Obama wipes his ass with the U.S. Constitution

[CitadelGrad]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... autho.html

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

[dbackjon]

Drama Queens, party of Republicans.

You didn't have a problem with Bush not having a declared war in Afganistan or Iraq, now did ya?

[CitadelGrad]

Drama Queens, party of Republicans.

You didn't have a problem with Bush not having a declared war in Afganistan or Iraq, now did ya?

A formal declaration of war isn't what we are talking about here. Bush did get congressional authorization for Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress also continued to fund those wars through multiple budget cycles, well beyond the 60-day requirement in the War Powers Act. Congress has not authorized any action vis-a-vis Libya, nor has Obama asked for congressional authorization.

As for Iraq, yes I did have a problem with it from the beginning.

[CID1990]

Drama Queens, party of Republicans.

You didn't have a problem with Bush not having a declared war in Afganistan or Iraq, now did ya?

If you do not understand the difference, then perhaps it is best that you stay on the sidelines and let informed people hold the discussion.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan were approved by Congress.

The WPA holds that Congressional approval is mandatory for acts of war (Obama's 'limited scope' argument does not hold any water here). The ONLY exceptions are in the case of imminent threats to the US, and Libya has come nowhere near to fitting that bill.

As tempting as it is to make the "Well, Bush did it, too!" arguments here, they do not apply in any shape or form. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were constitutional and were not violations of the War Powers Act.

The Obama argument that because Libya is limited in scope makes it somehow not answerable to the WPA is a new tack where the WPA is concerned. Every President since Nixon has maintained that they are not bound by the WPA, but all of them have made at least token efforts not to run afoul of the act. Obama is the first President who has made an effort to side-step it. It is a heck of a precedent to set. My guess is that Congress is going to place a timeline on a full exit from the theatre, and is going to reject Obama's 'limited scope' assertion.

[Cap'n Cat]

Dumb Conk fvcks. Everyone of those fvckers involved in Bush wars was a fvcking Chickenhawk.

[travelinman67]

"Dumb Conk fvcks. Everyone of those fvckers involved in Bush wars was a fvcking Chickenhawk."

[citdog]

Dumb Conk fvcks. Everyone of those fvckers involved in Bush wars was a fvcking Chickenhawk.

or they were chickenshit

[Skjellyfetti]

Did Reagan get Congressional approval?
[youtube][/youtube]

[Baldy]

Did Reagan get Congressional approval?
[youtube][/youtube]

Weak...

Media Matters has got to come up with something better than that. Reagan's strikes against Libya were a one shot affair and 100% completely legal since WPA only comes into affect after 60 days. Reagan beat that deadline by 59 days.

Try again.

[CID1990]

Did Reagan get Congressional approval?
[youtube][/youtube]

Give it up.

No President has violated the WPA until Obama.

In addition to the time constraints, Reagan's attack on Libya also fit into the WPA for another reason (which is not present today). Can you figure it out, or are your reasoning skills limited to what you read at HuffPo or see on MSNBC?

Also, the left cannot point to Reagan without depth charging Obama's argument (limited scope), so even if they had a point, it would be moot.

[Bronco]

Obama announced two Billion going to Egypt…This should insure whatever government Iran and the brotherhood put in place will be friendly to us.

[GannonFan]

Trying to say that Obama isn't doing something against the law is silly - he's blatantly violating the WPA - and no President before him has ever done this. The WPA calls for a set time period where action is allowed, after which approval is needed - any President before this ended operations or had the required Congressional approval. Any attempt to say otherwise is just simple partisan pandering.

With that said, it brings up the whole topic of whether the WPA is even a valid law to begin with and how the way that modern wars and conflicts are undertaken matches up with the Constitution and how we go forward in that regard. Should make for a good discussion.

[CID1990]

Trying to say that Obama isn't doing something against the law is silly - he's blatantly violating the WPA - and no President before him has ever done this. The WPA calls for a set time period where action is allowed, after which approval is needed - any President before this ended operations or had the required Congressional approval. Any attempt to say otherwise is just simple partisan pandering.

With that said, it brings up the whole topic of whether the WPA is even a valid law to begin with and how the way that modern wars and conflicts are undertaken matches up with the Constitution and how we go forward in that regard. Should make for a good discussion.

