President Obama makes war on Muslim country

[Bob Hubbard]

We still have a **** economy to think of, lots of unemployed people, and that immigration issue.

Well, poor and hopefuls = lots of grunts to toss at the grinder and they'll need uniforms, and bullets and guns, drugs and body bags. That's all good for the economy.
Boosts production, moves the money around, and removes unproductive surplus population from the pool.

 

[elder999]

Aside from Constitutional or procedural issues with this action, the Arab League buy in, which Hillary called "crucial," has been a bit of a play on their part: they don't like Qaddafi anyway, and now we won't pay attention to what they're doing in Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Yemen.

 

[Empty Hands]

Aside from Constitutional or procedural issues with this action, the Arab League buy in, which Hillary called "crucial," has been a bit of a play on their part: they don't like Qaddafi anyway, and now we won't pay attention to what they're doing in Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Yemen.

In addition to that, the Arab League began criticizing and backing away the minute actual force became involved...

 

[K831]

the goat reference goes to the left's attack on Bush when 9/11 happened. It refers to the book, "My Pet Goat," the book bush was reading. So, since Obama the warmonger is doing all of the things he condemned bush for, he should also start reading "My Pet Goat."

Come now... don't confuse the masses with nuance or references that would require more than a 30 day memory.... it's just too much.

You didn't ACTUALLY think most of those folks crying about Bush's war were sincere, did you?

 

[teekin]

We still have a **** economy to think of, lots of unemployed people, and that immigration issue.

Well, poor and hopefuls = lots of grunts to toss at the grinder and they'll need uniforms, and bullets and guns, drugs and body bags. That's all good for the economy.
Boosts production, moves the money around, and removes unproductive surplus population from the pool.

Well, war is good buisness. Not when a Bush is in charge perhaps, but as a general rule. I know it won't hurt our economy, it won't hurt Boeing's pocket book, or GM, or Merc Benz, or anyone with a military contract. Production ramps up, plants reopen, jobs are to be had once again. From what I understand, there is a firm exit stratagy from Iraq. I agree that Afghanistan is a quagmire inside a pool of quicksand.
But I think going into Libya was the right thing to do. This guy only understands Force.:ak47:

Lori

 

[teekin]

Come now... don't confuse the masses with nuance or references that would require more than a 30 day memory.... it's just too much.

You didn't ACTUALLY think most of those folks crying about Bush's war were sincere, did you?

Ohhh come on now! If your going to insult me get it right.
30 Minute memory, minute not day, minute. Geez! Some peoples kids.

Lori

 

[K831]

Ohhh come on now! If your going to insult me get it right.
30 Minute memory, minute not day, minute. Geez! Some peoples kids.

Lori

Not and insult... just a little cheeky. I figured at the very least you could have googled the reference before berating him! Ha.

 

[Big Don]

Jolting Joe Biden in 2007:

The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.

Yeah, he was wrong, but, still...

 

[Makalakumu]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the US Constitution States

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Bush, Obama, and every president back to FDR has basically sold out the Constitution with a complicit Congress.

Please, a moment of reflection on this...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the US Constitution States

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Bush, Obama, and every president back to FDR has basically sold out the Constitution with a complicit Congress.

Please, a moment of reflection on this...

I would suggest that you look at the context of this section a bit more.

This section states that Congress shall have the power to declare war. But it says nothing about the ability to make war. You seem to be using them synonymously.

The President actually has unlimited war making ability. This is his perview as Commander-in-Chief. The Congress, except for certain provisions accounted for in the Constitution, has no power over the military. For instance, according to your theory, if the U.S. were invaded, or if the Soviet Union had launched a nuclear attack upon the U.S., the President would be unable to respond until Congress had declared war. Well, what if the time frame alloted for a Congressional response was insufficient to the threat, or the theat actually did not allow Congress to assemble. Now, you might say that the Constitution makes allowances for such exigencies, but then I would ask you where does it do so.

If you look at the Constitution as a whole, or even simply the whole of Article 1, Section 8, this is one of the very reason that the Continental Congress limited the ability to budget for the army to two years. This is also one of the reasons why the House, as being closer to the will of the people then the Senate or President, was given the sole ability to generate expenditure bills. If the House, by virtue of the will of the people, does not approve of the President's use of the military, then it could eliminate the budget for the military, even to the point of simply not providing a bill for their funding. They could literally do nothing, then the army would go away. They could even make a budget law stating that the military could not utilize any money for a given action, such as attack Libya.

The fact of the matter is, Joe Biden is wrong.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would suggest that you look at the context of this section a bit more.

This section states that Congress shall have the power to declare war. But it says nothing about the ability to make war. You seem to be using them synonymously.

