PDA

View Full Version : Legal basis for US military force



Peter1469
07-14-2012, 04:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuWJQrwpIw

Listen to the entire clip. The Sec Def is telling Congress that the Constitution is not relevant. He is clearly stating that the President has the authority to use military force without consulting Congress. I don't think that the Senator was strong enough. He should have told Panetta that the President has no authority to use military force without a Congressional declaration of war, and if you try we will not fund it, and we will slash the DoD budget.

MMC
07-14-2012, 09:11 AM
I am getting real tired of this going around Congress Crap. Obama does it with EP.....thats one thing in itself. But both Panetta and Clinton. There is no opening their mouths and telling Congress they can do whatever the hell they Want.

We had Clinton disregard the funds held up over Egypt. What she can wave a Magic Wand and disregard the Hold Congress placed on those funds to Egypt? Just how does an SOS do that. Moreovewr why hasn't Clinton been called to Congress over all this Arab Spring Bullshit! Why havent hasn't Congress called in our UN Ambassador to ask her why she is a major Screw-up and why is she still there. All 3 of them Should be testifying to Congress all that they are doing overseas.

Amazing that less than 5% of the American public actually knows what is taking place with Foreign Policy or knows about all the money that is going out and being played with.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 08:19 AM
How often has the president acted unilaterally?

Historically, that is.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 08:29 AM
How often has the president acted unilaterally?

Historically, that is.

Not a lot. But the real issue is the Constitutional issue. Congress opened the door to this by passing the War Powers Act. This law tossed aside the Constitutional requirement for a Congressional declaration of war and replaced it with a law that gave the President a lot more power. Now the President can, under certain circumstances, commit US military force to combat and only have to advise Congress within 60 or 90 days (look it up if you care). This is what most modern Presidents did.

What I am trying to show in the video above, is that Obama isn't even going to do that. He is going to accept a NATO or UN legal basis and his only legal basis for using military force.

I think that is an impeachable offense.

Thoughts.

MMC
07-15-2012, 08:51 AM
Not a lot. But the real issue is the Constitutional issue. Congress opened the door to this by passing the War Powers Act. This law tossed aside the Constitutional requirement for a Congressional declaration of war and replaced it with a law that gave the President a lot more power. Now the President can, under certain circumstances, commit US military force to combat and only have to advise Congress within 60 or 90 days (look it up if you care). This is what most modern Presidents did.

What I am trying to show in the video above, is that Obama isn't even going to do that. He is going to accept a NATO or UN legal basis and his only legal basis for using military force.

I think that is an impeachable offense.

Thoughts.


After seeing some of that Trailer on Obama coming out in 2016. I would say if this does happen. That it would be grounds for Impeachment. Accept a UN mandate over the US Constitution. Although I don't see how NATO could make any call since we are NATO in itself.

Do you think he will do this with Syria Pete?

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 08:52 AM
I'm somewhat familiar with the War Powers Act, but I guess I would rather focus on a specific occurrence and drill into it, that might help the discussion, for me at least. I'm not sure where the point is going, but all things considered I agree with you. Unilateral acts of war should have consequences.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 09:12 AM
I'm somewhat familiar with the War Powers Act, but I guess I would rather focus on a specific occurrence and drill into it, that might help the discussion, for me at least. I'm not sure where the point is going, but all things considered I agree with you. Unilateral acts of war should have consequences.

Obama's Libyan adventure is a perfect example. Obama relied on NATO authorization and did not bother to inform Congress even after military action started. We essentially gave al Qaeda use of the US Air Force-- Congress never would have allowed that. In fact, that is what the video I posted was about. Congress was pissed that Obama didn't come to Congress over Libya- and were trying to get assurances that would not happen again. Essentially the Sec Dec said, F-you. We don't need Congress if the UN or NATO says go.

Again, I see this as impeachable.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 09:16 AM
Let me play devils advocate here, why doesn't Congress motion for impeachment then?

MMC
07-15-2012, 09:17 AM
Let me play devils advocate here, why doesn't Congress motion for impeachment then?

Wouldn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote. I would say.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 09:24 AM
Wouldn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote. I would say.

Repealing Obamacare doesn't go anywhere either, but even for principle's sake...

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 09:24 AM
There were articles of impeachment drafted- they never got to the floor.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 09:32 AM
Sounds like Congress wasn't all that pissed then.

Chris
07-15-2012, 09:49 AM
Wouldn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote. I would say.

Actually it's the House with the power to impeach, the Senate tries the case.



The War Powers Act was an act of irresponsibility on the part of Congress.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 11:02 AM
Actually it's the House with the power to impeach, the Senate tries the case.



The War Powers Act was an act of irresponsibility on the part of Congress.

Insomuch as the War Powers Act differs from a declaration of war, it is unconstitutional.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 11:03 AM
Sounds like Congress wasn't all that pissed then.

For whatever reason, Congress has abdicated its authority in war fighting- at least in the initiation of hostilities. I suspect they think it is politically safer that way.

Chris
07-15-2012, 11:27 AM
Insomuch as the War Powers Act differs from a declaration of war, it is unconstitutional.

I think it goes without saying most of what Congress and the President do is unconstitutional, this being just one example.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 12:02 PM
I think it goes without saying most of what Congress and the President do is unconstitutional, this being just one example.

Good point. I failed to see the forest because of the trees.

MMC
07-15-2012, 01:53 PM
Repealing Obamacare doesn't go anywhere either, but even for principle's sake...

Still goes down with the House Record. :wink:

MMC
07-15-2012, 02:00 PM
Good point. I failed to see the forest because of the trees.

Do you think if they started looking at bribery that they might be able to hook him for soemthing?

kshRox
07-15-2012, 03:13 PM
How often has the president acted unilaterally?

Historically, that is.

Since the end of WWII other than a brief period of less than two years around the late 70's/early 80's our nation has been in an offical 'state of emergency' which grants the Executive Office greater powers including the ability to write Executive Orders, basically legislate from the oval office. So to answer you question this has been going on for over half a century (basically three generations) and yes is a huge part of the problem.

The Powers of the Executive Office are grossly out of proportion to the original intent of checks and balances between the three branches of government. This is why the SOD can get up there and lecture congress with a straight face about the president having the authority to bypass congress - it is acknowledgement of what has become for practical purposes the status quo.

Different presidents have pushed this envelope more than others and this president is one of the worst.

The constitution is not an irrelevant historical document - it is a binding legal contract between the people of this country and the people we "allow" to govern us. 60 years or three generations have passed and the citizens of this country are ignorant of their legacy of freedom and liberty. These have become mere words whose meaning is open to 'interpretation' by the pseudo intellectuals morphing this country into a dictatorship.

Not socialism - we are already there - we are morphing into a military dictatorship.
Entitlements are not about serving the people - they are excuses to expand government control
As the economy contracts watch what happens to all those "entitled" groups when they think they can complete with goverment for limited resources.

Chris
07-15-2012, 03:19 PM
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 04:19 PM
Do you think if they started looking at bribery that they might be able to hook him for soemthing?

I don't think that they will go there.