route. They can't actually do anything about bad war execution except impeachment, and impeachment is a political option. And in politics, we see that libs march lockstep and conservatives will bravely abandon their party. So, um, congress is fucked at this juncture.

85

"Still standing, proud and unbowed, like a penis tweeted to a coed."

Indicktus?

Out of the fabric that covers me / Gray as the New York Times gone wrong / I thank whatever gods may be / For my unconquerable schlong.

In the fell absense of Jergen's lotion / I have not winced nor cried aloud /
Under the bludgeonings of my fingers / My tool is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of porn and tears / Looms more fantasies of Jenna Haze /
And yet the menace of the years / Finds, and shall find, my hands beglazed.

It matters not the V-chip block / How Spectravision-filled the scroll.
I am the master of my cock / I am the captain of my pole

86 Still standing, proud and unbowed, like a penis tweeted to a coed.

A kick in the nads will take care of that real quick.

87 OT, but does Dennehy get credit for his role in First Blood? He and his redneck police department  fought a courageous battle against a crazy 'Nam Vet. And he held his own against Richard Crenna.

88 it infringes upon the President's powers to make and execute foreign policy and as C-in-C.  The Constitution nowhere grants Congress the power to restrict the powers of other branches except as explicitly provided.

Except it *does* explicitly give them the sole power to declare war.

Yes but under the old law, actively waging war against someone was a de-facto declaration of war. So at the time of drafting, an attack on another sovereign would have been the same act as formerly declaring war.

The intent seems clear to me. The decision of *whom* to go to war with rests solely with Congress, not the President. *How* to go to war with them rests solely with the President not Congress. And nothing in the Presidents powers as C in C changes that intent, which is clear to any military commander, you don't get to pick the what, you get to pick the how. And so again in necessary and proper, any laws Congress has to make to keep the President from declaring war for them are Constitutional.

89 I believe if you look close at the WPR/A you will find that the Marines are excluded from the 90 day limit. Meaning, the Marines can be employed by the Prez without Congressional approval indefinitely. Historically, using Marines vice Army/Navy/AF was somehow viewed as different diplomatically. I don't know why, just is. I always thought the Marines slipped that in to secure their funding from any administration.

90

I've never been comfortable with the constitutional argument against WPA.  The Constitution clearly states a role for Congress in declaring war.  The Founders clearly wanted the people's support before committing the armed forces.   The power of the purse wasn't limited to non-military matters.  There's clearly a necessity for the executive to act prior to seeking Congressional approval, but that's under special circumstances (none of which are present re: Libya). 

I think some of the resistance to the WPA is a visceral response to the Congress which enacted it, along with generally gutting the executive branch, virtually wrecking the CIA and cutting and running in Vietnam.  The antics of Reagan's Democrat-controlled Congresses, with asshats like Bonoir conducting their own counter-foreign policy also left a bitter taste. 

Even so, to call the WPA unconstitutional and reserve warmaking solely for the President seems to require a selective reading of the Constitution at best.

91 BTW, being C&C does not give you any power to start a war. The military doesn't have the power to initiate war on their own authority and the leader of the military doesn't either.

Read the Constitution as it is written in plain English. Only Congress has the power to initiate war. The military and its commander may defend the country when attacked.

The reason congress doesn't, declare war anymore is that they have passed so many emergency war resolutions during the FDR years that they give up almost all of their power under a declared war.

But for all practical purposes the authorization to commit the military to action such as in Iraq are the same thing w/o the declaration.

92

What if the President declared war on his country, and the Congress did nothing? 

Cherry Pi is on fire today!

(I'm to lazy to figure out how to do the sign for pi.....)

93 I believe if you look close at the WPR/A you will find that the Marines are excluded from the 90 day limit

I have looked at it closely and there is no exception for Marines or any other branch of the military.

94

As I stated earlier, truth brings perspective.  ThatÂ’s a good thing.

