The law that Obama broke

a reply to: Kali74

It WASN"T A military decision.

It WAS A political decision.

originally posted by: Kali74
Maybe people need to understand there is quite a difference between POTUS and CIC. CIC needs no authority from any one or any body to make and carry out military decisions. Congress is under no obligation to fund any actions the CIC decides to take but they certainly have no authority over the the CIC's decisions nor do they have a vote on them. The power Congress has is over the money, that's it.

And yes, it was quite designed this way intentionally. This is something I had to come to grips with, during Dubya's reign.

You're going to have to back that up with a source.


Because I'm calling bull-poop on this one.

CIC needs no authority from any one or any body to make and carry out military decisions.

Is that right ?

Hmmmm,

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military, and the militia (i.e. the National Guard) "when called into the actual Service of the United States" (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.

en.wikipedia.org...

Doesn't say can trade 'terrorists' for political gain anywhere in there.

a reply to: beezzer

You can cry about it all you want, doesn't change facts. You were in the military, you should know this better than I do.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

You can cry about it all you want, doesn't change facts. You were in the military, you should know this better than I do.

Who's crying? I'm asking you to back up your claims with a source.

I know we have civilian leadership.
I know that the Constitution states that the president has to follow the law.

a reply to: neo96

This isn't hard. Congress has the authority to declare war, they do not have the authority to stop the CIC from doing anything. The CIC can order the invasion of Canada tomorrow and all Congress can do is cut off funds, which isn't a small power, where would the money come from otherwise?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

You can cry about it all you want, doesn't change facts. You were in the military, you should know this better than I do.

The FACTS ARE:

Congress declared WAR.

And the next guy UNILATERALLY threw up his hands in the air, and said. ' I give up, give us back our deserter'.

a reply to: Kali74

True this ISNT hard.

As Obama did not have the authority.

See the NDAA.

See EO 12947

See the Omnibus counter terrorism act of 1995.

See the War Powers Act of 1973.

a reply to: neo96

No laws apply to the CIC directing the US Military. NONE.
Didn't we hash this out on ATS pre-Libya?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

No laws apply to the CIC directing the US Military. NONE.
Didn't we hash this out on ATS pre-Libya?

Why are you ignoring what has been said ?

'No laws' apply to the CIC ?

YEAH THEY DO.

a reply to: beezzer

The Limited View.—The purely military aspects of the Commander-in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. Hamilton said the office “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.”112 Story wrote in his Commentaries: “The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command. The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was no necessity that he should, take the command in person; and there was no probability that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed of superior military talents.”113 In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: “His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.”

Link

a reply to: neo96

I said, no laws apply to the CIC directing the military.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

I said, no laws apply to the CIC directing the military.

YES THERE ARE.

They have been previously mentioned.

With the addition of international laws like the 'Geneva Conventions'.

LAWS DO APPLY to the Potus.

HE is not above the law as some like to think.

HE is accountable like the rest of us little people.

The Potus is bound by LAW like the rest of us.

No matter what 'hat' he wears.

a reply to: Kali74

From your source

"But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.”

So you still have not shown that he is above nor excluded from the laws that he, himself, signs into place.

a reply to: beezzer

That is the only restriction, in his role to direct the military, placed on the CIC. Really if you have some high ranking buddies... ask them about this.

a reply to: beezzer

The

Bull

is

out of the pen!!! I'ts just a matter of time before spark ignites a flame...

a reply to: beezzer

'No laws apply to the commander in chief' ! ! !

Let them have it their way which means QUITE a few owe GW an apology.

a reply to: neformore

... what you are saying here is that you don't know if a law was broken or not. You just think it was, although it may not be the case.

I've been nagged by this as well. No one can say for certain at this moment. Everything about this is somewhat veiled.

What constitutes notification? Does a specific violation have a defined penalty?

There's an implication that notification should elicit Congressional approval ... yet ...

a reply to: Kali74

This is also from your source.

“The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it.

No where, does your citation state that he is above the law. The Constitution even makes it a point that the president is NOT above the law.

a reply to: neo96

As I said, this is something I had to come to grips with under Dubya. Nor should anyone apologize for hating GW or Obama or the things they did/do... there's plenty to be outraged about and certainly both have colored way outside the lines of the Geneva Convention... doesn't mean they are legally accountable for it.