War Powers And Disobeying Illegal Orders

[revelarts]

It's seems that Obama doesn't even have the War powers Act to back him up on the Libyan invasion.
I'd assumed that he did based on the chatter in the Media but ...Once again... If you read the Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html) for yourself you'll find it doesn't mean what many assume it does.
The CATO institute posted Republicans Tom McClintock's Break down of the fact that Obama has Zero legal authorization to invade Libya. (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/libya-war-power-impeachment)


Basically he outlines how
War Powers Acts doesn't apply. It clearly state 3 ways for a prez to use military force.

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

So he Does Not have even the "60 days". Which, BTW, has past. Day 1 was illegal.

The constitution clearly states that the Prez cannot attack anyone without congress.

McClintock goes on to point out.
NATO is a defensive treaty. AND Any Military Actions Must have Congressional approval as well.
NATO Treaty states that troops are to be deployed "In accordance with" a member's country's Constitution.
U.N. Military Actions. the U.N Participation acts "Requires" Congressional approval for any military actions.

But Back to the War Powers Act.
It Also says the Prez must give the constitutional reason for any military action.
so Obama has failed there as well

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement...

And Even if Libya did fit the War Powers rule. which obviously it does not.
Congress would STILL have to approve continued military action or the action must STOP.

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, 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.


So here we are.
Obama Is CLEARLY outside the scope of his powers by every legal standard.

So what's a people to do?

Rep McClintock says these suggestions are floating around in congress.
-A bill to remove troops
-A bill to stop all funding
-Put Up a Congressional vote For or against WAR.
-A law that forbids the use of ground troops
-A Concurrent resolution -as per War Powers Act- which doesn't apply.
-Impeach

Impeach and stop funding seems to me the constitutional way to go for congress.
But the Courts have the real power here and can ORDER the prez to recall the troops because it's unconstitutional and he's broken the law in the War Powers Act no matter how it's read.


BUT here's my question to the Military and vets here.
Based on all this Info. this is Clearly an illegal war.
And All the orders to attack Libya are illegal orders.
What is the responsibility of the troops at this point?
Can't any member of the military refuse illegal orders?
Many Officers Resigned during the Bush Admin in protest. However in this case wouldn't refusal be a legitimate option in contrasts to doing so with Bush since he did have "legal" authorization?

Just like the prez, congress and the courts the troops have sworn constitutional obligations. How does that play out here?

Or should the troops just do what the prez and the U.N. says no matter what?

[Gaffer]

I think this is the most impeachable president we have ever had and yet nothing is being done. And any military people that refuse orders to fight the enemy can face court martial. They would have to prove the orders are illegal. Just believing them to be so would not hold up.

They are sworn to uphold the constitution and follow the orders of the CiC. There may be a strategic reason for certain orders that they are not aware of, so by refusing the order they can jeopardize everything. It's not the military's place to judge any thing. That's the duty of congress and the courts, both of which are dallying. The more inaction they show the more power grabbing he'll do. We won't have to worry about elections in 2012, we will have a president for life who rules.

[DragonStryk72]

I think this is the most impeachable president we have ever had and yet nothing is being done. And any military people that refuse orders to fight the enemy can face court martial. They would have to prove the orders are illegal. Just believing them to be so would not hold up.

They are sworn to uphold the constitution and follow the orders of the CiC. There may be a strategic reason for certain orders that they are not aware of, so by refusing the order they can jeopardize everything. It's not the military's place to judge any thing. That's the duty of congress and the courts, both of which are dallying. The more inaction they show the more power grabbing he'll do. We won't have to worry about elections in 2012, we will have a president for life who rules.

As well, since we are in a time of war, that changes the severity of the penalties, up to execution.

[jimnyc]

I wonder where all the dem/liberals are that have been whining about Bush for so many years. Now they have something to actually bitch about, with MUCH more evidence towards legality, and they go silent. Very telling. And very sad what people will allow someone to get away with simply because they have a (D) next to their name.

[J.T]

Or should the troops just do what the prez and the U.N. says no matter what?
Hey man, they're just following orders, right?

[J.T]

I wonder where all the dem/liberals are that have been whining about Bush for so many years.

The same place as the Bush supporters who yell about Obama doing the same shit: having a partisan circle-jerk while they simultaneously take a crap on the American populace and plan their re-election campaigns

[revelarts]

I think this is the most impeachable president we have ever had and yet nothing is being done. And any military people that refuse orders to fight the enemy can face court martial. They would have to prove the orders are illegal. Just believing them to be so would not hold up.So there would be a cort martial and the laywers would bring the facts to court and unless the Courts cave the Military person would be free and technically put and end to the war. (even saying that sounds weird, we have crossed the Rubicon)



They are sworn to uphold the constitution and follow the orders of the CiC.
Sometimes you can do one or the other but not both.




