Posted on 03/28/2011 4:13:23 PM PDT by kristinn
Obama is scheduled to speak at the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C. about Libya at 7:30 p.m. EDT.
What do you think should happen to any CIC who did not act to dsave the Americans in my hypothetical despite Section 2c of the Act?
the first triple-prompted president.
the first triple-prompted president.
TRIP-POTUS?
Simple enough for you?
Look to the Constitution.
"According to Senator Javits, this attempt to deny the President the authority to rescue endangered Americans abroad was both intentional and clearly unconstitutional. The Senate version of the bill recognized this power, but the House of Representatives was unwilling to concede it and the Senate caved in the end. Whatever the reason, Congress has passed a law attempting to deny the President any authority to rescue American civilians from terrorist attacks outside the territorial limits of the United States." Robert F. TurnerJavits was referencing Section 2c.
So what do you think should happen to CIC who doesn't make war on our enemies in this hypothetical which btw is not just hypothetical.
Were you in favor of the Seal Team killing the pirates off the coast of Somalia or was that an unconstitutional act as well?
I would also hope we could agree that the CIC is charged with making war while Congress can fund it or not.
Congress as a body of 535 bloviators is neither equipped nor conducive to making executive decisions which is why I think the CIC has to be given wide latitude in committing troops to combat. Congress can check that power easily but they don't have the balls to do just that.
History tells me that these decisions all become political rather than constitutional questions and I don't see it changing any time soon. And that's probably how it should be.
I am in favor of protecting US interests both people and property through any means necessary including lethal force. I am in favor of once again having the world recognize that if any touch one hair on a US citizen such action releases the wrath of all US might upon them.
I think that is okay per the Constitution.
I might support the action if the marxist at least attempted to make the case that he possessed the authority under God to protect innocents or that there were some vital US interests he acted to protect.
BUT NO the nobel peace prize fool stated he was serving some UN council that does not legitimately comprise any governance over US troops or US assets nor is it beholden to US citizens...
Potentially offing Gaddaffi does not grant the marxist powers of a king to do whatever he wants...
“Terrorists take 1000 Americans hostage outside US territorial waters on an Italian cruise ship. Congress is not in session. The terrorists kill 100 Americans and say they will kill 100 more per hour until America releases all terrorists worldwide.”
1. Taking on terrorists in international waters is not “war” as reasonably defined. Launching hundreds of cruise missiles at the military of another country, followed by a large-scale bombing campaign is, on the other hand.
2. The mass killing of Americans is the very definition of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.” So even if it was a foreign government who killed the US citizens, there would be no case for the President being prevented to act in the absence of congressional authorization.
3. The Libya scenario is the definition of the kind of war where you do want congressional approval, I.e. a war of choice where no threat to US territory, property, or citizens exists.
If conservatives are going to be taken seriously when pushing for a meaningful interpretation of the constitution, making the requirement for congressional authorization of war void is not a good path to go down.
“This section is a tacit admission that the POTUS has the power to use military force without a congressional resolution or declaration of war.”
Yeah, that´s surely what the founders intended - the power to wage war being determined “tacitly” by a very specific reading of legislation.
My take is that this is just a way of stating that congress always has the last word, regardless of how the President interprets the WPA.
I.e:
The President:”My fellow Americans. I have tonight taken the grave decision to invade Norway, as I was recently made sick by spoiled Lutefisk. This surely constitutes an “attack on the United States” under the WPA.”
Congress: “Uh, no it doesn´t.”
The President: “Sorry guys, but you already authorized this attack under the WPA.”
Congress: “Look, your bullshit interpretation doesn´t mean anything. Look here at Sec.5 (c). Now get our forces out of Oslo!”
If your interpretation of Sec.5 (c) being a universal endorsement of any Presidential military action, the rest of the act would be unnecessary. Congress could merely step in whenever they felt the President was starting too many wars.
But that´s not how the actual act looks - for good reason. Stopping an ongoing war is a very different action from starting one in the first place.
I am really at a loss as to how these lines:
“The Congress shall have Power...”
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
...can be interpreted as the role of congress being that of signing off on war funding ex post, I.e. after war has already been declared by the President. “Declaring war” and “signing off on funding of war” are two *very* different things.
Just wait, Sir...it will get worse with the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and possibly Saudi Arabia, et al. This is only the beginning.
Mark these words. We are watching history unfold for the Islamic caliphe movement. I also predict that sub-Saharan Africa will get pulled into to the fight against Western civilization. They are ripe for such a revolution, as they fought against their barbarous warlords for decades. Again, think Somalia, Ethopia, Chad, Nigeria and on...
Now that things have calmed down somewhat in their pissy little tribal wars, they will find a reason to whine and cry and rape and maim and kill anything Western. Just watch. Cultures are not equal. I knew that when I was a child of 14.
Feel free to call me a racist, but why has Africa been so long behind the civilized curve? Because they are poor? And why IS that? Because the West doesn't give them enough money? If so, why have so many other cultures pulled themselves out of poverty to build a better standard of living? I'm telling you...
They will join the religious fanatics of Northern Africa and the ME only because they have no one else to support them - think Sudan. It's coming and there's not a damn thing any of the politically correct will do to stop it.
Israel and the West are the targets. If we don't wise up like France is doing with curtailing their immigrations problems and outlawing full-face veils, we are all heading over the abyss! Sharia Law is building! It's nothing right now in the States, but has become very influential in Western Europe. The darkness is heading our way...
I realize this of course.Using the race card STILL shows how pathetically desperate they are. It just shocked me at the time at how low they would go.
After I saw the MSNBC segment with the guy that took over for Olbie (I don’t know his name but he is a flaming progressive commiecrat) and they had on how Trump and 72 percent were racists for daring to question Obama’s birth record.Maddow came on and she had a pic of PRECEDENT of the US. She was dissing Obama in a very vague way yet honoring him by saying he answered all questions then saying what next?
Back to CNN Trump was on the phone with the British dude commentater Richardson and Anthony Weiner.They were discussing OIL and Obama’s speech. Trump told Weiner but good on OPEC.Weiner whom Trump has DONATED to before said Mista Trump we know you be breaking away off the polling and are not going to be a POTUS candidate (It was like Weiner was saying Trump was playing games and they both knew it)I hate to say this but I think Trump is playing interference for someone to challenge Obama as strange as this sounds...
Barack Obama has now fired more Tomahawk Cruise Missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined!
Hillary.
Yeah but if Trump is truly so brilliant how does he not see that Hillary is Obama with fake I feel your pain class? What would Trump gain from let’s say NWO? Does Trump really care about America in the mom and pop ethics and values way as he is showing? Why would a smart businessman back the toons? Bills global initiative?
BTW: Yahoo news had a video headline news clip about Hillary running for POTUS. —It was strange.— It said she is done but that Chelsea will be 35 so the Clinton’s aren’t going away.
That was the first thing I picked up on in the clip I saw. The eyes. They looked demonic. Did he lighten them with contacts? Very strange.
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.