Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Bipartisan Lawsuit against Obama Administration over Libya

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Bipartisan Lawsuit against Obama Administration over Libya

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...bya-operation/

    I hope the SCOTUS uses this case to settle the matter of "use of force" without a declaration of war once and for all. The only way that US Troops should ever be committed to armed conflict (other than an extremely short term--hours to days--while the declaration is sought) is with a formal declaration of war from the folks authorized to so declare: Congress.

    How long did it take Roosevelt to get a declaration after Pearl Harbor? If the American People are behind a military action, the declaration is not hard to get and takes very little time. It must be absolutely clear when we are at war and when we are not--and that the executive branch is fully in charge of the prosecution of that war, that Congress has done its part and steps back. That is what declarations buy for us, why they are absolutely necessary, as opposed to half-stepping "authorizations." We need to get back to using declarations to formally start forceful military actions.

    While better than arbitrary action by the President (Libya) "authorizations to use force" (Afghanistan, Iraq) still violate the letter, if not the spirit, of the Constitution.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    thank you eye95,,,!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Maybe they can sue him for enough money to pay back the american people for the record setting deficit that he ran up already.

  4. #4
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Maybe they can sue him for enough money to pay back the american people for the record setting deficit that he ran up already.
    Howdy Stainless!
    What we've spent so far in Libya is a drop in the bucket compared to the completely unnecessary war in Iraq. Why we're still in there, or Afghanistan for that matter, bewilders me. But the money was kept off the books. Wonder where your money went? Iraq mostly.

    Our military did their job with professionalism and courage. Still, I never could figure out why we were there. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and lots of people died that didn't need to.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You are free to post what you will (as long as the admins and the mods don't object), but I would ask that declarations of war being required for armed conflict be the topic of your posts, rather than the topic being your pet rants. Thank you.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DevinWKuska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spanaway
    Posts
    300

    A good quandry!

    Hmm this is sort of a tough one. If what you say were to happen Eye... then Osama Bin Laden might still be alive and killing. I also believe that as the (currently anyway) only super power in the world we are almost expect to step in and defend the little guy so to speak.

    I think America has lost something over the last 10-30 years. It use to be when we went to war the people believed in the cause(maybe our governement isnt as good with propaganda now?). Now it seems the people are all for it until the war takes longer then a month, and anyone dies. I remember in Operation Desert storm the president declared war(actually I think it was mush earlier) and people were supportive. Now that we have lost a meager 2,8OO troops the people seem angry and feel wronged(not even bothering to notice in Op1 and Op2 over 100,000 Iraqi "RedGuard" were killed). How does one justify a war to the poeple, who seem so fickle?

    After 9/11 Bush declared war on terrorism and the people wanted blood. Yet surprisingly there is little to show for the wars length and asset allocation. Pre Pearl Harbor the people didnt want to go to war, feeling it wasnt their problem(until it affected them, which might have been prevented). How many lives might have been saved if we didnt just mind our own business for so many years?

    All that to say I think it is such a delicate balance of declaring war with the people's approval, and declaring war because it benefits mankind. Thats not a job I think many could sleep soundly doing.
    Last edited by DevinWKuska; 06-16-2011 at 12:42 AM.
    "So there I was between a rock and a hard place, when it hit me... What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Please don't think I am against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although, I am wondering why the current administration is dragging its feet winding them up.

    Anyway, my objection in those cases is to the lack of declarations of war. The authorizations are insufficient, for one reason, because they carry the implication that a "de-authorization" is possible. Once Congress commits to war, the day-to-day prosecution of it should fall under the executive with no strings attached. The declaration of war carries with it a finality. There is no such thing as undeclaring. You're in it until the enemy is defeated, you surrender, or a more mutual ending is agreed to in a treaty.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    The War Powers Act of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    The War Powers Act 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

    Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3] some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.[4][5]

    Let's not forget Vietnam. This was supposed to be the "never again" for committing American lives in a non-winnable conflict or one with no US vital interests, think Bosnia. How's it worked out recently?
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 06-16-2011 at 12:25 PM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    [snip]
    Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3] some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.[4][5]

    [snip]
    The crux of the issue is here. The Constitutionality of the Act is Found by SCOTUS. Until that Finding arrives, the President is not engaged in an unConstitutional Act.

    The War Powers Act 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
    What the President is arguing is that the U.S. is not engaged in a war, but merely providing 'support'. The "armed forces" are not in action, so they obviously cannot "remain" anywhere. Basically, our Military Force is not being used, and the President seems to be telling the truth.

    "The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action..."

    What constitutes "Military Action?"

    "and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,"

    What constitutes "remaining?" On the ground? Bombing? Offering Arms Support?

    "... without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."

