“This all started because Mark Levin said Obama was correct in going to UN instead of Congress.”
You definitely weren’t listening.
I will explain it to you.
His point was against the War Powers Act. His point was there is a delicate balance in the CONSTITUTION (that you profess to understand) and that the CONSTITUTION gives the President certain powers **AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF** in the CONSTITUTION.
In the same breath almost, he explained that Congress has certain powers in the Constitution, and that because it has the power to defund any action the President takes, Congress may ultimately undermine the President under the Constitution as written without the need for the War Powers Act. Therefore the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, because it essentially disturbs the already existing balance between the President and Congress, and in the process (and here is the finer point that he was trying to make) **gives the members of Congress political cover in that they are no longer required to take a stand on a specific conflict by exercising their constitutionally described check against executive power of defunding, but can instead require the executive to consult in all conflicts**.
So to boil all this down to say he’s in favor of invading Lybia is a simplistic interpretation of a very well-reasoned point, and although you claim to be in favor of the constitution, you are essentially shooting both the constitution and yourself in the foot by so asserting that Mark Levin was making a certain point in favor of Obama when he was making an entirely different point for anyone with the ability to understand it.
bttt
Mark said Obama should go to UN? When did he say that? He’s backed the bug bankers? When was that? He supports Obama going into Libya? When did he say that?