Skip to main content

Is Obama above the law?

By Published: May 27

 

The U.S. intervention in Libya’s civil war, intervention that began with a surplus of confusion about capabilities and a shortage of candor about objectives, is now taking a toll on the rule of law. In a bipartisan cascade of hypocrisies, a liberal president, with the collaborative silence of most congressional conservatives, is traducing the War Powers Resolution.

 

All presidents have resented the WPR but have taken care to act “consistent with” its 48-hour reporting requirement. So on March 21, two days after the administration took the nation to war in Libya, Obama notified Congress of this obvious fact, stressing that U.S. operations would be “limited in their nature, duration, and scope” in the service of a “limited and well-defined mission.” Months ago, before it metastasized into regime change, the “well-defined” mission was to protect civilians.

In his March 28 address to the nation, Obama said “the United States will play a supporting role.” But the WPR does not leave presidential warmaking utterly unrestrained if it is a “supporting role.”

 

After 60 days, on May 20, Obama wrote to congressional leaders noting that since April 4, U.S. “participation” has involved “non-kinetic support” (intelligence, logistics, refueling) — but also decidedly kinetic attacks on Libyan air defenses and other targets of “the NATO-led” forces. He said U.S. support is “crucial” but “we are no longer in the lead.”

This is meretricious. We are not conspicuously leading this war by committee, a.k.a. NATO, but NATO would not act without us, and absent U.S. assets the Libyan campaign could not continue.

 

Liberals are situational ethicists regarding presidential warmaking: Imagine their comportment if Obama’s predecessor — who got congressional authorization for his uses of force — had behaved as Obama is doing regarding Libya. Most conservatives, who preen about their commitment to keeping government on a short leash, seem anesthetized by the administration’s sophistries.

 

“No president,” says Sen. John McCain, “has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any deadline.” Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not “recognize” it? Now, there is an interesting alternative to judicial review, and an indicator of how executive aggrandizement and legislative dereliction of duty degrade the rule of law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../AGL5zyCH_story.html

der Elefant ist vom Aussterben bedroht 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

HOW THE WAR POWERS ACT WORKS

 

 

 

 

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval. Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate. The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days. The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.

Since Feb 15, 2011 we have been involved in this military action. So in my calculations Obama has been acting without the authority of law for 19 days now. This Un-Constitutional King has got to be voted out of office. At the beginning of this Country Some of the people wanted to make Washington King. Thankfully level heads prevailed.

This President is suffering, or should I say this Country is suffering from his elusions of

Grandeur. He is no God. He is not our King. He is supposed to be a servant of the

Constitution and of the people.

 

Skippy

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He broke his oath/

 preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He has the Socialist view of a Living and Breathing Constitution. Where's the Preservation?

Ammendments change the Constitution not his methods of Change/Communism.

Skippy

 

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He broke his oath/

 preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He has the Socialist view of a Living and Breathing Constitution. Where's the Preservation?

Ammendments change the Constitution not his methods of Change/Communism.

Skippy

 

No he didn't. You are a lying Socialist.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He broke his oath/

 preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He has the Socialist view of a Living and Breathing Constitution. Where's the Preservation?

Ammendments change the Constitution not his methods of Change/Communism.

Skippy

 

No he didn't. You are a lying Socialist.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

jami,,,,,,,,,He broke the oath of office many times already.

 

A Socialist liar calling someone a lying Socialist, now thats funny!!!

 

Iv

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

He has no elusions. 

 

The POTUS is not a servant to the people, but a representative of the people. 

He wasn't trying to elude someone? 

 

The president is neither a servant of the people nor a representative of the people. He is the CEO of the government and commander in chief of the armed forces, subject to the rules of the constitution.

Last edited by Winston Niles Rumfoord
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The partisan hackery is strong on this forum.  No one cared about oaths or laws when a Repub was in the White House.  Its all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Well, you claim no party allegiance and allude to having no guiding philosophy that you will state openly. It seems, without further information, that the definition for you is nihilist. The most useless of all doctrines.

Originally Posted by marksw59:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The partisan hackery is strong on this forum.  No one cared about oaths or laws when a Repub was in the White House.  Its all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Well, you claim no party allegiance and allude to having no guiding philosophy that you will state openly. It seems, without further information, that the definition for you is nihilist. The most useless of all doctrines.

 

 

Ad hominem is the best you can muster?  I must say though, that when it comes to politics, I just might be a nihilist. I imagine you as a typical born again Repub, with a revival tent enthusiasm for anyone that promises to cut taxes and end welfare, and even though the Repub pols never fail to disappoint, you faithfully stand with them.  Again, and again and again and......

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by marksw59:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The partisan hackery is strong on this forum.  No one cared about oaths or laws when a Repub was in the White House.  Its all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Well, you claim no party allegiance and allude to having no guiding philosophy that you will state openly. It seems, without further information, that the definition for you is nihilist. The most useless of all doctrines.

 

 

Ad hominem is the best you can muster?  I must say though, that when it comes to politics, I just might be a nihilist. I imagine you as a typical born again Repub, with a revival tent enthusiasm for anyone that promises to cut taxes and end welfare, and even though the Repub pols never fail to disappoint, you faithfully stand with them.  Again, and again and again and......

Yep, good ol' ad hominem... is it ad hominem if it is true? I suppose that it is, however if you narrow down where the stench is coming from, the stinker can be avoided or dealt with.

 

Republican? Nah, too much adherence to the old guard. I consider myself a constitutional conservative with a wide libertarian streak tempered by rational and practical considerations. Enough about me, state your philosophical positions that are beyond politics.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×