There may be a strategic reason for certain orders that they are not aware of, so by refusing the order they can jeopardize everything. It's not the military's place to judge any thing.
There may be reasons unknown in specific situations but if the whole war is illegal? every shot ever bomb is illegal. Soldiers aren't robots as much as a CiC and some generals might want them to be.




That's the duty of congress and the courts, both of which are dallying. The more inaction they show the more power grabbing he'll do..
Agreeed, the soldiers shouldn't be put in this position.
They have the most to loose either way.
But the politicians and courts don't even have the stones to do their jobs but, again, have left the military twisting in the wind under an Unrestrained president.
the next order could just as easily be "surround the U.S. Capital". A little late for the courts and Congress to reign in the CiC at that point. It seem The Military will have to decide at some point if they are loyal to the CiC or the constitution and the people if the current reps and judges don't step up.




As well, since we are in a time of war, that changes the severity of the penalties, up to execution.
The Military at the point of the spear either way. It's a real freaking shame.



I wonder where all the dem/liberals are that have been whining about Bush for so many years. Now they have something to actually bitch about, with MUCH more evidence towards legality, and they go silent. Very telling. And very sad what people will allow someone to get away with simply because they have a (D) next to their name.
Just a few hardcore anti war types like Kucinich, Cindy Shehan and Glen Greenwald. But most of the rest are EXACTLY as you describe Jim, letting him get away with because he's part of the their tribe.

[revelarts]

the same place as the bush supporters who yell about obama doing the same shit: Having a partisan circle-jerk while they simultaneously take a crap on the american populace and plan their re-election campaigns

doh!!!

Hey Welcome BTW.
Or is it welcome back?

[Gunny]

It's seems that Obama doesn't even have the War powers Act to back him up on the Libyan invasion.
I'd assumed that he did based on the chatter in the Media but ...Once again... If you read the Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html) for yourself you'll find it doesn't mean what many assume it does.
The CATO institute posted Republicans Tom McClintock's Break down of the fact that Obama has Zero legal authorization to invade Libya. (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/libya-war-power-impeachment)

Basically he outlines how
War Powers Acts doesn't apply. It clearly state 3 ways for a prez to use military force.


So he Does Not have even the "60 days". Which, BTW, has past. Day 1 was illegal.

The constitution clearly states that the Prez cannot attack anyone without congress.

McClintock goes on to point out.
NATO is a defensive treaty. AND Any Military Actions Must have Congressional approval as well.
NATO Treaty states that troops are to be deployed "In accordance with" a member's country's Constitution.
U.N. Military Actions. the U.N Participation acts "Requires" Congressional approval for any military actions.

But Back to the War Powers Act.
It Also says the Prez must give the constitutional reason for any military action.
so Obama has failed there as well


And Even if Libya did fit the War Powers rule. which obviously it does not.
Congress would STILL have to approve continued military action or the action must STOP.



So here we are.
Obama Is CLEARLY outside the scope of his powers by every legal standard.

So what's a people to do?

Rep McClintock says these suggestions are floating around in congress.
-A bill to remove troops
-A bill to stop all funding
-Put Up a Congressional vote For or against WAR.
-A law that forbids the use of ground troops
-A Concurrent resolution -as per War Powers Act- which doesn't apply.
-Impeach

Impeach and stop funding seems to me the constitutional way to go for congress.
But the Courts have the real power here and can ORDER the prez to recall the troops because it's unconstitutional and he's broken the law in the War Powers Act no matter how it's read.


BUT here's my question to the Military and vets here.
Based on all this Info. this is Clearly an illegal war.
And All the orders to attack Libya are illegal orders.
What is the responsibility of the troops at this point?
Can't any member of the military refuse illegal orders?
Many Officers Resigned during the Bush Admin in protest. However in this case wouldn't refusal be a legitimate option in contrasts to doing so with Bush since he did have "legal" authorization?

Just like the prez, congress and the courts the troops have sworn constitutional obligations. How does that play out here?

Or should the troops just do what the prez and the U.N. says no matter what?

But don't follow that order and see what happens. The Wehrmacht was in the same position during WWII.

What do you do? Obey an order you know to be wrong and turn on your country .... or sacrifice yourself for nothing?

Right is in the eyes of the beholder and the eventual winner.

Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a leader. When Jimmy's got something over on you, you suck. At least he was a Naval Officer.

