Obama’s War on Libya: A Constitutional View

[Parker2112]

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/21/obamas-war-on-libya-a-constitutional-view/


by Michael Boldin
With military action taking place in Libya right now, the essential question must be asked: Is it even Constitutional? For those of you who don’t want to read more than a sentence or two, here’s the short answer. Absolutely not.
DELEGATED POWERS
The ninth and tenth amendments, while they didn’t add anything new, defined the Constitution. In short, they tell us that the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. Everything else is either prohibited or retained by the states or people themselves.
What does this have to do with Libya? Well, whenever the federal government does anything, the first question should always be, “where in the Constitution is the authority to do this?” What follows here is an answer regarding American bombs being dropped on Libya.
WHO DECIDES?
Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution has been regularly cited as justification for the President to act with a seemingly free reign in the realm of foreign policy – including the initiation of foreign wars. But, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the power to declare war, and this power is placed solely in the hands of Congress.
Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.” What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.
Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized.”
Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”
In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President’s authority:

“would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It 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; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”
James Madison warned us that the power of declaring war must be kept away from the executive branch when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”
WORDS HAVE MEANING
If, like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today just what they meant the moment it was signed, we must first look for the 18th Century meaning of the words used. Here’s a few common 18th-century definitions of the important words:
War: The exercise of violence against withstanders under a foreign command.
Declare: Expressing something before it is promised, decreed, or acted upon.
Invade: To attack a country; to make a hostile entrance
What does this all mean? Unless the country is being invaded, if congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so. Pre-emptive strikes and undeclared offensive military expeditions are not powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and are, therefore, unlawful.
HOW IT APPLIES TODAY
Here’s the quick overview of how this all plays out:

In Constitutional terms, the United States is currently at war with Libya.
Libya is not invading the United States, nor has it threatened to do so.
Congress has not declared war. Barack Obama did.
Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation. More on that in a future article, of course.
James Madison had something to say about such a plan when he wrote:

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” [emphasis added]
War Powers resolution or no war powers resolution – without a Congressional declaration, the president is not authorized to start an offensive military campaign. Period.
The bottom line? By using US Military to begin hostilities with a foreign nation without a Congressional declaration of war, Barack Obama has committed a serious violation of the Constitution. While he certainly is not the first to do so in regards to war powers, it’s high time that he becomes the last.


wakedafuggup material.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't read the entire post, but remember this. We do have treaties. Treaties are authorized under the constitution and the 9th and 10th don't apply.

[Parker2112]

I didn't read the entire post, but remember this. We do have treaties. Treaties are authorized under the constitution and the 9th and 10th don't apply.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Parker2112]

ok...but seriously...

read the whole post.

[MannyIsGod]

Obama's actions by his own decree are unconstitutional.

[Parker2112]

then ponder how a treaty with a foriegn nation can increase the powers of the executive branch as granted in the constitution.

[Parker2112]

Obama's actions by his own decree are unconstitutional.

link?

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

[Wild Cobra]

ok...but seriously...

read the whole post.
Maybe when I have more time.

[Parker2112]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

thanks.

This is proof to me that Obama is a front to interests much larger and more powerful than our democracy...interests that actually control our foriegn policy, and I believe those interests remain in control since the Bush admin or before.

It is a conspiracy. :wow

[Parker2112]

btw...I knew he had made these statements, but I still appreciate the link.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, others can attest that I disagree that only congress can declare war. When our constitution was created, it was accepted that the Commander in Chief can declare war. The constitution also grants that right to congress, without taking it away from the executive.

Now I completely disagree with these actions. However, I see president Obama within his right.

[Parker2112]

Parker, others can attest that I disagree that only congress can declare war. When our constitution was created, it was accepted that the Commander in Chief can declare war. The constitution also grants that right to congress, without taking it away from the executive.

Now I completely disagree with these actions. However, I see president Obama within his right.

I'll stick with the instruction from the founding fathers over your shitty hack opinions all day.

from the stuff you conveniently didnt read in the op:


Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.” What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.

Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized.”

Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President’s authority:

“would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It 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; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”


James Madison warned us that the power of declaring war must be kept away from the executive branch when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”


teach yourself something WC. Youll be glad you did.

