To: Lurker
“It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed.”
That is a common view, but it is not common sense. It's common nonsense and leftist nonsense at that. No conservative, in fact no rational person, should be making such a statement.
The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. Obama is entitled to conclude that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as have all of his predecessors since it was passed. He is free to conclude that the Resolution doesn't apply to circumstances in Libya. The only remedy if he reaches the wrong conclusion is for Congress to stick up for itself, either by impeaching him or by cutting off funds for his misbegotten Libyan adventure. Congress hasn't done either and it won't. On this matter, then Obama gets the final word. That's how separation of powers works.
The executive power of the United States is vested in the President. The Constitution says so in so many words. It doesn't say, or even hint, that the President has to consult the courts to determine what his executive responsibilities require him to do and the idea that he should is absurd. Obama’s legal interpretations are always flawed and frequently ridiculous, but he's President and he's the one with the power to make them. Elections have consequences.
The law suit seeking to enforce the WPR in court is going nowhere. The courts won't, and shouldn't, touch this. It will be dismissed as a political question, probably summarily by the District Court. It's a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch which is none of the judiciary’s business. Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope. This is one of them.
There is more than enough to throw at Obama without trying to resurrect the WPR from its constitutional grave and deploy it against him. The WPR was an artifact of the post-Watergate leftist ascendancy. It was a bad, unconstitutional, left wing idea which deliberately sought to subvert separation of powers and shackle America's military might. It's been dead for decades and good riddance. I'm all for beating up on Obama but not just any stick will do.
It's a shame that Obama’s President, but he is. He gets to exercise all the powers of the office. We can't redefine the office so that it's small enough to fit him without risking permanent damage to the constitutional order.
68 posted on
06/15/2011 1:37:13 PM PDT by
fluffdaddy
(Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
To: fluffdaddy
The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. I never said he did. If Obama feels the WPR is un-Constitutional he should come out and say it. Then Congress can do whatever they wish. But until that time it is the law.
I don't like it either, but it is the law until it's either repealed or struck down. That's the simple fact.
81 posted on
06/15/2011 1:53:11 PM PDT by
Lurker
(The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
To: fluffdaddy
It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed.
That is a common view, but it is not common sense. It's common nonsense and leftist nonsense at that. No conservative, in fact no rational person, should be making such a statement.
The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. Obama is entitled to conclude that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as have all of his predecessors since it was passed. He is free to conclude that the Resolution doesn't apply to circumstances in Libya. The only remedy if he reaches the wrong conclusion is for Congress to stick up for itself, either by impeaching him or by cutting off funds for his misbegotten Libyan adventure. Congress hasn't done either and it won't. On this matter, then Obama gets the final word. That's how separation of powers works.
The executive power of the United States is vested in the President. The Constitution says so in so many words. It doesn't say, or even hint, that the President has to consult the courts to determine what his executive responsibilities require him to do and the idea that he should is absurd. Obamas legal interpretations are always flawed and frequently ridiculous, but he's President and he's the one with the power to make them. Elections have consequences.
The law suit seeking to enforce the WPR in court is going nowhere. The courts won't, and shouldn't, touch this. It will be dismissed as a political question, probably summarily by the District Court. It's a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch which is none of the judiciarys business. Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope. This is one of them.
There is more than enough to throw at Obama without trying to resurrect the WPR from its constitutional grave and deploy it against him. The WPR was an artifact of the post-Watergate leftist ascendancy. It was a bad, unconstitutional, left wing idea which deliberately sought to subvert separation of powers and shackle America's military might. It's been dead for decades and good riddance. I'm all for beating up on Obama but not just any stick will do.
It's a shame that Obamas President, but he is. He gets to exercise all the powers of the office. We can't redefine the office so that it's small enough to fit him without risking permanent damage to the constitutional order.
There are just a whole host of ridiculous statements in this post that make me wonder where in the hell you are coming from.
ie "Obama is entitled to decide
..what is Constitutional and what is not
"
"Obam gets the final word."
"Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope."br>
Those ridiculous assumptions aside, I suggest you re-read post #33:
you have COMPLETELY missed the point, and have been living on another Planet for the last decade.
Its not the War Powers Act itself. Its that Dems DEMANDED IT under Reagan, DEMANDED (including OBAMA) that Bush comply with it after 9/11, and now UTTERLY IGNORE IT.
Its hypocrisy of the highest order. And the media KNOWS they became so biased under Bush, that they DO NOT DARE report the facts about this now.
106 posted on
06/15/2011 2:34:47 PM PDT by
brent13a
(You're a Great American! NO you're a Great American! NO NO NO YOU'RE a Great American! Nooo.....WTF?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson