Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:22 am

rjaypeters wrote:Words fail...almost.

I always thought you had a stable set of rules in the US, but it looks like they are really overthrowing all of them.

That's quite scary IMHO.

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:24 pm

rjaypeters wrote:Words fail...almost.

GOP Pulls Libya War Powers Resolution from the Floor Because it Might Pass
June 1, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

Quote:"The House Republican leadership is worried that Congress might stand up to the Obama Administration and assert its constitutional prerogative as the only branch of government that can declare war. The House was scheduled to vote this afternoon on a a privileged resolution from Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] directing the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. But the House leadership has pulled it from the floor because, according to Republican aides who spoke with Fox News, “it became clear that it might succeed.”

[Snip]

And a separate problem. Last paragraph, emphasis mine:

"House Republicans have been actively working to expand presidential war powers. They recently added language to the annual Defense authorization bill that expands presidential authority to use military force without consent from Congress against virtually anybody suspected of being a terrorist, anywhere in the world (including domestically), indefinitely. Obviously, the growing support for Kucinich’s resolution is a significant challenge to their unilateral-executive-war-power agenda. So, it’s been postponed, supposedly “in an effort to compel more information and consultation’ from the Administration,” but actually just to give the Republican leadership more time to twist arms."

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... Might-Pass

Does anyone know a country where the people speak some dialect of the English language and respect the rule of law?

Sounds like politics as usual. Republicans are torn between wanting to make Obama look bad by slapping his wrists over the issue and not wanting to withdraw forces from Libya.

I know Canadian politics have been watching the exact same thing over Afghanistan. In our case the right and left are reversed, with the right leaning government in power and supporting continuing the mission. Meanwhile the opposition left condemns them for it ever chance they get, right up to the point where they are asked to vote on it at which point they dry up and their silence reflects that in reality they agree with the mission, but just want to score political points by vocally opposing it.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:36 pm

But this instance is much more than mundane political quibbling. It's nothing less than trivialization of the Constitution.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:42 pm

TDPerk wrote:"They dramatically increase the probability that Barack does in fact have an American father, and is therefore within the technical requirements of Article II."

Article II nowhere requires having an American father.

Yes it does. It is no longer a debatable question as far as i'm concerned. The evidence points overwhelmingly in that direction. In 1789, women couldn't even transfer citizenship.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:45 pm

rjaypeters wrote:Words fail...almost.

GOP Pulls Libya War Powers Resolution from the Floor Because it Might Pass
June 1, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

Quote:"The House Republican leadership is worried that Congress might stand up to the Obama Administration and assert its constitutional prerogative as the only branch of government that can declare war. The House was scheduled to vote this afternoon on a a privileged resolution from Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] directing the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. But the House leadership has pulled it from the floor because, according to Republican aides who spoke with Fox News, “it became clear that it might succeed.”

[Snip]

And a separate problem. Last paragraph, emphasis mine:

"House Republicans have been actively working to expand presidential war powers. They recently added language to the annual Defense authorization bill that expands presidential authority to use military force without consent from Congress against virtually anybody suspected of being a terrorist, anywhere in the world (including domestically), indefinitely. Obviously, the growing support for Kucinich’s resolution is a significant challenge to their unilateral-executive-war-power agenda. So, it’s been postponed, supposedly “in an effort to compel more information and consultation’ from the Administration,” but actually just to give the Republican leadership more time to twist arms."

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... Might-Pass

Does anyone know a country where the people speak some dialect of the English language and respect the rule of law?

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Entrenched Republicans are almost as big of a problem as Democrats. Term Limits is one possible improvement.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:54 pm

Giorgio wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:Words fail...almost.
I always thought you had a stable set of rules in the US, but it looks like they are really overthrowing all of them.

That's quite scary IMHO.

As i've mentioned before. If we had the rule of law, we wouldn't have the current guy in the White House, and half the stuff Congress and the President's have done for the last 100 years wouldn't have happened. (Confiscating people's Gold?)

I recently read that the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that police can break your door down without a search warrant. Here in my state, they can seize and destroy your house without a court order, they force us to buy insurance to use the public roads, force us to wear seat belts because they say so, and intrude upon our daily lives and preferences in dozens of presumptuous ways.

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:15 pm

Betruger wrote:But this instance is much more than mundane political quibbling. It's nothing less than trivialization of the Constitution.

You say potato...

I'm pretty sure the politicians collectively don't care what direction their actions are taking the nation, they care about what is in their own self interests. That frequently translates into the better interests of their own party. That frequently overlaps with the better interests of the country.

My take is simply that there isn't as likely a coordinated effort by elected officials to undermine the constitution. It just so happens that their petty politicking winds up doing so, but unless and until that affects their own prospects for power, they really don't care.