[Parker2112]

the bush admin fucked you in the head, WC.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

And he's yet to talk to the American people and tell us why. Almost a week later.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I don't mind a president who is a hypocrite, in fact, I defy anyone to show me a politician at any level that is not.

Let's just hope the guy actually has some sort of plan and isn't the feckless piece of lost-in-the-woods erudite crap that some are making him out to be.

[Wild Cobra]

teach yourself something WC. Youll be glad you did.
Those are not the end-all-be-all instructions. The text of the constitution and common law as known then are what matters. Our founding fathers often disagreed on several things. I will maintain my contention that since the constitution did not remove the understood role of a commander in chief to declare war, that the power remains within the presidency, and since the president is the commander in chief, he can declare war.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't mind a president who is a hypocrite, in fact, I defy anyone to show me a politician at any level that is not.

Let's just hope the guy actually has some sort of plan and isn't the feckless piece of lost-in-the-woods erudite crap that some are making him out to be.
But that's his most endearing quality... He is totally feckless!

[Winehole23]

I will maintain my contention that since the constitution did not remove the understood role of a commander in chief to declare war, that the power remains within the presidency, and since the president is the commander in chief, he can declare war.How odd, then, that the war power is expressly given to Congress.
The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.How do you account for that?

[Parker2112]

Those are not the end-all-be-all instructions. The text of the constitution and common law as known then are what matters. Our founding fathers often disagreed on several things. I will maintain my contention that since the constitution did not remove the understood role of a commander in chief to declare war, that the power remains within the presidency, and since the president is the commander in chief, he can declare war.

you continue to rebel against truth, reality, and the American way. :toast

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, Congress punted its war power to the President in 73. All the POTUS has to do is tell Congress what he's doing a couple of days before the bombs start dropping and ask it for actual permission within 60 days.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Constitutional literalists are so adorable. My fave was the GOP speaker reading it before the 112th while he was of the party of Reagan whose AG thrashed it.

If you want the constitution taken literally then you need to call for a constitutional convention so we can actually get one thats not written on the basis of a population over 100 times smaller than it is now

So it can take into consideration things like electric light and independent propulsion systems.

The only things that the founding fathers claimed to be inalienable were your natural rights.

The division of powers and the VA plan and all that was a big compromise based on what people wanted 250 years ago. Thus it was called the great compromise.

[Winehole23]

Eh, Congress punted its war power to the President in 73. All the POTUS has to do is tell Congress what he's doing a couple of days before the bombs start dropping and ask it for actual permission within 60 days.True enough. Sucks though.

[Winehole23]

So it can take into consideration things like electric light and independent propulsion systems.These changed Constitutional analysis how?

[Winehole23]

If enumerated powers are all negotiable, why even have a written constitution?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

These changed Constitutional analysis how?

The viability of the full faith and credit clause dealing with interstate trade and federalsim for starters.

I would get rid of the senate and use current transporation systems and the like to base a constitutional framework for districting.

its pretty damn obviousl that jurists and lawmakers for well over 100 years have gone from interpreting reality of the document to intent.

its shit like this thats why.

Jet propulsion and mass manufacturing has a pretty big effect on war.

i could go on.

Jules Verne had not even written anything by then. They had no clue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If enumerated powers are all negotiable, why even have a written constitution?

The constitution has a process written into it to amend and alter it.

It is negotiable. Always has been. Its why the bill of rights was not in it when it first got ratified.

[Winehole23]

I'm familiar with the amendment process, profe.

[LnGrrrR]

Uhm yeah, President doesn't have the right to declare war.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm familiar with the amendment process, profe.

Sorry.

I just am very past the notion that our system of government works especially as written.

Now we just need a baby boomer to come in and tell me that if I do not like then i can just leave.

[Parker2112]

Eh, Congress punted its war power to the President in 73. All the POTUS has to do is tell Congress what he's doing a couple of days before the bombs start dropping and ask it for actual permission within 60 days.

Congress does not have the power to "punt" new powers to the executive branch. :lmao

The Constitution must be amended. Which doesnt happen by simple majority. You know this, you just accept what you've been handed by the MS.

Our country's ruin happens one "meh,..." at a time.