    So, the President can actually still pursue a War if Congress is unable to get a veto-proof vote? Interesting.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 06-16-2011 at 12:47 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Keep in mind, the constitutionality of the Act has not been challenged, just averred. However, it is black letter law and the president violates it at risk of impeachment. Congress has no duty to do anything to make the president comply. It is his legal responsibility to do so. Congress could go to the courts or issue a Contempt of Congress Citation, I suppose, should they choose. The fact is that many definitions "of the meaning of of" have never been worked out.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Keep in mind, the constitutionality of the Act has not been challenged, just averred. However, it is black letter law and the president violates it at risk of impeachment. Congress has no duty to do anything to make the president comply. It is his legal responsibility to do so. Congress could go to the courts or issue a Contempt of Congress Citation, I suppose, should they choose. The fact is that many definitions "of the meaning of of" have never been worked out.
    Has the Supreme Court of the United States Found what the 'black letter Law' of the Act is?

    Your latter response shows that right now, as I type this response, President Obama is not engaged in a UnConstitutional or impeachable Act.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 06-16-2011 at 03:01 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    If Obama had not made the decision to assist the NATO action, some on the right would be whining about that. He just can't win (with some folks).

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    If Obama had not made the decision to assist the NATO action, some on the right would be whining about that. He just can't win (with some folks).
    Which is why Obama should do what he wants, within his Authority, and tell the Republicans to kiss his a$$. My view is that if someone doesn't want to work with you, and is interested in derailing every move you make, tell them to step aside or run the risk of being trampled over.

    That is one huge issue I have with Democrats. Democrats should act more like Republicans act politically which involves a little less talk, and a lot more of a 'screw the other side' attitude.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Has the Supreme Court of the United States Found what the 'black letter Law' of the Act is?

    Your latter response shows that right now, as I type this response, President Obama is not engaged in a UnConstitutional or impeachable Act.
    I don't think he is. Committing fixed naval forces off the coast and running military operations on a schedule would be, but that isn't happening. The black letter law of the statute has never been judicially set. Would take a prosecution of a president to do that. The ensuing decision would then be settled law.

    I should add, I think the law is unconstitutional and would be found to be so at SCOTUS.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 06-16-2011 at 03:57 PM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Which is why Obama should do what he wants, within his Authority, and tell the Republicans to kiss his a$$. My view is that if someone doesn't want to work with you, and is interested in derailing every move you make, tell them to step aside or run the risk of being trampled over.

    That is one huge issue I have with Democrats. Democrats should act more like Republicans act politically which involves a little less talk, and a lot more of a 'screw the other side' attitude.
    The Democraps have been less willing to work with Barry than the Repubs in point of fact. When they had absolute control of congress and w/h, they still didn't accomplish dick worth talking about except one blunder after another. Now, the ones up for reelection are running away from their votes then--and barry, as fast as they can. 'It's the economy, stupid' will be the siren song of the '12 elections--on every level.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 06-16-2011 at 04:01 PM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    The Democraps have been less willing to work with Barry than the Repubs in point of fact. When they had absolute control of congress and w/h, they still didn't accomplish dick worth talking about except one blunder after another. Now, the ones up for reelection are running away from their votes then--and barry, as fast as they can. 'It's the economy, stupid' will be the siren song of the '12 elections--on every level.
    You better hope Republicans push the economy to the best of their ability, and have a 'good' plan or they are going to lose. I get the 'sense' that Democrats are going to have a good day on November 2nd. Then again, I am merely considering the overall sense politically of what is going on by what I have read(e) (probably read too much)...on both sides of the isle.

    Sorry Eye, back to the topic -What President Obama is doing right now apparently does not fall under the Act, unless Found otherwise.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 06-16-2011 at 04:56 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You are free to post what you will (as long as the admins and the mods don't object), but I would ask that declarations of war being required for armed conflict be the topic of your posts, rather than the topic being your pet rants. Thank you.
    *sigh*

    Oh, well.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Maybe they can sue him for enough money to pay back the american people for the record setting deficit that he ran up already.
    Whatever Obama's fortunes, it would only be a drop in the bucket of the billions, if not trillions of taxpayer dollars he's utterly wasted while bringing our country to the brink of financial default.

    But if the suite won all, it would still be HIS drop in the bucket, and that's good enough for me.

    I'm 100% on board with the idea that only a formal, Congressional declaration of war would be enough to commit troops to any action beyond a week or two. These extra powers given to the President in recent years have proven a vast waste of trillions of dollars.

    If, after a Constitutionally-appropriate declaration, war is inevitable, I'm also in favor of it being prosecuted solely by a single commander in chief, rather than a Congressional committee. When committees run a war, it does NOT work.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •