[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: 117637
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

#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  


#27. To: lucysmom (#26) (Edited)

Not so fast.

We both know what it means, but let's not play games. Let's forget the wiki site and go straight to the text of the resolution...

www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001541----000-.html

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001542----000-.html

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

There is no way around it, facts are facts. Obama has violated the US Constitution as well as the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   10:24:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: We The People (#27)

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

Not knowing what that means, I looked it up. Here's what I found:

Section 8(b) states that further specific statutory authorization is not required

to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

This section was added by the Senate to make clear that the resolution did not prevent U.S. forces from participating in certain joint military exercises with allied or friendly organizations or countries. The conference report stated that the "high-level" military commands meant the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, (NATO), the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the United Nations command in Korea.

www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

It kinda looks like Obama is covered by "specific statutory authorization". (not that that makes any difference)

lucysmom  posted on  2011-03-27   11:51:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: lucysmom (#31)

It kinda looks like Obama is covered by "specific statutory authorization".

I'm sorry, but it doesn't.

A 'joint military exercise' is not actively engaging in hostilities against another country.

A 'joint military exercise' is a training mission.

We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:16:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: We The People (#35)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't.

A 'joint military exercise' is not actively engaging in hostilities against another country.

A 'joint military exercise' is a training mission.

He's covered because he commands the biggest military in the world that backs him up. Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?

Rek  posted on  2011-03-27   12:22:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Rek (#37)

Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?

No. That's what 'neoconservatives' live and die for.

We The People  posted on  2011-03-27   12:28:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 39.

#41. To: We The People (#39)

No. That's what 'neoconservatives' live and die for.

Then the Tea Baggers must be neoconservatives.

Rek  posted on  2011-03-27 12:49:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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