PDA

View Full Version : Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline



Gingersnap
05-20-2011, 11:28 AM
Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline

http://i53.tinypic.com/zlzwy8.jpg

By: CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash

Washington (CNN) As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.

"Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response," wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.

The letter was signed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

The GOP senators said they believe the president already violated part of the War Powers Act which says the president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

But the president did follow the provision in the 1973 law requiring him to provide information to Congress about committing U.S. forces. Now the question is whether he will abide by the part of the War Powers Act which says he must get Congressional permission within 60 days.

Political Ticker (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/republican-senators-press-president-on-war-powers-deadline/?iref=allsearch)

fettpett
05-20-2011, 02:26 PM
if he doesn't defund it

SaintLouieWoman
05-20-2011, 06:45 PM
Obama in his arrogance apparently thinks that he is above the law. Hopefully he realizes that there is something called a constitution and separation of powers.
The thought of him being a constitutional lawyer is appalling.

Molon Labe
05-20-2011, 11:46 PM
Why would anyone think that Obama would act any differently with the military than any other POTUS has done?
Bush I, II, and Clinton did the exact same thing and Congress sat on their hands EVERY time and let them do it. When you have a 20 year precedence of Congress letting the President have his way, this is where we are. This is why you are supposed to "declare" wars and why Congress and not the President should say when and where the troops will go.

Molon Labe
05-22-2011, 12:53 PM
especially listen to the last minute and half of this. What an honest guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlKzbR0gLg

SaintLouieWoman
05-23-2011, 09:37 AM
especially listen to the last minute and half of this. What an honest guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlKzbR0gLg

How amazing, a senator who says the emperor has no clothes. Dirty Harry is preventing debate. God forbid they actually debate the War Powers deadline, which has gone by.

Also amazing for a senator to say that the senators should give back their paychecks, as they are doing nothing, no debates on anything meaningful.

wilbur
05-23-2011, 04:18 PM
On the money Molon Labe....

....if anyone is wondering where that strange sense of deja vu is coming from, its because president Bush did the same thing, with Iraq. Liberals (and libertarians, like RP) were livid about it. Most conservatives didnt really care.

Of course, now that its a D in office, suddenly its an issue for conservatives, so they are having their predictable conniption over war powers which a few years ago they were happy to ignore, while most liberals suddenly don't care (that much)...

...but the libertarians are still livid.

djones520
05-23-2011, 04:22 PM
On the money Molon Labe....

....if anyone is wondering where that strange sense of deja vu is coming from, its because president Bush did the same thing, with Iraq. Liberals (and libertarians, like RP) were livid about it. Most conservatives didnt really care.

Of course, now that its a D in office, suddenly its an issue for conservatives, as they are having a conniption, while most liberals suddenly don't care (that much)...

...but the libertarians are still livid.

Tell me, how did President Bush do it with Iraq? He recieved Congressional approval to strike Iraq months (I believe 6) prior to actually doing it.

Articulate_Ape
05-23-2011, 04:25 PM
On the money Molon Labe....

....if anyone is wondering where that strange sense of deja vu is coming from, its because president Bush did the same thing, with Iraq. Liberals (and libertarians, like RP) were livid about it. Most conservatives didnt really care.

Of course, now that its a D doing it, conservatives are having a conniption, while most liberals don't care... the libertarians are still livid.

Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military action, Mr. Revisionist. The hypocrisy sits on the doorstep of the Hillary, John Kerry, Harry Reid, et al, Democrats who rattled their sabers at Saddam's regime under Bill Clinton, voted for the above mentioned resolution, then changed their tunes purely for the sake of political expedience. Their tunes have changed yet again and for the same reason. Who are the political whores again?

Please. If you are going to lie, you had better have a good memory.

Molon Labe
05-23-2011, 06:23 PM
Tell me, how did President Bush do it with Iraq? He recieved Congressional approval to strike Iraq months (I believe 6) prior to actually doing it.

I guess it's how someone views the WPA. Here is why it's bad in a nutshell and why the founders advocated for Congress to "declare wars" before troops got committed. It's not just Bush...but it should have stopped there.


It is flagrantly unconstitutional on numerous grounds, and this has been acknowledged by senior leaders of both political parties. During times of crisis, it shifts the debate from the wisdom of military action on its merits to a dispute over procedure and unreasonable demands that the President announce artificial withdrawal dates and other constraints likely to undermine operational success.

So whether the President has launched a war in Iraq or Afghanistan to defend the US does not make Congress less obligated to it's role to declare it constitutinally.

It's classic mission creep and dialectics. You just keep pushing the envelope a little bit at time and here's where we are today. In the 50's they used the UN charter for Korea and Vietnam......then the War power act in 73' helped justify missions since like Clinton's Bosnia venture, and OIF

If you give the toys to one guy, then the next guy who you might not like decides to push it further....then the next guy.....until we don't like how Obama has decided to handle things.

So let's all remember a little historical precedence that's been coming for the last 40 years since no one has stood on principle to enforce that the constitution says exactly what it means with regards to declaring war no matter what party is in power. There's nothing in the supreme law of the land as far as I can tell that says congress can "authorize the use of force". Congress has learned that if you let the president commit troops and it goes badly then it's his fault. So why would they EVER draft a declaration of war again if nobody makes them? :confused:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-war-powers-resolution-an-unnecessary-unconstitutional-source-of-friendly-fire-in-the-war-against-international-terrorism

djones520
05-23-2011, 06:28 PM
I guess it's how someone views the WPA. Here is why it's bad in a nutshell and why the founders advocated for Congress to "declare wars" before troops got committed. It's not just Bush...but it should have stopped there.



So whether the President has launched a war in Iraq or Afghanistan to defend the US does not make Congress less obligated to it's role to declare it constitutinally.

It's classic mission creep and dialectics. You just keep pushing the envelope a little bit at time and here's where we are today. In the 50's they used the UN charter for Korea and Vietnam......then the War power act in 73' helped justify missions since like Clinton's Bosnia venture, and OIF

If you give the toys to one guy, then the next guy who you might not like decides to push it further....then the next guy.....until we don't like how Obama has decided to handle things.

So let's all remember a little historical precedence that's been coming for the last 40 years since no one has stood on principle to enforce that the constitution says exactly what it means with regards to declaring war no matter what party is in power. There's nothing in the supreme law of the land as far as I can tell that says congress can "authorize the use of force". Congress has learned that if you let the president commit troops and it goes badly then it's his fault. So why would they EVER draft a declaration of war again if nobody makes them? :confused:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-war-powers-resolution-an-unnecessary-unconstitutional-source-of-friendly-fire-in-the-war-against-international-terrorism

So, in your original post you say there is nothing wrong with this because tons of other Presidents have done this. But, that's not the case. This whole tiff is about violating the War Powers Act. Not whether or not we should have it, but actually just ignoring it.

Now, previous Presidents haven't really violated that Act. They've followed it. So either your shifting goal posts here, or your just talking about something that this thread is not about.

Molon Labe
05-23-2011, 06:35 PM
So, in your original post you say there is nothing wrong with this because tons of other Presidents have done this.

Show me where I said there was "nothing wrong". I think I was pretty clear that I am not satisfied with Mr. O's direction.



Why would anyone think that Obama would act any differently with the military than any other POTUS has done?
Bush I, II, and Clinton did the exact same thing and Congress sat on their hands EVERY time and let them do it. When you have a 20 year precedence of Congress letting the President have his way, this is where we are. This is why you are supposed to "declare" wars and why Congress and not the President should say when and where the troops will go.