Republican bill would halt 'unauthorized' U.S. strikes in Libya

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I'm just waiting for enough individuals (no fat stupid TSA officers) to decide they have had enough .... I'm ready !!
I'm not fat and dumbed down like most americans (small a on purpose) ... Why should anyone be surprised anymore when this country no longer represents (almost) nothing worth dieing for .... A nation under (what) ?
Certainly no God I know of ... but we still have Mr. "yes we can" ..... laughing !!!

As a world leader it is the duty of the USA to protect (any) civilians from hostile governments. That is what is happening here. That is what happened in Bosnia. Get with the program, and stop wrapping the Constitution around your personal politics. Full stop.

In my mind, the issue of this behavior begs the question: When are the French and British going stop the mass murders of civilians in their former African colonies? The cynical answer is never as there's no black gold in those colonies (off the coasts, yes, on land not so much).

Originally posted by beezzer
I would have to agree.
SF For providing this. I wonder though, how many democrats will go along with it. Especially the ones who were against the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?

One can not compare the unilateral move towards war that was Iraq and Afghanistan with this mission in Libya.

But, conversely, how many Republicans voting for this voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq?

Also, most democrats voted FOR the invasion in Iraq, as well, so...

S &F

Thank you for the report. I hope this passes and power goes back to congress. However, I just have a feeling it wont happen and it will be up to the people to take action.

Honestly If I had to pick a day to attempt to take back the country it would be the 4rth of July. Here's hoping

I feel like this war on Libya is just a distraction from what is going on in Japan. We have no fly zones in America, like Area 51. You also can't fly over any National Airports, unless you have permission. I'm researching and I still can't find the reason why they want a no-fly zone. Will someone clarify this for me? I thought Libya wanted the no-fly zone, but I've seen other debates that America wanted the no-fly zone?

reply to post by AwareOfSurroundings


The "rebels" wanted a nofly zone, because the libyan government has some warplanes, and they do not. So the world felt the need to "even the playing field" through a nofly zone.

While I don't really doubt proto's sincerity in the matter, I AM skeptical of the intentions of the congressmen who introduced this bill.

reply to post by BlesUTP


"this is complete trash. the president is NOT supposed to have the power to send any military units to any country unless we are at war. well, we werent at war with libya before obama took a play right out of clintons handbook. military intervention on humanitarian grounds. how touching. "

I find it hilarious that for the last, eeh.. 35+ years, GOP & DNC party leaders, er presidents, have pretty much "dictated" major US foreign/domestic policy to Americans.. before going off to kill people / occupy nations "unconstrained by law".. yet gadaffis is the evil one who needs to go.

dictator on the Web: a ruler who is unconstrained by law google

Did ozamba ask the American people if attacking Libya was ok?.. or did he dictate, tell you, attacking Libya was ok?.. who's the dictator?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by AwareOfSurroundings

 

The "rebels" wanted a nofly zone, because the libyan government has some warplanes, and they do not. So the world felt the need to "even the playing field" through a nofly zone.

I am sure the people fighting to end foreign occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan who don't have airplanes either would appreciate a 'no fly zone'.

Maybe we can stop ourselves from conducting unfair wars to 'even the playing field'.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
While I don't really doubt proto's sincerity in the matter, I AM skeptical of the intentions of the congressmen who introduced this bill.

The Constitution is the Constitution regardless of the reason someone chooses to uphold it and adhere to it.

Do I wait at a cross walk for the sign to say walk because I like to abide by the law, or do I do it so I don't get run over by on coming trafic?

The end result is the same.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Like I said, I don't doubt YOUR sincerity. I don't even doubt that the law may very well be on your side. What I doubt is the political motivation of the politicians involved. We don't need this to be another R v D side show. We need it to be a bipartisan effort to address the actual matter of precedent and legality.

I tend to think the whole 'enemy of my enemy' thing makes for some short-sighted politics.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I am sure the people fighting to end foreign occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan who don't have airplanes either would appreciate a 'no fly zone'.

Maybe we can stop ourselves from conducting unfair wars to 'even the playing field'.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the various UN resolutions declaring the Iraq war illegal could have had some teeth, potentially bringing an abrupt end to that illegal war, too?

I'd love to see a world where rogue nations like Libya or the US or China dont get to have their way., where some semblance of rule of law prevailed.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
While I don't really doubt proto's sincerity in the matter, I AM skeptical of the intentions of the congressmen who introduced this bill.

The Constitution is the Constitution regardless of the reason someone chooses to uphold it and adhere to it.

Do I wait at a cross walk for the sign to say walk because I like to abide by the law, or do I do it so I don't get run over by on coming trafic?

The end result is the same.

Yes, but, as the world's superpower you have policing powers to cross the cross walk at a red light, flash your badge, pull your cruiser into the middle of traffic and halt the laws currently in place to make adjustments to the current state of life in motion.

It's an elastic, dynamic take on the law that allows the US, in its post-drafting Constitutional status, to make adjustments to laws that fall into the gray areas. Gadhafi starting killing his own people, unlike other trouble regimes in the area, so while there is no hard ancient law on the books, we had to act with our new-ish found power.