Key quote: (We leave aside for now the complete reversal of then Senator Obama who stated in no uncertain terms in December of 1997 when asked if President Bush had the authority to bomb Iran without seeking explicit authorization from Congress that, "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,"

95 π

96 Posted by: Sub-Tard at June 21, 2011 04:33 PM (Q5+Og)

In what section of the WPR did you find any "Marines exclusion"???

97 I hereby request that you CEASE and DESIST any and all usage of the symbol π until such time as you pay me rents due in advance on the 3rd Monday of each month ending in "e".

98

@14: "IANAL"

So do I!  Wanna talk about it? Say, over drinks at my place?

99 97 I believe if you look close at the WPR/A you will find that the Marines are excluded from the 90 day limit

I have looked at it closely and there is no exception for Marines or any other branch of the military.
  Okay Vic. Always thought the Marines could be deployed without Congressional approval. Mobilizing an Army, under the old model, took some big time consensus to pull off. Landing a Marine Regiment not so much.

100
I've got yer hostilities...in my pants!

101 I hereby request that you CEASE and DESIST any and all usage of the symbol ð until such time as you pay me rents due in advance on the 3rd Monday of each month ending in "e".

Posted by: Cherry ð the unbanned

 

How much do you charge by the slice?

102 WPR is unconstitutional. Congress has the power of the purse they'll have to have the courage to use that. Obama should join the Congress in ridding us of this unconstitutional thing. Then when President Palin invades Iran it will all be good.

103

@32: "Why the heck don't we declare wars anymore?!?"

Because then we have to either win or lose.  We can't just say we're sick of it and go home.

104 Landing a Marine Regiment not so much.

Posted by: Sub-Tard at June 21, 2011 04:39 PM (Q5+Og)

'landing' Marines involves the Navy, yes?  Or flying them to a combat zone involves the Air Force?   Or you're making Stuff up?

105

Guess who...

Two top senators on Tuesday introduced a resolution giving President Obama explicit authorization to continue aiding the NATO mission in Libya, seeking to strengthen the White HouseÂ’s hand at a key moment in the brewing constitutional tug of war with Congress.

John Riceinmyassgetsyouapurpleheart Kerry & John mydaughterisadumbass McCain.

“This is not a blank check for the president. This resolution authorizes the limited use of American forces in a supporting role,” Mr. Kerry said in a floor speech to the Senate. “It says specifically that the Senate does not support the use of ground troops in Libya. And it authorizes this limited use of American forces for a limited duration — it would expire in a year.”

http://tiny.cc/tfwmb

106 The Air Force is unconstitutional. I see no reference to it in the Preamble.

107

Vic's correct in saying Obama has a pass, of course.  If Bush tried to use the same "logic" as Obama (no ground troops = no hostilities), he'd have been impeached immediately.

Obama's totally ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law on the most important functions of his office.  He should be flakked constantly on this issue by every voice on the Right, but we have some who dispute Congress' role in warmaking and others like McCain and Graham who are simply jocksniffing on Libya, so we've lost a lot of traction. 

108 I think the ability to declare war by congress does not negate the president's ability to wage military actions without congressional approval.

see Jefferson against the pirates

First bad example. Pirates are, according to the old law, Hostis humani generis, or enemies of humanity. They occupy a very special place in the old law not only do they belong to no sovereign, so the laws of war don't apply to them, at law they weren't even considered human and are not accorded human rights. This is exactly the type of non-war military action the C in C can take. Because it doesn't involve war.

But here is a better scenario. Say the President attacked Canada without warning or approval? Even if you removed him you might be stuck in war with a recognized sovereign for who knows how long. If you understand how declaration of war used to work, the founders intent on stripping that power from the President also includes not giving him the power to do it with the armed forces as a defacto from the commencement of hostilities.

109 Special Election to Fill Wiener's Seat http://tinyurl.com/3sdre66 Remember, boys and girls, erections have consequences.

110 The question for Democrats is this: "When President Romney unilaterally invades Iran with no UN Security Council approval and no Congressional approval, is that legal, moral, ethical and Constitutional?

111 The Marines are very similar to the Army, except for the Compelling Truths that the Army is bigger and soldiers have much bigger balls

112 Meanwhile, THIS, from the AP.

President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

"The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps."

That's three million more voters who will vote for O in order to keep their entitlements.

113

@6: "So, if dropping bombs from drones is not a hostile act"

Sorry, that was my bad.

114

WPA is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the President's powers to make and execute foreign policy and as C-in-C.  The Constitution nowhere grants Congress the power to restrict the powers of other branches except as explicitly provided.

I don't agree with that. What has happened is that going to war and declaring war and somehow become two different things. Was Vietnam a war? I thought it was but congress never declared war same with Korea.

I believe the intent of the founders was that one guy can't take the country to war no matter what the scale of that war, wars can get bigger once you start them.

My understanding of the war powers act was in fact to expand the powers of the president so that it would allow him to go to war if we were attacked or threatened in an emergency situation where waiting for congress could be detramental.

115 100 Posted by: Sub-Tard at June 21, 2011 04:33 PM (Q5+Og)

In what section of the WPR did you find any "Marines exclusion"???
  My understanding is that they were purposely not mentioned/defined, whereas Army, Navy and Air Force were. Granted Marines are the better part of the Department of the Navy, they as a service were not named thus were excluded. The reason given at the time was that even Dem Prezs like having a mobile combined arms pocket force that they can use anywhere at a drop of hat - that was my memory.   Vic says I am wrong which very well may be true.

116

Posted by: Cherry ¦Ð the unbanned at June 21, 2011 04:38 PM (OhYCU)

 

you & I should get together

117 114 The question for Democrats is this: "When President Romney unilaterally invades Iran with no UN Security Council approval and no Congressional approval, is that legal, moral, ethical and Constitutional?

Posted by: someguy at June 21, 2011 04:42 PM (iIQ0a)

Its shut your pie-hole pal!

118 WPR is unconstitutional. Congress has the power of the purse they'll have to have the courage to use that.

Congress has all power to make law necessary and proper to execute their enumerated powers. In this case the declaration of war.

119 The Constitution does not define a "form" for declaring war. I don't buy that absent getting a joint resolution that says "There exists a state of war between the US and X" that we are not at war. I think Congress likes the subterfuge of pretending that authorizing military force is not "declaring war" the same way they think that having the WPR covers them from having to vote on funding a military campaign.

120 Sub-tard, the Marines are part of the Navy, just like the Air Force used to be part of the Army.  Many early references in govt documents don't mention Marines because they're not a separate service

121 I haven't read the Federalist Papers on the subject, but I've gotta think that Congress' role indeclaring war stems at least in part from the desirability of popular support for war, along with colonists' historic distrust of wars fought for monarchical ends rather than their own benefit (e.g. most wars involving pre-revolutionary England).

122 @73

You may wish to re-read the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8: Powers of Congress
Enumerated Powers Include:
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

You'll notice the specific "declare war" part. I included the other to provide greater context to the powers given to Congress and NOT the Executive Branch.

Also worth mentioning in regard to Libya is the Senate's role in approving treaties.

By my (admittedly limited) understanding, it would appear to be clear that the Executive Branch is seriously in violation of the Constitution by unilaterally committing US military personnel and assets to an foreign invasion/ war/ kinetic military action/ etc. and that "well, our allies were doing it" does not count as an excuse and  (again, to my limited understanding) we have no treaty with France, or the other countries involved, that says if they decide to overthrow a dictator based on their own national interests, we are compelled to get involved.