[revelarts]

But don't follow that order and see what happens. The Wehrmacht was in the same position during WWII.

What do you do? Obey an order you know to be wrong and turn on your country .... or sacrifice yourself for nothing?

Right is in the eyes of the beholder and the eventual winner.


That's very true,

The only difference with the Wehrmacht is that they we're in a couple of countrys at Germany's boarders, and they had to defend the "homeland" and fellow troops.

Libya is not anywhere close to the U.S. the consequences for the U.S.. mainland, militarily, is near ZERO.

but going to jail and losing pensions, rank and maybe their lives is very real.

But mass refusal or the refusal of a commander and a unit, that would refuses a mission. the higher the rank the more men he could talk to. A whole ship refusing to engage Libya on the grounds that Obama has Illegal orders would be an amazing message. A group of ships comandders doing so and just keeping the ships at sea or slowly retruning to port. Could rock the apple cart it seems to me.

I'm not sure what kind of tensions that would bring on the crew. could be interesting.

But the Constitution is what every soldier gives and oath too.
I don't think that's nothing. DO i want to give my life a the slightlest or every infraction, no. But a some point you draw a line seems to me.
And who wins and who looses and whether it's worth it, is up to God.

But it's easy for me to talk I'm not there.
But personally I would regret ending up on the "winning" side if that side turned out to be the Nazis.

[Gaffer]

Once again Rev, turn to history for examples. The Bolshevik Revolution, the Potemkin, white russians, there's lots of examples right there.

It would really be a matter of commanders listening to their troops and making decisions based on feed back. Moving troops in to quell a riot is one thing. Moving them in to suppress the population or a state is another altogether and would be an illegal act on the part of the president.

I think we are on the verge of the military taking some stance in all of this. When push comes to shove I think the military will simply stand down.

[revelarts]

Once again Rev, turn to history for examples. The Bolshevik Revolution, the Potemkin, white russians, there's lots of examples right there.

It would really be a matter of commanders listening to their troops and making decisions based on feed back. Moving troops in to quell a riot is one thing. Moving them in to suppress the population or a state is another altogether and would be an illegal act on the part of the president.

I think we are on the verge of the military taking some stance in all of this. When push comes to shove I think the military will simply stand down.

I think quite a few will stand down in different situations. Some did so in New Orleans. and didn't confiscate weapons.



Here's another thought that came to mind on this issue.
I expect that a lot of military have not thought through principled constitution resistance or disobedience to illegal orders and just roll on their training, to not question, just do your job etc..
some , who got their citizenship or green cards my never balk at an order for fear of loosing their legal status. ( that's a pleasant thought huh)

But I wonder it the economy really tanked and the was military asked to fight in Afghan, Lybia, Iraq, Yeman but didn't get paid for 3-4 months. Would the missions seem so vital to national interest to put their lives on the line for?
Are these missions critical to the safety of the U.S. that they are worth fighting for ZERO pay? Would soldier be inclined to disobey illegal orders then? heck legal orders?

[Gaffer]

I think quite a few will stand down in different situations. Some did so in New Orleans. and didn't confiscate weapons.



Here's another thought that came to mind on this issue.
I expect that a lot of military have not thought through principled constitution resistance or disobedience to illegal orders and just roll on their training, to not question, just do your job etc..
some , who got their citizenship or green cards my never balk at an order for fear of loosing their legal status. ( that's a pleasant thought huh)

But I wonder it the economy really tanked and the was military asked to fight in Afghan, Lybia, Iraq, Yeman but didn't get paid for 3-4 months. Would the missions seem so vital to national interest to put their lives on the line for?
Are these missions critical to the safety of the U.S. that they are worth fighting for ZERO pay? Would soldier be inclined to disobey illegal orders then? heck legal orders?

Interesting points and questions. I think there would be a lot of individual soul searching and units balking at carrying out commands. As to the Constitutional aspects, the officers would be the most likely to hash through that part and pass their opinions on to the troops under them. At least the good officers will.

Things would depend on how many commanders order their troops to stand down as well. One or two could just mean they would face court martial. Hundreds is another story.

The military is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the president. That's why the dictator wannabe wants his own defense force.

[ConHog]

That's very true,

The only difference with the Wehrmacht is that they we're in a couple of countrys at Germany's boarders, and they had to defend the "homeland" and fellow troops.

Libya is not anywhere close to the U.S. the consequences for the U.S.. mainland, militarily, is near ZERO.

but going to jail and losing pensions, rank and maybe their lives is very real.