[Parker2112]

Constitutional literalists are so adorable. My fave was the GOP speaker reading it before the 112th while he was of the party of Reagan whose AG thrashed it.

If you want the constitution taken literally then you need to call for a constitutional convention so we can actually get one thats not written on the basis of a population over 100 times smaller than it is now

So it can take into consideration things like electric light and independent propulsion systems.

The only things that the founding fathers claimed to be inalienable were your natural rights.

The division of powers and the VA plan and all that was a big compromise based on what people wanted 250 years ago. Thus it was called the great compromise.

how does population affect this issue in the least?

Answer: it doesnt.

[Parker2112]

The viability of the full faith and credit clause dealing with interstate trade and federalsim for starters.

I would get rid of the senate and use current transporation systems and the like to base a constitutional framework for districting.

its pretty damn obviousl that jurists and lawmakers for well over 100 years have gone from interpreting reality of the document to intent.

its shit like this thats why.

Jet propulsion and mass manufacturing has a pretty big effect on war.

i could go on.

Jules Verne had not even written anything by then. They had no clue.

but to reiterate...these dont have any affect on the issue at hand.

[Parker2112]

The constitution has a process written into it to amend and alter it.

It is negotiable. Always has been. Its why the bill of rights was not in it when it first got ratified.

link to the amendment process? link to the amendment that shifted power to declare war? link to just how hard it is to amend the constitution?

[ChumpDumper]

Congress does not have the power to "punt" new powers to the executive branch.Except they did.

Almost 40 years ago.

Funny thing is that Nixon vetoed it because it actually put limits on Presidential power -- but you didn't realize that, did you?

No, you didn't.

[Parker2112]

Except they did.

Almost 40 years ago.

Funny thing is that Nixon vetoed it because it actually put limits on Presidential power -- but you didn't realize that, did you?

No, you didn't.
Your claim for executive authority under the war powers resolution (I presume) fails completely.


The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Title_50_of_the_United_States_Code) 1541–1548 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html)) was a United States Congress joint resolution (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Joint_resolution) providing that the President (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) can send U.S. armed forces (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) into action abroad only by authorization of Congress (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_Congress) or if the United States (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States) is already under attack or serious threat.

[Wild Cobra]

How odd, then, that the war power is expressly given to Congress.How do you account for that?
It say that congress shall have power to declare war. It doesn't say exclusively.

[Parker2112]

and you dont know the war powers res would withstand a constitutional challenge either...it hasnt been tried.

[Wild Cobra]

Your claim for executive authority under the war powers resolution (I presume) fails completely.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.
Considering it attempts to limit that the president cannot declare war without congressional approval, my contention stands that the Commander in Chief already has that power.

[ChumpDumper]

Your claim for executive authority under the war powers resolution (I presume) fails completely.You should actually read the resolution. You fail repeatedly by misinterpreting third hand explanations -- like your declaring it executive authority.

[Parker2112]

You should actually read the resolution. You fail repeatedly by misinterpreting third hand explanations -- like your declaring it executive authority.

your interp? and please cite in the resolution to support your position

[ChumpDumper]

your interp? and please cite in the resolution to support your positionYou already have a link to it.

Read it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, care to provide any proof that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presiden to be able to declare war, in spite of the numerous Founding Fathers who were against that very notion?

Tell me, does the President also have the right to try criminals? It doesn't specifically say he can't, after all.

[Parker2112]

You already have a link to it.

Read it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Someone has already told you what it says, and you have taken their hand pretty readily.

If you really want to know, youll read the damn thing. Your the one trying to contradict wikipedia.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, care to provide any proof that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presiden to be able to declare war, in spite of the numerous Founding Fathers who were against that very notion?

Tell me, does the President also have the right to try criminals? It doesn't specifically say he can't, after all.
You are twisting my words.

It was how things worked at the time, and the constitution didn't change it. If they agreed to take away that option of The Commander in Chief, they would have.

[LnGrrrR]

You are twisting my words.

It was how things worked at the time, and the constitution didn't change it. If they agreed to take away that option of The Commander in Chief, they would have.

Please give evidence that was "how things worked at the time", and explain why numerous Founding Fathers, as evidenced up thread, were completely against having the executive be able to declare war, instead leaving it to the people.

Feel free to cite any court precedent or legal theories that back you up.