The President actually has unlimited war making ability. This is his perview as Commander-in-Chief. The Congress, except for certain provisions accounted for in the Constitution, has no power over the military. For instance, according to your theory, if the U.S. were invaded, or if the Soviet Union had launched a nuclear attack upon the U.S., the President would be unable to respond until Congress had declared war. Well, what if the time frame alloted for a Congressional response was insufficient to the threat, or the theat actually did not allow Congress to assemble. Now, you might say that the Constitution makes allowances for such exigencies, but then I would ask you where does it do so.

If you look at the Constitution as a whole, or even simply the whole of Article 1, Section 8, this is one of the very reason that the Continental Congress limited the ability to budget for the army to two years. This is also one of the reasons why the House, as being closer to the will of the people then the Senate or President, was given the sole ability to generate expenditure bills. If the House, by virtue of the will of the people, does not approve of the President's use of the military, then it could eliminate the budget for the military, even to the point of simply not providing a bill for their funding. They could literally do nothing, then the army would go away. They could even make a budget law stating that the military could not utilize any money for a given action, such as attack Libya.

The fact of the matter is, Joe Biden is wrong.

We had this discussion and the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is unclear on this point. IMO, I believe that the Framers thought this clause would limit the President's war making ability. Plenty of Constitutional scholars have also made convincing arguments based on the writings of the Framers supporting this point of view.

It's a tragic loophole actually. This clause was something the Framers worked harder and longer at then any other clause and it's this clause that will probably be the undoing the undoing of our nation in the end. The Military Industrial Complex will eat us alive.

We needed a way to check a President before taking major military action and we didn't get it with the kind of language that was truly necessary to forecast into the future. Perhaps the Framers believed that this would be enough and that Congresses role was clear? IMO, it's a flaw in our system.

A fatal flaw.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

We had this discussion and the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is unclear on this point. IMO, I believe that the Framers thought this clause would limit the President's war making ability. Plenty of Constitutional scholars have also made convincing arguments based on the writings of the Framers supporting this point of view.

It's a tragic loophole actually. This clause was something the Framers worked harder and longer at then any other clause and it's this clause that will probably be the undoing the undoing of our nation in the end. The Military Industrial Complex will eat us alive.

We needed a way to check a President before taking major military action and we didn't get it with the kind of language that was truly necessary to forecast into the future. Perhaps the Framers believed that this would be enough and that Congresses role was clear? IMO, it's a flaw in our system.


A fatal flaw.

There's actually a relatively easy fix. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. We've passed them before, we can do it again.

I will say, though, that I will do more research on the subject. I am a very big believer in context, so if I am wrong, especially in this case, I will readily admit so.

In any case, what is also interesting, is Obama's own words when it comes to the President's ability to use military force without Congressional approval, when asked by Charlie Savage, at the time from the Boston Globe:

Q. 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?)

OBAMA: 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.

So by doing what he is doing, according to his own understanding, he is violating the Constitution.

 

[Big Don]

There's actually a relatively easy fix. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. We've passed them before, we can do it again.

I will say, though, that I will do more research on the subject. I am a very big believer in context, so if I am wrong, especially in this case, I will readily admit so.

In any case, what is also interesting, is Obama's own words when it comes to the President's ability to use military force without Congressional approval, when asked by Charlie Savage, at the time from the Boston Globe:

Q. 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?)

OBAMA: 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.

So by doing what he is doing, according to his own understanding, he is violating the Constitution.

Remember, they told us Obama is a Constitutional Scholar.

 

[Makalakumu]

There's actually a relatively easy fix. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. We've passed them before, we can do it again.

I will say, though, that I will do more research on the subject. I am a very big believer in context, so if I am wrong, especially in this case, I will readily admit so.

I think an amendment regarding the President's war making ability is a good idea. However, I also think that the kind of political change this would require is more massive then most people realize. When the Pentagon can spend over a trillion dollars a year, that creates a lot of dependent classes of people. And these dependent classes can wave the flag in their support!

An amendment would require the whole zeitgeist to undergo a paradigm shift and would probably change the fundamental nature of the we think about military force.

In any case, what is also interesting, is Obama's own words when it comes to the President's ability to use military force without Congressional approval, when asked by Charlie Savage, at the time from the Boston Globe:


So by doing what he is doing, according to his own understanding, he is violating the Constitution.

Remember, they told us Obama is a Constitutional Scholar.

I question how much freedom a President actually has in office because of this contradiction. People want to think of Obama or Bush as pieces of slime, but in the end, they put on pants one leg at a time just like the rest of us. It feels like the military can force it's way into foreign policy no matter what the President believes. It's a force that is so large and so ubiquitous in our government that there is no resisting it.

This is why the Framers told us that there was nothing more dangerous to our liberty then a standing army.

“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” George Washington