GF- the only people trying to defend Obama on this one are the "funny pitchers-no substance" crowd, and the no-brain partisan hack crowd. One consists solely of Cap'n Cat, and the latter consists solely of SK.

[travelinman67]

Trying to say that Obama isn't doing something against the law is silly - he's blatantly violating the WPA - and no President before him has ever done this. The WPA calls for a set time period where action is allowed, after which approval is needed - any President before this ended operations or had the required Congressional approval. Any attempt to say otherwise is just simple partisan pandering.

With that said, it brings up the whole topic of whether the WPA is even a valid law to begin with and how the way that modern wars and conflicts are undertaken matches up with the Constitution and how we go forward in that regard. Should make for a good discussion.

GF- the only people trying to defend Obama on this one are the "funny pitchers-no substance" crowd, and the no-brain partisan hack crowd. One consists solely of Cap'n Cat, and the latter consists solely of SK.

Ouch!!

Painfully accurate.

[YoUDeeMan]

Impeach Obama.

[houndawg]

Doubtful. He'd grab something that hasn't already been used for that.

[BDKJMU]

"Lawmakers mock Obama claim on Libya hostilities

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans and Democrats on Thursday derided President Barack Obama's claim that U.S. air attacks against Libya do not constitute hostilities and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old military operation.

In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House. The Ohio Republican signaled that the House could take action as early as next week.

"The accumulated consequence of all this delay, confusion and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy," said Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee who has backed Obama's actions against Libya.

The administration, in a report it reluctantly gave to Congress on Wednesday, said that because the United States is in a supporting role in the NATO-led mission, American forces are not facing the hostilities that would require the president to seek such congressional consent under the War Powers Resolution.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday............."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 7-03-14-56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged...................."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world ... owers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Simple way for Congress to solve this- simply cut off the funding.

[ALPHAGRIZ1-Esquire]

...............the ATMs did it....

[Ivytalk]

Trying to say that Obama isn't doing something against the law is silly - he's blatantly violating the WPA - and no President before him has ever done this. The WPA calls for a set time period where action is allowed, after which approval is needed - any President before this ended operations or had the required Congressional approval. Any attempt to say otherwise is just simple partisan pandering.

With that said, it brings up the whole topic of whether the WPA is even a valid law to begin with and how the way that modern wars and conflicts are undertaken matches up with the Constitution and how we go forward in that regard. Should make for a good discussion.

And he's still yo' man, GF? Why don't you erase that white centrist stripe that runs up the middle of your back and admit that you backed the wrong hoss?

[JohnStOnge]

This country stopped adhering to the Constitution a long time ago. A LONG time ago.

So Obama did it too. Whoopdie doo.

[JohnStOnge]

But I WILL say that I have to smile at the fact that there was anybody out there who thought that this guy from the Chicaco tradition of politics was Mr. Clean who was going to bring about "Change we can belileve in."

LOL!!!!

[GannonFan]

Trying to say that Obama isn't doing something against the law is silly - he's blatantly violating the WPA - and no President before him has ever done this. The WPA calls for a set time period where action is allowed, after which approval is needed - any President before this ended operations or had the required Congressional approval. Any attempt to say otherwise is just simple partisan pandering.

With that said, it brings up the whole topic of whether the WPA is even a valid law to begin with and how the way that modern wars and conflicts are undertaken matches up with the Constitution and how we go forward in that regard. Should make for a good discussion.

And he's still yo' man, GF? Why don't you erase that white centrist stripe that runs up the middle of your back and admit that you backed the wrong hoss?

Nope - Obama may be failing, but even if I had a chance to do it again, I'd still vote for Obama over McCain. Didn't really have a great choice of hosses in '08. Hopefully '12 will be a little better, but it's not really shaping up that way right now. Still time to see, though.

[native]

Did Reagan get Congressional approval?
[youtube][/youtube]

Give it up.

No President has violated the WPA until Obama.

In addition to the time constraints, Reagan's attack on Libya also fit into the WPA for another reason (which is not present today). Can you figure it out, or are your reasoning skills limited to what you read at HuffPo or see on MSNBC?

Also, the left cannot point to Reagan without depth charging Obama's argument (limited scope), so even if they had a point, it would be moot.

Depth charges? I like that!

[native]

...............the ATMs did it....