[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: President Obama Goes to War - Without Congress Source: American Thinker URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog ... dent_obama_goes_to_war_wi.html Published: Mar 20, 2011 Author: Wesley Clark, MD Post Date: 2011-03-20 16:49:31 by We The People Keywords: None Views: 117768 Comments: 105 Regardless of one's inclination toward the "freedom fighters" and the "monster" in Libya, or the wisdom of United States military intervention, there are certain formalities that are required, and that President Obama and his administration, including Secretary of State Clinton, appear determined to ignore, in violation of both the Constitution and United States Law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that it is the Congress that has the power to declare war. United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), the War Powers Act, specifically states that the president may undertake the use of military force only in the case of "... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." It further states that the President must consult with Congress, "...in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ..." Membership in the United Nations does not grant the Security Council the authority to order U.S. forces into action, and being the President does not permit Obama to violate the Constitution and the Law, to commit an act of war without the authorization of the People, through their Congress. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 101. #1. To: We The People (#0) . and not a FUCKING word from so the called CONSTITUTIONAL and TRADITIONAL "CONSERVATIVES" meme here. Ah yes. Affectation as opposed to natural honesty. Bullshit is the language. Self is the true cause. "Send lawyers guns and money, the sh!t has hit the fan!" Mad Dog  posted on  2011-03-22   18:02:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Mad Dog (#1) I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this. The only outrage I've heard has come from Democrats, unless I've just missed it. We The People  posted on  2011-03-23   19:11:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: We The People (#2) I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this. The only outrage I've heard has come from Democrats, unless I've just missed it. The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs Congressional approval. lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-24   0:19:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: lucysmom (#6) (Edited) The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs Congressional approval. That is not true. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[citation needed] The War Powers Resolution 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution We The People  posted on  2011-03-26   17:28:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: We The People (#25) That is not true. Not so fast. What does that little "[citation needed]" following the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. mean? lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-26   21:20:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: lucysmom (#26) Further... www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001543----000-.html (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced— (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) Other information reported The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad. (c) Periodic reports; semiannual requirement Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   10:28:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: We The People (#28) the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— Obama's written report: www.whitehouse.gov/the-pr...encement-operations-libya lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   11:58:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: lucysmom (#32) the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— Obama's written report: www.whitehouse.gov/the-pr...encement-operations-libya Note that notification is not the same as authorization, which is what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution requires. The President was once a Senior Lecturer (not a professor) in Constitutional Law. In 2007 he knew what the President's duties were in this regard, but I guess it was different, since he wasn't the President: “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,” that was then candidate Obama answering a question from the press. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:27:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: We The People (#38) Note that notification is not the same as authorization, which is what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution requires. "the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) Other information reported" So whats your point? lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   12:54:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: lucysmom (#44) So whats your point? ...that notification is not the same as authorization... We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:58:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: We The People (#45) ...that notification is not the same as authorization... Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so. lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:05:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: lucysmom (#48) Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so. Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:15:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: All (#52) Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US? His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and the War Powers resolution. Both require the authorization of Congress. Not simply notification after the fact. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:40:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: We The People (#65) His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? Destabilizing the region is not the same as humanitarian reasons. lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   13:48:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: lucysmom (#69) (Edited) Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. Bush should also be in prison. Along with his entire cabinet. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   13:51:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: We The People (#71) That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. But did you believe it to be BS at the time? Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   13:57:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: Rek (#74) But did you believe it to be BS at the time? My rants against the Iraq war are public record. I believed at the time that, OF COURSE Iraq had WMD's, because WE gave them to Iraq to use against Iran. Still, they had no way to deliver any payload to the US, so they were not a threat. I was wrong, they had no ongoing WMD program. I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. I was never for the Iraq war. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:02:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: We The People (#76) I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. So you were Bush's audience at the time, because there was a lot of opposition to the Afghan War. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   14:13:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Rek (#78) So you were Bush's audience at the time I just explained to you how I was NOT Bush's audience. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. The primary military objective of any military at war is to remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:18:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: We The People (#81) (Edited) You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. The primary military objective of any military at war is to remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. Really? Is that why they continue to kill and maim the troops? When was the last war where we won and just left the country to their own devices afterward without a military presence? Did we do that in Germany, Japan? Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   14:24:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: Rek (#83) You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Really? Is that why they continue to kill and main the troops? We are now fighting 'insurgents', not any organized military force. We are now fighting insurgents because we are engaged in nation building, not war. Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. When was the last war where we won and just left the country to their own devices afterward without a military presence? Did we do that in Germany, Japan? No, we didn't. That alone shows you how long leftists have controlled this country. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:28:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: We The People (#85) Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. We have kept our military prsence in most countries we have 'defeated' up until the present. Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny since this was used during the entire history of the 'building' of our own nation. And certainly by the GOP after the Civil War. Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   14:39:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: Rek (#90) We have kept our military prsence in most countries we have 'defeated' up until the present. And you agree with that policy? Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny since this was used during the entire history of the 'building' of our own nation. You don't understand the term nation building. I'll try to explain. Nation building involves military defeat, regime change to a more palatable government to the victor, and the rebuilding the nation involved, with taxpayer dollars. It is 'making the world safe for democracy'. It is in direct opposition to the advice given to us by the founders of this nation. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   14:47:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: We The People (#91) (Edited) Nation building involves military defeat, regime change to a more palatable government to the victor, and the rebuilding the nation involved, with taxpayer dollars. So you will tell me that defeating Mexico, Spain and the Indians, not to mention the Brits and the French, to gain territories for settlement wasn't a type of regime change? And the last I heard it was paid for by government bonds, taxes and various levys. Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   14:56:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: Rek (#93) (Edited) The fact that you have to keep changing the subject tells me that you're not comfortable with your arguments. We started out talking about Obama violating the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution and we end up with you ranting against what? The founding of this nation? You seem to find it hard to stay on topic. Allow me to tell you something about the world in which we live. Every country on the face of this planet came into existence by conquest. That's just the way human nature works. Are you going to blame human nature on conservatives? All conquest is the fault of conservatives? You have a distorted view of the world and of conservatism. I can tell you this, war, by its very nature, is revolutionary. It is not conservative. Let me say that again so it might sink in. War is not conservative. It is revolutionary, and as such is more aligned with leftist/European philosophy. There IS such a thing as left v right when it comes to political philosophies and it's the NEOCONSERVATIVES that are more aligned with leftist/European philosophies. Conservatives are no where close. When I say I'm a conservative or 'on the right', I mean I'm on the side of the founding views and philosophies of this nation. I'm on the side that believes in the original views as set forth by our founders in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I'm not on the side advocating endless war. The traditional American position is anti-war. Anti-war is a traditionally conservative position. We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   15:09:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: We The People (#95) The traditional American position is anti-war. Anti-war is a traditionally conservative position. We sure have done a lot of fighting for a people with an anti-war bent; in fact between the Revolution and the century was out (1783-1799), we picked up arms and fought 7 times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim...tates_military_operations lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   17:43:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 101.         There are no replies to Comment # 101. End Trace Mode for Comment # 101. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com