But mass refusal or the refusal of a commander and a unit, that would refuses a mission. the higher the rank the more men he could talk to. A whole ship refusing to engage Libya on the grounds that Obama has Illegal orders would be an amazing message. A group of ships comandders doing so and just keeping the ships at sea or slowly retruning to port. Could rock the apple cart it seems to me.

I'm not sure what kind of tensions that would bring on the crew. could be interesting.

But the Constitution is what every soldier gives and oath too.
I don't think that's nothing. DO i want to give my life a the slightlest or every infraction, no. But a some point you draw a line seems to me.
And who wins and who looses and whether it's worth it, is up to God.

But it's easy for me to talk I'm not there.
But personally I would regret ending up on the "winning" side if that side turned out to be the Nazis.



Easier said than done, even as an officer. You are of course expected to evaluate the legality of every given order, but there is a fine line between that and deciding for yourself whether a cause is just.

Lawyers disagree on whether the War Powers Act itself is even legal, let alone if every military action taken by the US is legal. If they can't agree, you certainly can't be upset when the military chooses to follow orders.

[Gunny]

The same place as the Bush supporters who yell about Obama doing the same shit: having a partisan circle-jerk while they simultaneously take a crap on the American populace and plan their re-election campaigns

Try again. The Bush admin/GOP congress may not have accomplished much, but that's preferable to what Obama and a Dem congress has "accomplished". The topic you danced around is the fact that Obama has no authority to involve us militarily in Libya.

The right did not ignore Bush's screw ups and stick their heads in the sand like the left has done since Obama first started running for the Dem primary. Obama lied and the left denied. As a consequence, we'll be lucky if this nation EVER recovers.

[Gunny]

That's very true,

The only difference with the Wehrmacht is that they we're in a couple of countrys at Germany's boarders, and they had to defend the "homeland" and fellow troops.

Libya is not anywhere close to the U.S. the consequences for the U.S.. mainland, militarily, is near ZERO.

but going to jail and losing pensions, rank and maybe their lives is very real.

But mass refusal or the refusal of a commander and a unit, that would refuses a mission. the higher the rank the more men he could talk to. A whole ship refusing to engage Libya on the grounds that Obama has Illegal orders would be an amazing message. A group of ships comandders doing so and just keeping the ships at sea or slowly retruning to port. Could rock the apple cart it seems to me.

I'm not sure what kind of tensions that would bring on the crew. could be interesting.

But the Constitution is what every soldier gives and oath too.
I don't think that's nothing. DO i want to give my life a the slightlest or every infraction, no. But a some point you draw a line seems to me.
And who wins and who looses and whether it's worth it, is up to God.

But it's easy for me to talk I'm not there.
But personally I would regret ending up on the "winning" side if that side turned out to be the Nazis.

What you're suggesting is called treason and mutiny. As gaffer said, you can't just refuse an order because your interpretation of the law says it's unlawful. I'm not saying your point is wrong nor disagreeing with it. As far as military personnel are concerned, I do think it a bit naive. As long as those in charge have their orders in writing and there's even a hint they can be legal or presented as legal, they're going to follow them.

I for one, disagree with anyone in the US military being ordered without consent to serve in a UN or NATO force. The oath of enlistment doesn't cover being subcontracted out to paper tigers.

[KartRacerBoy]

I think this is the most impeachable president we have ever had and yet nothing is being done. And any military people that refuse orders to fight the enemy can face court martial. They would have to prove the orders are illegal. Just believing them to be so would not hold up.

They are sworn to uphold the constitution and follow the orders of the CiC. There may be a strategic reason for certain orders that they are not aware of, so by refusing the order they can jeopardize everything. It's not the military's place to judge any thing. That's the duty of congress and the courts, both of which are dallying. The more inaction they show the more power grabbing he'll do. We won't have to worry about elections in 2012, we will have a president for life who rules.

So you think Reagan should've been impeached for invading Grenada without a declaration of war? What about George Herbert Walker Bush for Panama? Or is it only impeachable becz it's Obama? Isn't invasion a declaration of war and a power left to Congress?

To call Obama the "most impeachable president" is laughable. ALL modern presidents have grabbed power and Obama has done no worse than his predecessors. Disagreeing with policy is not an impeachable offense.

I am torn on the LIbyan intervention. I can see the reasons for it (supporting Europeon strategic reasons and getting a foot in the door of arab states that may become more democratic) but I also sympathize with the reasons not to do it.

The other question for all you original intent type folks is whether a US federal govt that was constrained to the extent you think the Founders intended could exist and survive in the modern world. Could Ron Paul's vision of America be described as "American Exceptionalism"?