That's why the Reps are acting as weird as they are in avoiding seeing their own bill pass. They want to score as many points as they can with their bill attacking Obama's actions. The trouble is they over reached and have a bill demanding a withdrawal from Libya, instead of one demanding a vote from congress. Now they are in the boat of not wanting the bill to pass, because they really don't want to be labeled with the withdrawal from Libya. They wanted to have their cake and eat it to by trying to force Obama to withdraw, they don't want to have to share in the storm.

Politics only make any sense what so ever if you presume politicians will behave in the most selfishly sociopathic manner imaginable.

Unless a grand conspiracy to undermine the constitution is in their own future self interest they will only support it accidentally while pursuing their own shorter sighted self interests.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:49 am

Kucinich is the author of the legislation Boehner quashed. Kucinich is openly a socialist.

I would have to guess that his legislation was grossly hamhanded compared to the task. The War Power Act is a not a sophisticated way to shape policy, at least not in the most upbrupt interpretations of it.

The power to make war is ultimately the power of the purse, which Congress exclusively has. They can throw a fiscal switch and deprive the military of the funds to even so much as legally come home.

Boehner has offered his own bill to bring the White House to heel, and I have not heard of it's being inadequate.

I suspect, given it's author, that Kucinich's bill was inadequate.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:28 am

If we had the rule of law, we wouldn't have the current guy in the White House, and half the stuff Congress and the President's have done for the last 100 years wouldn't have happened. (Confiscating people's Gold?)

If you take alcohol prohibition as an example - drug prohibition has been a Constitutional botch. Not to mention that we are relearning what we learned from alcohol prohibition. Prohibition regimes finance criminals. With the added fillip this time of also supporting terrorists.

We have two brain dead political factions in this country and they fall right in line if you use the right dog whistle. For the left it is:

TAXES, TAXES, TAXES

and the right comes when you call

MORALITY, MORALITY, MORALITY

Neither side believes there are trade offs (raising tax rates collects less money) and (there are moral trade offs - we may have to suffer vice in order to prevent an outbreak of crime).

choff · Post by **choff** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:12 am

Canada has good snipers, but to me the scariest guys fighting on our side in Afghanistan are the Ghurkas from Nepal. Just lately one of them was awarded by the British for taking out over 30 Taliban attacking his position. Every time I hear a new story about these guys it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Case in point, during WW2, the Ghurkas used to tell allied sentries not to wear captured German army boots at night. I'll let anyone who reads this guess as to why.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:28 pm

At last! Perhaps late is better than never.

"Boehner warns Obama that Libya will violate war powers"

By: Susan Ferrechio 06/14/11 3:34 PM
Chief Congressional Correspondent Follow us @Examinerpolitic

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent President Obama a letter Tuesday afternoon warning him that the operation in Libya will be violating the War Powers Resolution by this Sunday, which marks the 90th day of U.S. military involvement in the country.

Boehner wants "a clear explanation of the legal standing under the War Powers Resolution," that Obama is using to justify continuing the operations behind Sunday.

The letter is below.

[Snip]

"Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions:

Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached?

Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch?

In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011?

Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011."

[Snip]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... war-powers

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:22 am

How is that Libyan campaign going? Four months and counting...

"NATO claimed responsibility for the bombing raid on state television headquarters. Just a few hours after the attack, the alliance said it was aimed at "silencing (Moammar) Gadhafi's terror broadcasts."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07 ... index.html

For contrast, think about this quotation:

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good..." - Sun Tzu

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:12 am

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good..." - Sun Tzu

Taken out of context IMHO. Time and place,... time and place.

War is about the object. What is the object?

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:20 am

Yes, a single quote from Sun Tzu is taken out of context.

What does "time and place" mean here?

"What is the object?" I don't know. Let the people who favor the dropping of bombs answer.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:16 pm

All lot of "Sun Tzu" statements are best understood when applied to the feudal world of China. That is the time and place. Folks tend to think they are completely universal in time and place, and that is not entirely the case when taken as a sum total (which was the intent).

In the case of Lybia, it is a wonderful case for consideration of the core question of war, "What is the Object?". This is not something that only applies to the "bomb droppers". It is how the war as a whole is viewed by all, which includes the Clauswitzian people. When regarding Lybia, you could sya the object has changed three times (which may or many not be a good thing). First was "Contain", Second was "reduce", And now we are in what I term "Reluctant Removal". Reluctant in that not all players agree with the object. Now from the "enemy" side, the object has never changed, "Stay in power". This is what has made Lybia an intersting case. In the end, although the allied side has had a complete goat rope for strategy (because of object instability), the allied side will probably win out due to shere resources.

Notice also that I have thus far stayed out of the Just War concept, although it does play significantly in Object consideration.