100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress?!?!?! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84 Does it get any more "FUQUE YOU" than this? Had to post it.....Hi all! back to rest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the pres was referring to was a unilateral strike on Syria.
He does not want the U.S. to be the only nation involved. We've got two conflicts going on already left over from the Bush years. He does not want to get into another one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the pres was referring to was a unilateral strike on Syria. He does not want the U.S. to be the only nation involved. We've got two conflicts going on already left over from the Bush years. He does not want to get into another one. Not the point. Panetta was saying they didn't need congress to give their approval as the constitution states, that they would do what the UN and NATO wanted, NOT the American people thru congress! That's treason! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84 Does it get any more "FUQUE YOU" than this? Had to post it.....Hi all! back to rest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not the point. Panetta was saying they didn't need congress to give their approval as the constitution states, that they would do what the UN and NATO wanted, NOT the American people thru congress! That's treason! Welcome back SS I watched the Video and I got a different picture from it. Panetta said that when it was one on one with America ...yes congress has the overall say. But if America wants to invade another country with a coalition of other nations then International law would and should apply. I agree. America would have drawn a lot more scorn Internationally if Tony Blair had not given his approval for the invasion of Iraq. Lets face it SS..Was the Guy asking the Questions a Republican or Democrat...its the old war card of discrediting the opposition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not the point. Panetta was saying they didn't need congress to give their approval as the constitution states, that they would do what the UN and NATO wanted, NOT the American people thru congress! That's treason! Welcome back SS I watched the Video and I got a different picture from it. Panetta said that when it was one on one with America ...yes congress has the overall say. But if America wants to invade another country with a coalition of other nations then International law would and should apply. I agree. America would have drawn a lot more scorn Internationally if Tony Blair had not given his approval for the invasion of Iraq. Lets face it SS..Was the Guy asking the Questions a Republican or Democrat...its the old war card of discrediting the opposition. Otherwise it's up to Congress,not POTUS to decide! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not the point. Panetta was saying they didn't need congress to give their approval as the constitution states, that they would do what the UN and NATO wanted, NOT the American people thru congress! That's treason! Welcome back SS I watched the Video and I got a different picture from it. Panetta said that when it was one on one with America ...yes congress has the overall say. But if America wants to invade another country with a coalition of other nations then International law would and should apply. I agree. America would have drawn a lot more scorn Internationally if Tony Blair had not given his approval for the invasion of Iraq. Lets face it SS..Was the Guy asking the Questions a Republican or Democrat...its the old war card of discrediting the opposition. Otherwise it's up to Congress,not POTUS to decide! Our dictator thinks because he commands the troops, he can decide "WHEN" to deploy them....... he is WRONG, except in cases of attack or emminent "proven" danger. That falls under the war powers. We are NOT at war because it has NOT been declared by congress thru popular vote of the people, therefore, he has NO power to contract our troops to ANY UN action! He can mobilize and relocate to allied or "friendly" bases, but not engage in ANY hostile or aggressive action without war being declared. Bush/Cheney did it, YES, and the people went "duh!" because of 9/11..... that was the plan since Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now they are using "Isreal is at risk!" to sell us the same shite! FEED THE BANKERS AND THE WAR MACHINE! PEAK OIL IS RUNNING OUT AND IN DECLINE, IN RAPID FREEFALL! It's a BANKSTER/WAR MACHINE agenda, and people are sleeping or just plain dumb! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous
: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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Sun 03/11/12 11:21 PM
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the pres was referring to was a unilateral strike on Syria. He does not want the U.S. to be the only nation involved. We've got two conflicts going on already left over from the Bush years. He does not want to get into another one. Not the point. Panetta was saying they didn't need congress to give their approval as the constitution states, that they would do what the UN and NATO wanted, NOT the American people thru congress! That's treason! Not under the War Powers Act. He has 90 days before he has to get Congress's approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, Again, you are absolutely incorrect. Here is the Wiki version and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Since you do not understand the part about "permission" I have highlighted it for you. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/12/12 01:28 AM
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, Again, you are absolutely incorrect. Here is the Wiki version and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Since you do not understand the part about "permission" I have highlighted it for you. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." these are seperate issues and anyone can post anything to wikipedia (if the president needs CONSENT to go, why would he then have to notify them within forty eight hours) consent is not mentioned in the TEXT of the resolution, it is a wiki authors interpretation of what the bill means,,, I posted the TEXT of the actual resolution, which can be interpreted more than one way,,,,because there is no mention there of needing 'permission' the text I posted is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1542 |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Mon 03/12/12 03:45 AM
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, Here is what Obama said in 2007: In December 2007, Obama told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a 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." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/22/6323385-did-obama-violate-the-constitution-with-libya-military-action/ War Powers Act Section 5 (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, It starts the 60 to 90 days of conflict in which the President must ask congress permission to continue our troops into hostilities.....otherwise he must withdraw the troops |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, Again, you are absolutely incorrect. Here is the Wiki version and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Since you do not understand the part about "permission" I have highlighted it for you. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." these are seperate issues and anyone can post anything to wikipedia (if the president needs CONSENT to go, why would he then have to notify them within forty eight hours) consent is not mentioned in the TEXT of the resolution, it is a wiki authors interpretation of what the bill means,,, I posted the TEXT of the actual resolution, which can be interpreted more than one way,,,,because there is no mention there of needing 'permission' the text I posted is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1542 It would appear you need to read the constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, Again, you are absolutely incorrect. Here is the Wiki version and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Since you do not understand the part about "permission" I have highlighted it for you. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." these are seperate issues and anyone can post anything to wikipedia (if the president needs CONSENT to go, why would he then have to notify them within forty eight hours) consent is not mentioned in the TEXT of the resolution, it is a wiki authors interpretation of what the bill means,,, I posted the TEXT of the actual resolution, which can be interpreted more than one way,,,,because there is no mention there of needing 'permission' the text I posted is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1542 It would appear you need to read the constitution. which part would you like me to become familiar with? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or the laws could be less ambiguous :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. Source (Pub. L. 93–148, § 3,Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 555.) The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 7, 2011, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc. NOTHING here about 'permission' per se just consult, which was done with some congressional members,,, That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war. Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). what I posted was ACTUALLY the text of the war powers resolution, so I dont know what part was incorrect the actual text does not say anything about needing congress 'permission' to engage in military acts and the constitution says he needs it to DECLARE WAR ,, he didnt declare war, so the wording is ambiguous enough that what he did was not a CLEAR violation of any rule,,,, Again, you are absolutely incorrect. Here is the Wiki version and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Since you do not understand the part about "permission" I have highlighted it for you. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." 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. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional." these are seperate issues and anyone can post anything to wikipedia (if the president needs CONSENT to go, why would he then have to notify them within forty eight hours) consent is not mentioned in the TEXT of the resolution, it is a wiki authors interpretation of what the bill means,,, I posted the TEXT of the actual resolution, which can be interpreted more than one way,,,,because there is no mention there of needing 'permission' the text I posted is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1542 It would appear you need to read the constitution. which part would you like me to become familiar with? The part that gives exclusive rights to congress to make war. |
|
|
|
|
