Obama administration in voilation of the constitution with Libya attack, Impeach?

Here is some of what Ron Paul has to say on this situation.




Ron Paul: Libya "is an Impeachable Offense"

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will be co-sponsoring an amendment announced Tuesday by Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich that would defund the American military intervention in Libya.
Kucinich suggested during a Saturday conference call with antiwar Democrats that he thought impeachment could also be considered for Obama's "unconstitutional" actions in Libya.
Paul's spokeswoman Rachel Mills confirmed to The Daily Caller via email that Paul shares Kucinich's point of view on the severity of the constitutional breach. "Yes, he thinks it is an impeachable offense,"

Article at: www.impeachobamacampaign.com...

Originally posted by crookedj0k3r
the President can at any point in his/her term can dispatch the military under conflict status, where 30 days after they arrive it is brought to the congress for a vote

It’s actually 60 days, with 30 additional if it is required for a safe withdrawal of troops. That comes the War Powers Resolution and it was adopted in 1973.

Presidents have never acknowledge the WPR as being constitutional and when they have complied with some requirements specified in it, like informing Congress up to 48 hours after they’ve mobilized or introduced the armed forces into hostilities, they have stressed they did so as a courtesy to Congress, not a legislative or constitutional requirement.

The Courts never ruled on the constitutionality of the WPR and probably never will absent a major constitutional crisis, and this — unfortunately for those having dreams of Obama being impeached — isn’t it.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Impeachment is it seems the only option.

Nonsense. There are many options available to Congress, especially the power of the purse. Congress can defund these military operations if it so wishes, bringing them to an end, but, for political reasons, they won’t.

Safe for a few exceptions — like Kucinich, who probably believes what he is saying — this ‘outcry’ from a few members of Congress is just political posturing.

reply to post by aptness

As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, before becoming president Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law professor, accurately described the limits of a president’s authority to initiate a war in cases where the U.S. has neither been attacked nor is in imminent danger of attack:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Source: www.salon.com...

It looks like Obama the candidate had a different take on the limits of the President's power back in 2007.

reply to post by crookedj0k3r


You are absolutely correct. The War Powers Act enables the POTUS to commit forces for any reason he deems appropriate for a period of 30 days with an additional 60 days to get out. The act makes sense, the POTUS needs to be able to move quickly in the event of armed aggression against the US or an ally. It was never meant to be implemented on matters like this, but since Korea it has been.

All he needs to do once the troops are committed is get Congress to approve a use of force motion and then he can do what he wants. Typically they will grant him the approval because to strip him of it would put troops in harms way and likely be very damaging in a geopolitical sense.

In my opinion, the act needs to be shelved and a new one put in place that stipulates that the forces can not be used in the absense of an attack against the US or a nation in which the US has a treaty, obligating us to defend them in the event of armed aggression.

The war powers act, as it has been used over the past several decades is an abuse of executive branch power.

Congress is a huge enabler of this, of course because they don't have the stones to declare war, nor do they have the stones to deny funding for the action. The whole business is a joke.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
he War Powers Act enables the POTUS to commit forces for any reason he deems appropriate for a period of 30 days with an additional 60 days to get out. ... It was never meant to be implemented on matters like this, but since Korea it has been.

You got the days mixed up. It’s up to 60 days with 30 additional for withdrawal. Also, there was no War Powers Resolution at the time of the Korean war.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
It looks like Obama the candidate had a different take on the limits of the President's power back in 2007.

I’m aware of candidate Obama’s statements. What’s your point?

reply to post by wayouttheredude

Does it matter who is fighting who in Libya? Right now the issue that was brought up was the legality of the actions of President Barak Obama when it comes to using and authorizing use of military force and deadly force on top of that. The point I made in the prior posting was to state that his actions are not only legal in federal laws and the constitution, but also that of international law, following all protocals and other such items as would be required.
If you have proof that the rebels in Libya are in support of Al-Quida, or any of its associates, it would be best to post, that way we can move to debate which would be the lesser of 2 evils, the current government or that of the rebels. In any case, it will take years for the country of Libya to recover from this. Civil wars are blood affairs, often setting brother against brother, tearing families apart. No matter which side wins, there is going to be chaos for several years to come as the victors try to determine who was against them and then retaliate against them.

POTUS under Commander In Chief role has the exclusive authourity to engage the military if they feel that it is 100% working it is in the best interest of the nation.

It's known as "Executive Priveliage"!

Libya is a confirmed State Sponsor Of terrorism and that allows us to engage without requiring the consent of The Congress.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


First, read this post from a different thread.

Second, Ron Paul, in this case, is wrong about the constitutionality of it all.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Here is your proof. The leader claims to have fought against US troops in Iraq and says basically that he has ties to Al-CIA-du. publicintelligence.net...

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


The forces they are in support of with this bombing campaign are confirmed Al-CIA-du fighters that have engaged US forces in Iraq.

From the above interview I linked in the thread:

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”.

These missiles may soon find their way to fight against US air forces in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet on it. This is the unintended consequences that Ron Paul is talking about.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

The forces they are in support of with this bombing campaign are confirmed Al-CIA-du fighters that have engaged US forces in Iraq.

From the above interview I linked in the thread:

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”.

These missiles may soon find their way to fight against US air forces in Iraq or Afghanistan you can bet on it. This is the unintended consequences that Ron Paul is talking about.

If al-Qaida was in fact successful in siezing arms from Libya that would mean that the Libyan military isn't as armed as they claim.

This is all speculation as remember the last time they tried using that line. Remember "Iraqi WMD's"? None were found as they weren't seeking nukes.

Ghadaffi is like Hussien in that regard that he is totally untrusting of outsiders hence and proven by ther huge entourage/security detail that he travels with. al-Qaida can't even get that close.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

 

At least other past presidents have sought and won congressional approval for their war actions. Obama did not even seek it as did previous presidents. What can be done is impeachment of the POTUS.

edit on 25-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: explaining my position for the thread

Except for 125+ times:

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

 

At least other past presidents have sought and won congressional approval for their war actions. Obama did not even seek it as did previous presidents. What can be done is impeachment of the POTUS.

edit on 25-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: explaining my position for the thread

Except for 125+ times:

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.

en.wikipedia.org...

If POTUS feels that without a shadow of doubt that said entity is a direct threat to the naiton and trusts that the information presented before the person is correct and valid and is convinced that this is working 100% in the best interest of our nation POTUS can launch against any enemy (declared or not) who directly threatens the United States Federal Govt Infastructure and Architecture that they do not, nor are required to seek Congressional Consent as this autourity and power is covered under "Diplomatic Immunity" and"Executive Privleage"!

Patriot Act of 06 gives us authourization to launch a pre emptive against state sponsors of terrorism for which Libya more then applies and the nation is not required to seek the consent of The Congress.

Look up something called "Commander In Chief" authourity.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Not gonna happen . The Only ones in this Country that STILL Care about the Constitution Of The United States are WE THE PEOPLE , the Politicians that Supposedly Represent us could CARE LESS about it Anymore it seems...........

reply to post by dolphinfan


" You are absolutely correct. The War Powers Act enables the POTUS to commit forces for any reason he deems appropriate for a period of 30 days with an additional 60 days to get out. "

By the way , The War Powers Act is also Unconstitutional , not that anybody in this Country Gives a Damn about it though........

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


The US and French and British blew the crap out of Libyan national forces with nearly 200 tomahawks and I do not know how many sorties of smart bombs, bunker busters and what not. That is your point? The US and its allies in this intervention set up the conditions for the rebels to capture now abandoned military heavy equipment.

The US and its allies are aiding the strength funding and combat training of Al-CIA-du fighters. There is no disputing this fact. Any organization is direct material support of terrorists are targets of the US military. Well what if it is the US military that is in material support of terrorists in Libya? What now. Impeach the stupid people in charge of this fiasco. That is our best option. Defunding then impeach.

This article is one of the best discussions of this thread's subject matter I have seen any place on the web. Other than here of course. antemedius.com...

Impeach?
Absolutely!
The Kenyan needs to be shown the door.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Impeachment is it seems the only option. The POTUS must be removed from office if he is in violation of his oath to defend and protect the constitution. Is this not the case here? Constitutional scholar my behind. This man is acting under UN resolution without even cursory congressional approval as his predecessors did for the Iraq and Afghan wars. I think that the case is clear here. Impeachment and removal from office is the only option at this point. The rule of law will prevail.

Thought I should add this link. www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

edit on 25-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: added link

I hope so,that means bush should be right there with him with what he did to dealing with iraq.

i wonder does the public remeber

1986: US launches air strikes on Libya
At least 100 people have died after USA planes bombed targets in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and the Benghazi region.
Around 66 American jets, some of them flying from British bases launched an attack at around 0100hrs on Monday.

The White House spokesman, Larry Speakes, has said that the strike was directed at key military sites but reports suggest that missiles also hit Bin Ashur, a densely populated suburb in the capital.

Colonel Muamar Gaddafi residential compound took a direct hit that killed Hanna Gaddafi, the adopted baby daughter of the Libyan leader.

President Reagan has justified the attacks by accusing Libya of direct responsibility for terrorism aimed at America, such as the bombing of La Belle discoteque in West Berlin 10 days ago.

and if reagon was alive,he should get the same treatmenT TO.

Whats the point of this thread if you dont keep it real and list all that have done wrong,whats the real point????

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


There is nothing partisan in my thinking. I was as against US military adventurism as Ron Paul was when GWB was leading us into the unconstitutional wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. I was against each military adventure that was not done for the direct support and safety of the American people since I have been alive. This thread is about the current corporatist mouth piece in charge nothing more. Do not read any partisan crap into it. We have Glen Beck and FOX666 news for that.