God King Plans On Violating War Powers Act

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Aggie Man
OP, you should have save this for another 30 days. After all, that is how long Obama has left

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

My bet is we are out of there before the additional 30-day mark.

The fact that the Libyan campaign ended Mar 31 2011 means we have met and adhered to the 30 day order that started on Mar 19 2011.

Wiki entry for Operation Odyssey Dawn :
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 20-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

That makes no sense in the context of the actual wording of the War Powers Act. Do you care to point out to me the specific wording that states that operations must end within 30-days the "declaration" of the end of operations?

BTW, I don't recall any official end on March 31st. What I recall is a turning over of leadership of the operation.

Don't get me wrong...I'm against the conflict in Libya; however, I'm sick of the misrepresentation that the D-bag OP and other ATS d-bags present as truth. Agenda much OP?

edit on 20-5-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

The Congress ordered it ended within 30 days and here is my thread announcing the end of US involvement and the takeover of NATO
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

The Congress ordered it ended within 30 days and here is my thread announcing the end of US involvement and the takeover of NATO
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The wording of the Act does not say within 30 days of congress ordering it to end. It specifically states that it must end 30 days after the 60 days w/o congressional approval. Show me the text that says otherwise.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

The Congress ordered it ended within 30 days and here is my thread announcing the end of US involvement and the takeover of NATO
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The wording of the Act does not say within 30 days of congress ordering it to end. It specifically states that it must end 30 days after the 60 days w/o congressional approval. Show me the text that says otherwise.

I could care less what the order says as the Congress ordered it ended within the timeframe ordered.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

The Congress ordered it ended within 30 days and here is my thread announcing the end of US involvement and the takeover of NATO
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The wording of the Act does not say within 30 days of congress ordering it to end. It specifically states that it must end 30 days after the 60 days w/o congressional approval. Show me the text that says otherwise.

I could care less what the order says as the Congress ordered it ended within the timeframe ordered.

Until congress repeals the War Powers Act, then the POTUS is acting within the law...get over it. I could care less what you think...what I care about is the law.

Before I say anything about this I suggest everyone take 5 minutes out of their day Monday and call these creeps. Here is a link to quickly find the phone number of your personal federal good ol boy:

www.congressmerge.com...

I wouldn't bother sending an email I don't read mine, they don't read theirs either. What you have to do is call them. Inundate them with phone calls. I've called congress. An actual person answers the phone. When the Honorable Rep. Pantysnatcher comes off his coc aine break his 36DD secretary will tell him the serfs at home have been calling threating to riot.

It takes 5 minutes. If you don't have 5 minutes every day to call these bastards and tell them what you think then you're literally watching the house burn down next to the fire hydrant with a hose in your hand.

DO IT.

Now on this subject it's obviously a travesty. I can't believe that I live in a country where we aren't marching on Washington by the millions.

Time frames are completely irrelevant for a few reasons;

1. Any president that initiates military force without congressional approval isn't going to give a flying crap about stopping because some piece of paper told him he can't do that beyond some arbitrary deadline.

2. He's already in violation of the act because the initial criteria for him taking action was never met. Libya never posed a threat to US soil.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
OP, you should have save this for another 30 days. After all, that is how long Obama has left

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

My bet is we are out of there before the additional 30-day mark.

Wow. Aggie Man has a very solid point. The POTUS has not yet violated the War Powers Resolution, he indeed does have 30 days to withdraw US armed forces from Libya. Until then, there has been no violation of the law.


As to the OP, "God King"

I will never tire of your penchant for the dramatic, Mnemeth.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


1. Any president that initiates military force without congressional approval isn't going to give a flying crap about stopping because some piece of paper told him he can't do that beyond some arbitrary deadline.

I completely agree with you on this point.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
2. He's already in violation of the act because the initial criteria for him taking action was never met. Libya never posed a threat to US soil.

Sadly, you are mistaken here.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Source

Obama did indeed notify Congress of the military action in Libya, and he has not yet exceeded the 30 day withdrawal period, so he has not yet violated the Resolution.

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh


Done, done, and done.

Excellent advice.

For the record, I am not suicidal, and I am in sterling cardiovascular health.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Where the hell were you when Bush II did this under false pretense? And let us not forget his "unlawful combatant" label.

It's never black or white. It is always grey.

And bt w McCain screamed for a no fly zone. If the alternative (McCain) was president, we'd already be completely involved in WWIII.

Originally posted by cry93

Where the hell were you when Bush II did this under false pretense? And let us not forget his "unlawful combatant" label.

