Posted on 03/23/2011 9:43:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
No. Next dumb question.
If you are asking for violations of the War Powers Act, Ronald Reagan did not get Congressional approval (and rightly so) before invading Grenada. He basically ignored the Act because it was unconstitutional. The difference with Obama is that he actually cited the War Powers Act in his electronic notification to Congress (which was actually received after the 48-hr deadline).
Reagan did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the War Powers Act, and acted accordingly. Obama does acknowledge the legitimacy of the War Powers Act, and by default is bound to honor it - not grounded on legality but by integrity.
If Kenya comes under attack, Obama is obliged to defend.
Waiting for a Declaration of war would be treasonous to his family and fathers country.
I would give him a pass for Defending Kenya. If my Dad and all his family was from Kenya, I would nuke any country that dared touch it. In a heart beat. No declaration of war.
Grenada wasn’t the same situation or similar military action.
Are you saying that the War Powers Act applies to Libya, but not to Grenada?
I really appreciate the link. I’ve read the War Powers Act and see where “the meaning of “is” is” mentality at play here.
But I always appreciate factual links.
Thanks again.
I posted this to a related article - I am not happy about it but it still requires interpretation (lawyer not I am - victim yes).
USC TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVI > § 287d
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000287-—d000-.html
In this code is written -
“The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein”
Articles 41,42 and surrounding available here.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
I guess we have an article 42 in effect which does not require congressional input.
The War Powers Resolution needs work to clarify procedures in events such as this. I see no reason why the code cannot be modified so as to require Congressional consultation (not just advisement) in situations such as this.
Some suggestion are given in pages 44-48 in CRS RL32267
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32267_20080310.pdf
I like the idea of a Consultation Group described therein.
The whole issue is confused - or in my case confusing.
My pleasure
...is a clear cut act of war while the other was a clear cut case of defense.
Last I heard PeteCat we are the United States of America NOT the United Nations of which the linked rulings apply to.
Our sovereignty, our laws, our Congress, and above all our people come first. Way prior in the food chain than the United Nations our people, and their government come first.
If we as a Nation are attacked by another entity, another Nation then the President must react appropriately, and the law allows the President to do so, but if we are not attacked, but dispair of another entity, or another nations direction that perhaps will lead to onerous conflict in the future then it’s NOT the Presidents call. It’s the Congress that will debate, and make the decision as representatives of the people as to whether or not the purpose, the intended results, the treasure expended, the risk of lives, etc. are for the benefit of the interests of the people of the United States of America.
Obama broke the law of our Nation, and IMO should be impeached.
To “H” with the United Nations, and their contrived resolution(s).
We may be a signatory, and a funding entity of the UN, but our Sovereignty must come first. I know the Left such as Obama, and his radicals, and many a RINO are trying so damned hard to change that to us being subjugated to the U.N., but we aren’t.....yet. We must never allow the loss of our sovereignty.
I agree. The clause in our laws allowing UN article 42 resolutions to be supported without robust Congressional Oversight and Consultation is unacceptable - but real.
The War Powers Resolution also needs reworked - right now it seems to be a clutter of suggestions and guidelines rather than a list of rules and regulations.
Thanks for your response.
PC
From TIME's contemporaneous coverage:
A congressional study group concluded, after a three-day trip to Grenada, that Reagan's move had been justified. The 14 members of Congress, headed by Democrat Thomas Foley of Washington State, reported to House Speaker Tip O'Neill that most of them felt that the students had been possible targets for a Tehran-type taking of hostages.
Actually, Nixon was not so stupid. He vetoed the War Powers Act on October 24, 1973. The veto was overridden by the House House (284–135) and Senate (75–18).
Since that time the Executive Branch has always taken a view that the act is unconstitutional and rather than saying it "complies with" says it acts "consist with" the War Powers act.
Actually, Nixon was not so stupid. He vetoed the War Powers Act on October 24, 1973. The veto was overridden by the House House (284–135) and Senate (75–18).
Since that time the Executive Branch has always taken a view that the act is unconstitutional and rather than saying it "complies with" says it acts "consistent with" the War Powers act.
Thanks for your correction. I found it out later after posting by listening to Mark Levin. Obama may be the first President we ever had who believes that the War Powers Act is actually Constitutional.
Now, if we just had a Kinetic Military Action Powers Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.