Posted on 08/24/2013 11:01:51 PM PDT by d_focil
Beyond troubling considerations in regards to the rebels, there are serious questions on the constitutionality and appropriateness of President Obama's military options. While mainstream media outlets are busy getting all worked up for the potential ratings bonanza a new war will bring, dolling out all the typical military analysts to give us tantalizing speculations on how cruise missile and drone strikes on Assad's forces could play out, no one seems to be asking if President Obama even has the authority to launch a strike in the first place. How far have we fallen into the abyss of an unchecked executive that the President does not even bother to play the congressional authorization game anymore?
(Excerpt) Read more at andmagazine.com ...
How can an illegal alien living in our White House continue to pretend he’s president? And how can the incredibly damn Stupid Party continue to allow this to happen?
Get ready for hard times. The future does not look bright.
He can do whatever he wants for 60 days before seeking Congressional approval.
Ain’t right and we should leave Assay alone but, he can do that.
THEN HE SHOULD GET HIS SCRAWNEY BUTT OVER THERE AND LEAVE OUR WARRIORS AND KIDS ALONE. COWARDLY AS THEY COME..
Recall the Korean War? That did not "need" a formal declaration as it was a "police action" under that flag of the nascent United States (think "blue helmets).
Constitutionally, yes, he must go through Congress, but the GOP’s get-along gang long ago surrendered its authority and gave Obama carte blanche to sidestep them. He didn’t get Congress’ approval for overthrowing Khadafy in Libya, and he won’t bother getting it here.
Obama rules by degree.. that’s how kings operate.
This is why I put my hope in Vladimir Putin, to remind Obama the Russians regard Assad as an ally and will not back down... AND... any act of war against their ally will be regarded as an act of war against Russia.
Putin, doing the necessary confrontation to Obama Americans won’t do.
The death toll in Chicago is much higher than Syria, why not send the troops to Chicago or Mexico?
Because the media is lying again... even FOX.
Notice how they are calling the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists in Egypt "protesters."
Purported speech by Putin to the G-8, as translated
And if Putin DIDN’t say this, it sure is plausible he thinks it- and so should the GOP
“Diplomatic sources: Putin tells G8 “You want Asad to resign. Look at the leaders you’ve made in the Middle East.”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/10/putin-dresses-down-the-group-of-eight/
Too many have lost their love for God and His Law. They have substituted false gods to love and the law of man to rule.
The law of man is worthless in justice, it can be twisted into anything or nothing at any whim and at any time before and after the fact.
Those that please the Emperor, like the Emperor, can commit no crime. Those that displease are guilty and no punishment is too severe. It is not even necessary to state the law they have violated or where it is written.
Barack Hussein Obama has violated no law in America. There is no law in America.
Russia does not have gay pride marches in their army and they know a Marxist when they see one.
The central focus of the US State Department for the last five years has been some kind of a faggot jihad...
The attempt by our own State Department to steal the Russian elections for their comrades in the Russian Communist Party through non-profit NGOs was soundly beaten by Vladimir Putin (love him or hate him).
This is why Russia cracked down on non-profit groups.
The homosexual attack on the Orthodox Church by the queer punk band Pússy Riot, who were on the payroll of State Department funded NGOs, is another reason. Lesbian weirdo Madonna was also flown in as a provocateur...
All Hussein feels he needs to do is clear it with his muslim brotherhood friends.
And the full-left MSM won't call either obama or congress on it. If anyone tries, the race pimps and the MSM calls them racist extremists.
Have the Republicans in Congress have been criticizing Obama for not attacking Syria before now. I guess approval was implied.
I am guessing that the Nobel Prize Committee is displeased. Heheheh
Personally, I think that Barry is totally lost and is looking for a scapegoat. He will go to Congress and try to make Congress decide his actions. If Congress says Go to war, then its their war. If Congress says No to war, the its their fault that the killings continue. The best thing that Congress can do for themselves is to abdicate this decision to Barry and tell him he as free reign to act on his own behalf. This would freak out the democRATS. I think it would be interesting to sit back and watch them try to escape the trap them put themselves in.
Won’t hold my breath waiting for the Congressional Dems and the media to complain about the U.S. not building a coalition of nations, and just “going it alone.”
If the wars are illegal, why does the DoD go along with it? Don’t they have a right to refuse illegal orders?
“Because Congress is weak and has abdicated their powers and responsibilities”
Bingo! We have a winner.
You have a Congress, that all it cares about are their own pitiful careers. They'll do nothing to risk re-election, even though their retention rates are higher than that of the defunct Supreme Soviet. The GOP Congress is full of cowards of zero understanding, zero principles and whose typical stance is the fetal position in a corner somewhree. (Noted there are a few exceptions, who have zero power.)
Presidential War Powers: The Constitutional Answer
by Tom Woods
There’s a lot of confusion, on right and left alike, regarding the president’s war powers under the Constitution. Here’s an overview of the most common claims on behalf of such powers, along with replies to these claims.
“The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”
Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted this way.
But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/
I think we will have to add a few lines of text to the constitution at some point in order to put these sorts of issues to rest. Regardless though, there is no justification for the conflict in Syria because there is no imminent threat to the United States.
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.