It's never black or white. It is always grey.

He wasn't a member of this site...

It's a bad argument to excuse the actions of one president based on the failures of another.

For the record, both Reagan and Clinton have violated the War Powers Resolution.

I normally support what the Obama administration is doing, but if they remain in Libya past the 30 day withdrawal period and fail to receive Congressional approval, then I will condemn their actions.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Sadly, you are mistaken here.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Source

Obama did indeed notify Congress of the military action in Libya, and he has not yet exceeded the 30 day withdrawal period, so he has not yet violated the Resolution.

That's not the what the act says.

This is what the act says:

The GOP senators said they believe the president already violated part of the War Powers Act – which says the president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

Libya does not meet any of those criteria.

To quote the actual act itself:

www.law.cornell.edu...

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

again, Libya does not meet any of those criteria.

lol, I would just like to thank-you haters in advance for helping to get my candidate re-elected. You muddy yourselves again in a baseless topic. The dead-line isn't up and I believe our troops are already out or nearly so. The problem we are facing in The ME and N.Africa began a very long time ago, a whole lot of our economy depends on The ME and it hasn't been something we can just walk away from for a very long time as well. Now we have, in nearly every ME country, an outcry for democracy and while I most definitely do not believe in war, I do certainly see it isn't anything we can ignore. I guess it was only okay when it was only about oil.

If it's any consolation though, the super-market tabloids (no joke, saw it standing in line today at the grocery store) are behind ya on the BC and Osama issues...maybe they'll jump in WWIII one as well.

Originally posted by livefreeordieinnh
Before I say anything about this I suggest everyone take 5 minutes out of their day Monday and call these creeps. Here is a link to quickly find the phone number of your personal federal good ol boy:

www.congressmerge.com...

I wouldn't bother sending an email I don't read mine, they don't read theirs either. What you have to do is call them. Inundate them with phone calls. I've called congress. An actual person answers the phone. When the Honorable Rep. Pantysnatcher comes off his coc aine break his 36DD secretary will tell him the serfs at home have been calling threating to riot.

It takes 5 minutes. If you don't have 5 minutes every day to call these bastards and tell them what you think then you're literally watching the house burn down next to the fire hydrant with a hose in your hand.

DO IT.

Now on this subject it's obviously a travesty. I can't believe that I live in a country where we aren't marching on Washington by the millions.

You my friend are sorely misinformed whereas we do ot need to march as that gives them their marital law lock, stock and barell. What would we march over? The fat a nation's people hungry for change called us seeking help and we helped them?

What is the real reason and please form an original thought and tell us how you truly feel.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


So call their bluff, then. If you're really that upset I don't see anything in the constitution that doesn't allow you to arm yourself AND petition your goverment for a redress of grievances, even at the same time. If it is indeed their grand master plan to institute martial law over a million man march then they institute it while YOU bring the lock, stock, and barrel.

I want to emphasize that I'm not calling for violence here. What I'm saying is there isn't anything unconstitutional about a million plus armed Americans marching on Washington. You don't have to shoot anyone. But I can absolutely guarantee that noone, not the police, the national guard, not even the regular Army would come to shut down a protest with a million rifle bearers in it.

Then you would be able to protest whatever you want. Protest the wars, or lack of wars. Healthcare, or the lack thereof, protest drug law illegality, warrantless searches, illegal seizures, whatever.

One of these days in the scenario you outline you're going to have to make a choice on whether you will sacrifice your own safety to throw your own body into the cogs of the machinery in a desperate attempt to slow and/or stop them.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

(Emphasis yours)

Based on your emphasis, it seems to me that you are reading that condition as applying to the armed forces and militias. This is incorrect. That condition applies to the militias, only. Militias are under the authority of the states. The United States armed forces are always at the service of the United States.

The militias can be called “into the actual service” of the United States and the President will, then, be the Commander in Chief of those forces as well. But the President is always, irrespective of circumstances, the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States.


Concerning the overall discussion, the War Powers Resolution is inherently flawed, most likely unconstitutional, and if there is this much uncertainty about what exactly the President can unilaterally do in regards to committing the armed forces to hostilities, the blame rests with Congress, for allowing the practice without consequences for centuries.

Throughout history, “in at least 125 instances” Presidents have “introduced armed forces into situations in which they encountered, or risked encountering, hostilities ... without express authorization from Congress.” [Proposed Deployment of United States into Bosnia, Op. Office of Legal Counsel 1995]

There’s one important point that some critics are unaware of, and others prefer to ignore, that is this: what is now being done in Libya is pursuant to a United Nations Resolution and is legally different from what was understood as war in the Article I Section 8 context.

Everyone already understands and accepts there are circumstances in which the President can, without Congressional authorization, use the armed forces — the most obvious and easy to understand scenario is in self-defense. So it’s clear the President doesn’t need Congress’ prior consent every time, it’s just a matter of understanding what circumstances, and why, the President may act independently.

The “declare war” clause in Article I Section 8 meant the triggering of military action that today is considered “war of aggression.” Yes, bombs are dropping in Libya, shots are being fired, and people are getting killed, those are clearly “war-like actions” and consequences, but the military campaign behind it is not a “war of aggression” under the relevant legal frameworks.

You may disagree, and you may think the distinction is insignificant, but this is what practically the whole world has agreed to, and we certainly have, by endorsing the United Nations and its Charter. And this is the context by which the situation must be analyzed.

I am not, with this, endorsing some concept of unlimited presidential war powers, or that clause in Article I Section 8 is meaningless. It’s obvious to me that, for example, the President couldn’t order an attack on Iran, something that would trigger full-fledged war, without Congressional approval, if it wasn’t part of some international campaign sanctioned by the United Nations.

Again, some people, particularly some Americans, may dislike this dynamic, but it is the current paradigm. And any scenario that argues what the UN says doesn’t matter, or shouldn’t matter, fails to account the present facts.

Although not affecting everyone critical of Obama’s introduction of the armed forces in Libya, it seems to me the “Obama derangement syndrome” is also behind some of this criticism, making everyone afflicted by it display the usual double standard — criticize Obama for what they thought was acceptable under previous Presidents.

George W. Bush sent troops to Liberia in 2003 pursuant to UN Resolution 1497, and to Haiti in 2004 pursuant to UN Resolutions 1529 and 1542, all without authorization from Congress. Where was the outrage and claims of violations of the War Powers Resolution then?

The Libya campaign is pursuant to a deliberation of the UN, an organization we are a party to, whose Charter is part of the “supreme law of the land” by result of the ratification of that treaty and by way of Article VI clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and the military action necessary to enforce that deliberation doesn’t qualify as war in the constitutional sense.

I am of the opinion, therefore, and as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the President is constitutionally empowered to conduct this military campaign without Congressional authorization.

This does not mean Congress is without power to limit or even end it if it so wishes — Congress has the power of the purse and can defund the Libya campaign whenever it wants.

But it won’t, and those criticisms and warnings about the War Powers Resolution are more empty rhetoric by certain politicians and pundits, especially typical in relation to the actions of this President.

reply to post by aptness


If I were a mod I'd applaud you for that post. Your forum handle is perfect lol. I hope more people read that and digest it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Sadly, you are mistaken here.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Source

Obama did indeed notify Congress of the military action in Libya, and he has not yet exceeded the 30 day withdrawal period, so he has not yet violated the Resolution.

That's not the what the act says.

This is what the act says:

The GOP senators said they believe the president already violated part of the War Powers Act – which says the president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

Libya does not meet any of those criteria.

To quote the actual act itself:

www.law.cornell.edu...

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

again, Libya does not meet any of those criteria.

edit on 20-5-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

bang there it is

star for the post
now that's settled who's up for a game of pin the donkey with Obama? Thats with a blindfold and spun three times but obama the tail on that fat donkeys ass and your gonna nail TPTB to the wall

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

(Emphasis yours)

Based on your emphasis, it seems to me that you are reading that condition as applying to the armed forces and militias. This is incorrect. That condition applies to the militias, only. Militias are under the authority of the states. The United States armed forces are always at the service of the United States.

nope.

The US did not have a standing army at the time the constitution was written.

The army would need to be called into service before the president could be a commander in chief of it, just like the militias.

The US was never intended to have a standing army at all.

In fact during Shay's rebellion (against the criminal federal government), the federal government couldn't even get an army together to deal with the freedom fighters. The bankers eventually paid to have a federal army mustered to throw out Shay.

The federal government has been a criminal institution of thieves since its inception. It is run by banks and has been run by banks since the dawn of the revolution.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
nope. The US did not have a standing army at the time the constitution was written.

So what? So everything in the Constitution that wasn’t established at the time isn’t applicable? By your logic only militias would be referenced in the Constitution, since there was no “Army and Navy of the United States.”

I don’t find that argument persuasive at all.