It's part of being a Christian nation accepting of all people's of the world, it's part of having the most power to protect other people against hostile governments. It's our job to help others, and times have changed with recently found US power.

Edit to add: I am not hanging my hat on Christian ideals in this conversation, but I do believe it informs our actions to some never-admitted degree, but in a good way not the extremist versions out there.

Not to get too off-topic, but wasn't it just a few weeks ago that some Republicans (like McCain) were criticizing the POTUS for not acting soon enough, and with more thorough US military support?? Now other's are saying he acted too soon? Gosh.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

....That's the Bedrock on which the government is able to exist, and if the government is not up to the task of it's most primary and basic function then clearly the American people need to take matters in their own hands......

I think it is time to inject this into the conversation as the correct method for us to take matters in our own hands....

This is a weapon every single one of us should be pushing for: a state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state officials.
Recall Congress Now Org

However this will be a bitterly fought battle. The last thing TPTB wants is their pet legislators worried about what the voters want instead of what they have been bribed to do.

While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.

It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....

After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.

As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.

But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...

Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.
www.uscitizensassociation.com...

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability

You may or may not think that Ghaddafi is a bad man, or that the protesters who are now rebels only because they fought back when their marches were bombed by their leader somehow don't deserve to be supported for wanting to oust a dictator....

HOW do we know that is what is happening???

I stopped believing the Boob Tube the day there was National coverage WITH FILM CLIPS of a massive riot on my campus. A riot that never happened AND one that was viewed by my parents several states away but was never seen in the state where the University was!

We have been "Tricked" into supporting a lot of wars, why should we believe them this time???

The only winners are the bankers and the military equipment manufacturers and I am tired of being their SLAVE

If you have any doubts that the US government would go so far as killing its own people,, here are the historical facts showing that they have done so before. Days of Infamy and The War on Terrorism

reply to post by crimvelvet


I agree the boob tube is suspect at best for its truthiness, but some things cannot be faked, especially on a global scale. What I think I know is there are intelligence types who's job is to update & compile scenarios that may unfold in world, and how the US should deal with those events. I think once Egypt went hot, these folks made daily reports on the whole region and how to best forward the interests of the US and it allies.

I mention this because counter to your belief that the rebels may not have been attacked first, I believe they were fired upon first. Why? Because of the emotional first-hand accounts from the fighters and Colonel Gaddafi's vocal defiance to international concerns. This scenario was not considered by intelligence groups because of its gross disregard for human life, and the fact the US stop intensely monitoring Libya when it abandoned its nuclear program.

We have been tricked in the past no doubt, but I feel that the rebels are legit this time.

I do entirely agree with you the only winners are banks and military suppliers. sign...

Edit to add: I read way too many spy novels.

reply to post by Jason88

It's an elastic, dynamic take on the law that allows the US, in its post-drafting Constitutional status, to make adjustments to laws that fall into the gray areas.....

THAT is a very slippery slope my friend.

The USA was set-up to be a nation ruled by LAW not by men. The president had the right to ask Congress to authorize and Act of War and nothing else.

THAT is what I and Proto and Josephus23 are trying to get across. The president is not KING his powers are limited by the CONSTITUTION. He swears an oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the UN not treaties, not international opinion or even the body of US law, that oath is to the uphold the CONSTITUTION.

LAWS in CONFLICT with the CONSTITUTION

"This constitution, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2

The Supreme Court has ruled that:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
 
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...
 
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
 
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 
www.constitution.org...

CONSTITUTION vs TREATIES

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
www.sweetliberty.org...

State v. Murphy, 148 S.W.2d 527 (MO. 1941). A writ of quo warranto is in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claims or usurps any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he supports his claim, in order to determine his right."
"It is also true that it will lie against a county officer who has been legally elected but has forfeited his office by misconduct."

"The officer who violates his oath of office by corruption, willful misconduct or neglect of official duty automatically loses the right to office and becomes a mere interloper.

"

"In either case the judgment in quo warranto does not try the question of forfeiture. It merely recognizes judicially fait accompli and ousts the wrongdoer from enjoying the privileges of a franchise which he has cased to possess."

"...where the officer steps entirely outside the scope of his authority to exercise a function which neither the constitution nor the statue has entrusted to him, the remedy by quo warranto is available."

www.constitution.org...

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I am surprised it took only a week to have a major short round incident with air strikes intended to help the insurgents.

I can't tell for sure from hear but my money is on our Sec of Def saying "no more of this nonsense" it is easy enough

to drop ordinance on the wrong target when everyone is speaking the same language.


Whatever your opinion about events in Lybia there is no getting around the fact that high speed low level bombing is

very difficult work and takes a big staff all speaking the same language to be effective.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Oh congress. You so silly.

Those aren't 'strikes' they are 'kinetic military acts' so yeah, this bill won't stop anything.

Obama is the president of this democracy and nothing in the constitution prohibits kinetic military acts.

Hunka is totally right.

edit on 30-3-2011 by Exuberant1 because: drinking coolaid again

The USA isn't a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.