Let's put this more simply: Obama decided to spend my money and commit other people's son's & daughters to the support of a *cough* foreign uprising (assassinating a dictator) and has patently refused to, at the very least, accurately define our purpose there, the scope of the mission, or conditions of success or failure; all without the consent of Congress. I don't give a crap that the enemy has shitty aim. He sent people to a foreign land and ordered them to drop bombs on stuff. He has absolutely no Constitutional authority to do this on his own. After he did it, he said that we were in a support role that would last "days, not weeks". Well, it's been 90 days and we have been targeting people and have killed some of them. Bombs, destroyed property, foreign country, attempts to overthrow foreign leaders, dead people... if those are not acts of war, what are?

I'm not convinced one way or another that we should/ should not be in Libya. It is Obama's job to make that case and he has refused to do so, despite an extended period of time and numerous official requests.

I cannot comprehend why Articles of Impeachment have not been filed.

123 The question for Democrats is this: "When President Romney unilaterally invades Iran with no UN Security Council approval and no Congressional approval, is that legal, moral, ethical and Constitutional?

Posted by: someguy at June 21, 2011 04:42 PM (iIQ0a)

None of the above.   It's a pipe dream.   You have to have balls to do something like that.

124

@113: "Special Election to Fill Wiener's Seat"

Done and done.

125

Okay, you know how "in space no one can hear you scream"?

Well, in a Democrat White House, no one can hear you warmonger.

126

@126: "I cannot comprehend why Articles of Impeachment have not been filed."

How does one impeach a god?

127 I cannot comprehend why Articles of Impeachment have not been filed.

Posted by: Damiano at June 21, 2011 04:50 PM (3nrx7)

Surely you jest.  Expecting the RINO squishes to do their job is akin to pi**ing into the wind!

128 101 I hereby request that you CEASE and DESIST any and all usage of the symbol ð until such time as you pay me rents due in advance on the 3rd Monday of each month ending in "e".
___________

What I want a slice of is the technology that turns the pi into a sigma when you're quoted.

129 it infringes upon the President's powers to make and execute foreign policy and as C-in-C.  The Constitution nowhere grants Congress the power to restrict the powers of other branches except as explicitly provided.

Umm... keep reading until you get to the part that requires approval by the Senate for treaties. C-in-C does not have unilateral power to make and execute foreign policy.

130 How does one impeach a god?

Why does God need an Air Force?

131

124 Sub-tard, the Marines are part of the Navy, just like the Air Force used to be part of the Army.  Many early references in govt documents don't mention Marines because they're not a separate service

 

I believe I mentioned that point. One other point the Marine Corps is the second oldest service next to the Army. I merely point out that the Marines historically were used without formal Congressional approval to execute foreign policy of Presidents. See shores of Tripoli and Tom Jeffereson. This is the loophole that the WPA, as I understood, recognized. As I said, even Dem Prez's like a pocket force to implement their policies, and historically Congress has allowed them this room to operate. Mobilizing and deploying an Army under the old model (remember drafts?) was a big deal and required Congressional consensus. Today the Army is almost as deployable as the Marines and are a complete force not requiring massive drafts. Things change.

132 Heck, if Obumbles has simply shown up one afternoon at the Capitol Building and said, "Errr... let me be clear, I think that guy in Libya with the jerry curls needs a missile in his head." then more then half the people in each Chamber clapped, I would probably go along with this, at least grudgingly.

The BS campaign that has explicitly and continuously lied about what we're doing over there is completely intolerable.

But enough about Libya... WTF are we doing in Yemen?

133 Obama is Awesome!

134

My understanding of the war powers act was in fact to expand the powers of the president so that it would allow him to go to war if we were attacked or threatened in an emergency situation where waiting for congress could be detramental.

Posted by: robtr at June 21, 2011 04:44 PM (MtwBb)

No, the Constitution already provides for the defense of the homeland without Congressional action.

135

Posted by: Sub-Tard at June 21, 2011 04:58 PM (Q5+Og)

Someone already addressed your example of the Barbary pirates. Pirates do not require a declaration of war as they are not state agents nor possess any sovereignty. By their actions they placed themselves outside the bounds of civilization, and they were dealt with very harshly.

