Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“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,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “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.”

Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.

In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

DumbyDem wrote:"Buh, buh, Tman...heez difference. Like he needs to axe da' Repuglicans in da' Capitol? Your soo dumb, Tman!"

Chizzang wrote:I can't wait to see where this thread goes...

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I can't wait to see where this thread goes...

Me too... I am refreshing it about once a minute, lol.

Cluck U wrote:TTBF...UNHWildpussy...OSBF...skelly...yoo-hoo? Where are you?

catamount man wrote:OBAMA=BUSH II=CLINTON=BUSH I=REAGAN=CARTER=AND SO ON AND SO ON

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with BlueHen86, and I also want to be the first conservative on this board to say, that even though Barry Hussein is a fu*king clueless idiot, he doesnt deserve to be impeached.

If the GOP wastes time on this its just another reason why they dont represent me in congress anymore. It would be a BS political witch hunt.....err.......lynching and there are much more pressing issues to address.

Like Obamas NCAA bracket, thats what he should be focusing on.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Honestly..................never not once have I checked the box for Rehberg. I have even told him that to his face, hes a very cool guy in person and he does business with us quite frequently.



The reason I dont vote for him is this:

I know hes getting elected and it wont be close so I vote for anyone but him or I write in a candidate. The reason I do this is that I know sometime in the future, somebody in a political chat room will do what you just did............and I can say suck it bitch. youre wrong!

Grizalltheway wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Honestly..................never not once have I checked the box for Rehberg. I have even told him that to his face, hes a very cool guy in person and he does business with us quite frequently.



The reason I dont vote for him is this:

I know hes getting elected and it wont be close so I vote for anyone but him or I write in a candidate. The reason I do this is that I know sometime in the future, somebody in a political chat room will do what you just did............and I can say suck it bitch. youre wrong!

Consider me pwned...I think.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Cluck U wrote:TTBF...UNHWildpussy...OSBF...skelly...yoo-hoo? Where are you?

I responded to it the first time it was posted. This is now the third time this has been posted. Want me to copy and paste my response everytime this article is posted?

BlueHen86 wrote:

catamount man wrote:OBAMA=BUSH II=CLINTON=BUSH I=REAGAN=CARTER=AND SO ON AND SO ON

Can't agree there. I think Bush I and Reagan knew what they were doing, at least when it came to foreign policy.

UNHWildCats wrote:The President does have the power to order some military actions without Congressional approval, the fact the Obama had said he doesn't when he was a candidate for President just shows how clueless he was... and it shows Clinton was the better choice in the primaries.

UNHWildCats wrote:The President does have the power to order some military actions without Congressional approval, the fact the Obama had said he doesn't when he was a candidate for President just shows how clueless he was... and it shows Clinton was the better choice in the primaries.

UNHWildCats wrote:The President does have the power to order some military actions without Congressional approval, the fact the Obama had said he doesn't when he was a candidate for President just shows how clueless he was... and it shows Clinton was the better choice in the primaries.

The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.

No. Although Congress cannot change the President’s role as the Nation's Commander in Chief, the Constitution expressly gives Congress war powers, including the power to raise and support armies and to establish rules and regulations to govern them. These powers, among others, give Congress the authority to cap the number of troops deployed as well as set minimum home-stays. Similar limitations have been passed throughout our country's history and Presidents have adhered to them.

CID1990 wrote: I think you should go back and quote your earlier response.

I think all you could muster was to somehow imply that the article was less than objective because it was linked on Drudge.

I'm too lazy to go back and look through your goofy ass posts, though.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote: I think you should go back and quote your earlier response.

I think all you could muster was to somehow imply that the article was less than objective because it was linked on Drudge.

I'm too lazy to go back and look through your goofy ass posts, though.

That was my response when the same article was posted 10 minutes later by Bronco. And I never said it was less than objective because it was posted on Drudge... just that I thought it was funny that within 30 minutes or so we had two posts in that thread with the article and this thread started by T-man.

My original response is close to the above on executive vs. legislative powers. Presidents believe in strong excecutive power. It's just the way that it is. As legislators they believe in more legislative power. Nothing really shocking about that.