[Wild Cobra]

Please give evidence that was "how things worked at the time", and explain why numerous Founding Fathers, as evidenced up thread, were completely against having the executive be able to declare war, instead leaving it to the people.

Feel free to cite any court precedent or legal theories that back you up.
You ask a lot there. I don't even know where to find it any more. I'm heading to work in a few minutes. If you have the ambition, search for related material with key phrases "declare war," "18th (or 17th) century," and "commander in chief." You will find it commonly accepted that during the mid 1700's, the commander in chief had such powers associated with that title. Make sure you use period accounts. Not modern changes.

[Winehole23]

Sorry.

I just am very past the notion that our system of government works especially as written.That's the received wisdom. Not everyone who disagrees with it is necessarily a literalist or a moron.

[Winehole23]

(Admittedly, many are.)

[LnGrrrR]

You ask a lot there. I don't even know where to find it any more. I'm heading to work in a few minutes. If you have the ambition, search for related material with key phrases "declare war," "18th (or 17th) century," and "commander in chief." You will find it commonly accepted that during the mid 1700's, the commander in chief had such powers associated with that title. Make sure you use period accounts. Not modern changes.

For America, or other countries? Because, ya know, America explicitly created checks and balances to limit the powers if the gov, especially the executive, to prevent tyranny.

So saying "they did it in other places" has no bearing here. And why would so many Founding Fathers specifically state reasons for not allowing the executive to declare war?

[ChumpDumper]

Someone has already told you what it says, and you have taken their hand pretty readily.

If you really want to know, youll read the damn thing.Already read it. I asked you to do the same. Have you read it?


Your the one trying to contradict wikipedia.There are not enough :lmao in the world to express my feelings. I guess you consider wikipedia to be prima facie evidence.

[Oh, Gee!!]

(Admittedly, many are.)

are which?

[Winehole23]

Literalists, morons or both.

[Parker2112]

Already read it. I asked you to do the same. Have you read it?

There are not enough :lmao in the world to express my feelings. I guess you consider wikipedia to be prima facie evidence.

Not at all, but its right on this issue right off the bat, and you have yet to presnt anything other than brief and conclusory personal opinion backed by nothing. Even less than wikipedia...if you will.

The reason is you cant rely on anything for your take, other than your past flawed understanding.

Since when did you start using WC logic, chump?

[Parker2112]

Conceded in the first 4 paragraphs of the resolution:

(c) 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.



http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[Parker2112]

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

[Parker2112]

Reporting after the fact is only allowed where...

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House

[Parker2112]

Notice there are no provisions that allow unilateral military action initiated by the executive branch in situations other than attack or imminent involvement of our forces.

This would rule out military action for HUMANITARIAN efforts.

Reading skills failing you much, chump?

[Parker2112]

http://www.deathvalleymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Batman-Bitch-Slap.jpg

[Parker2112]

now fix your hair.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, that is not the constitution, and congress cannot pass laws that deny the president his powers.

[LnGrrrR]

Parker, that is not the constitution, and congress cannot pass laws that deny the president his powers.

Except you already said that the provision that says the exec may declare war is t in the Constitution. So if Congress passed a law stating that, how would it go against the Constitution?

[ChumpDumper]

Reporting after the fact is only allowed where...There was no reporting after the fact in this case. Everybody in the world knows this except you.

You don't even understand the simplest concepts here.

[Parker2112]

There was no reporting after the fact in this case. Everybody in the world knows this except you.

You don't even understand the simplest concepts here.

This is general schooling that goes back to my first point..I didnt address this case specifically...nice try on saving face though.

whether you admit it or not, you now understand that without either(1) prior agression against us or (2) threat of imminent conflict, then (3) exec branch must have congressional approval to take military action.

You should quit trying to save face if it means confusing others at this point, Chump. Let the truth prevail, even if it stings a lil.

[ChumpDumper]

This is general schooling that goes back to my first point..I didnt address this case specifically...nice try on saving face though.

whether you admit it or not, you now understand that without either(1) prior agression against us or (2) threat of imminent conflict, then (3) exec branch must have congressional approval to take military action.

You should quite trying to save face if it means confusing others at this point, Chump. Let the truth prevail, even if it stings a lil.You thought you had a point, but you didn't even know that there was prior reporting to Congress before the Libya action. You have been kicked in the balls by your own ignorance.

Again.

[Parker2112]

You thought you had a point, but you didn't even know that there was prior reporting to Congress before the Libya action. You have been kicked in the balls by your own ignorance.

Again.

reporting doesnt mean shit unless we have been attacked or there is imminent threat, ya dumb-sum-bitch. :ihit

[ChumpDumper]

Reporting after the fact is only allowed where...
reporting doesnt mean shit unless we have been attacked or there is imminent threat, ya dumb-sum-bitch. :ihit
Left something out this time around, didn't you?

You make this so easy....

[Parker2112]

picking at words trying to make a scab bleed when your fucking legs have been lopped off...hilarious...

[Parker2112]

your ego runs on high octane, chump.

[ChumpDumper]

picking at words trying to make a scab bleed when your fucking legs have been lopped off...hilarious...They're your words.

Why did you leave them out the second time around?

You had them right the first time, even though you failed to actually understand them.

[Parker2112]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T-hKTxzrbus/TJ5IwONEpeI/AAAAAAAAATE/2zFWMhxydQ8/s1600/HolyGrail018.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

They're your words.

Why did you leave them out the second time around?

You had them right the first time, even though you failed to actually understand them.

[Parker2112]

consider yourself dumped. Have a great sunday chump. :toast

[ChumpDumper]

I figured you would have to run away at some point. You embarrassed yourself and you don't even know how you did it. :toast

[Agloco]

And he's yet to talk to the American people and tell us why. Almost a week later.

I'm thinking that the American people can figure out why on their own; I mean with the ruthlessly efficient machine that is Congress, they probably would have taken another couple of weeks to decide on the matter.

[Parker2112]

I figured you would have to run away at some point. You embarrassed yourself and you don't even know how you did it. :toast

You thought you knew what the War Powers Dec contained, and how it applied...glad I could hook you up with some libertarian knowledge.

[ChumpDumper]

You thought you knew what the War Powers Dec contained, and how it applied...glad I could hook you up with some libertarian knowledge.Do all libertarians try to alter their original statements then claim to be so stupid that they can't understand what they said in the first place?

No wonder you guys do so shitty in every election.

[Parker2112]

Do all libertarians try to alter their original statements then claim to be so stupid that they can't understand what they said in the first place?

No wonder you guys do so shitty in every election.

For onlookers: Notice Chump cant deny the fact that he didnt even understand the substantive requirements under the language of the WPR.

[ChumpDumper]

For onlookers: Notice Chump cant deny the fact that he didnt even understand the substantive requirements under the language of the WPR.Because I understood them just fine.

You, on the other hand, tried to omit a most critical qualifier to bolster your argument, then tried to pretend it didn't make any difference.

Nice try.

The funny thing about the War Powers Act of 73 is that no president has ever considered it constitutional, even though they usually at least inform Congress in a manner consistent with its somewhat vague terms. Obama did so in regards to Libya.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Parker, do you remember when Ron Paul introduced articles of impeachment against Ronald Reagan for waging war in Grenada?

Neither do I.

[Parker2112]

Because I understood them just fine.

You, on the other hand, tried to omit a most critical qualifier to bolster your argument, then tried to pretend it didn't make any difference.

Nice try.

The funny thing about the War Powers Act of 73 is that no president has ever considered it constitutional, even though they usually at least inform Congress in a manner consistent with its somewhat vague terms. Obama did so in regards to Libya.

its only a qualifier if we are under attack or there is imminent threat to our forces.

Again...fail, fail, fail and fail. your point is completely irrelevant, your trying to cloud the issue, and your ego makes it easier for elected officials to get away with illegal shit. congrats :toast

[ChumpDumper]

its only a qualifier if we are under attack or there is imminent threat to our forces.Right. You tried to apply it to the Libya situation. Therein lies your failure. Congress knew what was happening before it happened.


Again...fail, fail, fail and fail. your point is completely irrelevant, your trying to cloud the issue, and your ego makes it easier for elected officials to get away with illegal shit. congrats :toastYour messiah complex makes it easy for people to make fun of you. Congrats. :toast