136 Obamacare is unconstitutional too, so did Congress grant Hoops McMulligan a waiver in the form of continued funding past the 90 day stipulation?  If so, then we're at war.

Road, rubber, some kinetic assembly required.

137 By their actions they placed themselves outside the bounds of civilization, and they were dealt with very harshly.

Posted by: KG at June 21, 2011 05:13 PM (uU5fM)

Gee, one would think that we could treat terrorists the same way (BTW, weren't the Barbary pirates muslims?)!

138

Gee, one would think that we could treat terrorists the same way (BTW, weren't the Barbary pirates muslims?)!

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 21, 2011 05:15 PM (yrGif)

Honestly, imo, pirates and terrorists are of a kind. They both engage in what used to be known as Private War, ie. individuals engaging in the trappings of war without the authority or accountability of a sovereign state.

We should be treating terrorists the way we used to treat pirates, that is, by summary execution when caught. Hoewever, we have apparently become "too civilized" for that, and so those who wage Private War have little to fear from us if captured.

Also, yes, I do believe the Barbary pirates were muslims.

139

BTW, this guy does a great job of explaining this kind of stuff, and goes into cool topics like the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which are a freaking awesome idea from the founders, but haven't been used for a very very long time.

thejacksonianparty dot blogspot dot com

140 (see Jefferson against the pirates).

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 21, 2011 04:27 PM (r4wIV)

 

I believe that was all done with letters of Marque as there was no country to actually declare war against.

141 Again, there's difference between "declaring" war (Congress' job) and "making" war, as presidents have done dozens and dozens of times starting with Jefferson making war on, ready for it, Tripoli. Most of these "wars" were undeclared, and did not necessarily have the base of support or simply the importance to make it worthwhile for Congress to issue a declaration of actual war. Maybe they should have, or maybe they should have just shut off the funding, as with Vietnam eventually. Regardless, there's a big difference between Obama and recent Republican presidents on this whole thing. We, a) deny the constitutionality of select provisions of the act while b) complying with the terms of the act itself. BHO OTOH, endorses the constitutionality while blatantly failing to comply with the act itself. Laughable and the worst of both worlds.

142 I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that <LI><STRIKE>woman</STRIKE> country, <LI><STRIKE>Miss Lewinsky</STRIKE> Libya.

143 AUIGH! HTML, must you always mock me so?

144 It's Kinetic pay, vs the mundane Static pay.

145 147 AUIGH! HTML, must you always mock me so?
_________

Yes.

146 But here is a better scenario. Say the President attacked Canada without warning or approval? Even if you removed him you might be stuck in war with a recognized sovereign for who knows how long.

That would be true even with the war powers act in place. If the president invaded Canada and started bombing strategic areas to occupy, he'd have to get okay from congress after 60 days. you figure then suddenly we'd not be at war, somehow?

Being commander in chief of the armed forces means something other than "you are an administrator and sign the checks."

Declaring war means more than using the military.

147 HTML, must you always mock me so?

HTML, must you always mock me so?

Well, it looks right before hitting the Post button...

(don't know about the list part)

148 My General Point Still standing, proud and unbowed, like a penis tweeted to a coed. That is Gold Ace. Really. I swear you take those words out of my hands. I just love that lawyer/gunslinger type.

149 Listen up all you racists.  If you was smart like the president, you would know that nobody was "kill-killed" in Libya.  That's why there are No Hostilities.  Got it?  I mean it doesn't even rate as an Overseas Contingency Operation.  Hell if you weren't such haters you would have to admit it doesn't even rise to the level of Kinetic Military Action (whatever the hell that is). You know damn good and well he had to start a war in Libya to find out what was in it.  Sorta like the Obamacare (there's a precedent for it you know).  So go on drink your Hator-Aide.  See if Obama breaks into his stash and makes your house payment.

150 WTF are we doing in Yemen?

I've said this before, Yemen comes under the original GWOT AUMF.
Or Cash for Clunkers?