[ConHog]

So you think Reagan should've been impeached for invading Grenada without a declaration of war? What about George Herbert Walker Bush for Panama? Or is it only impeachable becz it's Obama? Isn't invasion a declaration of war and a power left to Congress?

To call Obama the "most impeachable president" is laughable. ALL modern presidents have grabbed power and Obama has done no worse than his predecessors. Disagreeing with policy is not an impeachable offense.

I am torn on the LIbyan intervention. I can see the reasons for it (supporting Europeon strategic reasons and getting a foot in the door of arab states that may become more democratic) but I also sympathize with the reasons not to do it.

The other question for all you original intent type folks is whether a US federal govt that was constrained to the extent you think the Founders intended could exist and survive in the modern world. Could Ron Paul's vision of America be described as "American Exceptionalism"?

Oh please Obama has reached MUCH further than past President's in trying to gather power. In fact I would compare him to Franklin Roosevelt in that regard. The difference of course is that Obama has NO chance of equaling Roosevelt's tenure as POTUS.

[Sir Evil]

Obama is black, who cares!:blsmile:


:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

So you think Reagan should've been impeached for invading Grenada without a declaration of war? What about George Herbert Walker Bush for Panama? Or is it only impeachable becz it's Obama? Isn't invasion a declaration of war and a power left to Congress?

To call Obama the "most impeachable president" is laughable. ALL modern presidents have grabbed power and Obama has done no worse than his predecessors. Disagreeing with policy is not an impeachable offense.

I am torn on the LIbyan intervention. I can see the reasons for it (supporting Europeon strategic reasons and getting a foot in the door of arab states that may become more democratic) but I also sympathize with the reasons not to do it.

The other question for all you original intent type folks is whether a US federal govt that was constrained to the extent you think the Founders intended could exist and survive in the modern world. Could Ron Paul's vision of America be described as "American Exceptionalism"?

Wonders really do never cease to exist, I agree with you. Over and over my response to posts about 'impeach now!' is that he hasn't done anything impeachable. Ever since Nixon that has been the cry from the opposition and it's wrong and dangerous.

Obama overreached with Stimulus 2 and health care, while he succeeded with both; for the first time in my lifetime I think the executive has lost power. The problem for the most part, the legislature has failed to fully recoup the power onto themselves, though I think it's starting. How he managed to do this? First as stated, overreach on programs/policies without consultation with Congress, even his own party leaders for the most part; then leaving them out to dry when they went along with him. He had them ram through what he wanted in the face of opposition from the people, not just opposition party.

Second, he spoke too much. People were sick of his hectoring, but lack of his own specifics. He still fails to give specifics of any plans or policies. He only criticizes those that do.

Third, he shows contempt for the citizens of the country. 'They are too busy to pay attention...' He feels that he can manipulate them into class infighting through envy. He demonizes the rich, while treating the rest as children. His hubris is unbound and it is recognized by the majority of people.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh please Obama has reached MUCH further than past President's in trying to gather power. In fact I would compare him to Franklin Roosevelt in that regard. The difference of course is that Obama has NO chance of equaling Roosevelt's tenure as POTUS.

Ya......No. BTW, I'd love to know how you think Obama has overreached MUCH more than prior presidents but you agreee with Kathinanne that the executive has LOST power.

Kathianne, I agree that Obama has a lousy sense of leadership. He waits around in the corners and only steps in at the last minute. On many issues he lets Congress fight it out while setting no agenda. There are times where that's appropriate, but that's ALL he does. That is why his liberal base is angry.

As to manipulating the citizenry, isn't that what politics is all about. Why does it upset you?

[J.T]

Obama is black, who cares!:blsmile:


:laugh2:

Racist! Obama is post-racial, remember?

[ConHog]

Ya......No. BTW, I'd love to know how you think Obama has overreached MUCH more than prior presidents but you agreee with Kathinanne that the executive has LOST power.

Kathianne, I agree that Obama has a lousy sense of leadership. He waits around in the corners and only steps in at the last minute. On many issues he lets Congress fight it out while setting no agenda. There are times where that's appropriate, but that's ALL he does. That is why his liberal base is angry.

As to manipulating the citizenry, isn't that what politics is all about. Why does it upset you?

You answered your own question KB. In a lot of ways Obama has taken power he shouldn't have AND in a lot of ways he has given up powers he should have. As you say on a lot of issues where the POTUS should be taking the lead, he's nowhere to be found and then all of a sudden here he is mouthing off about shit that frankly he shouldn't be involved in, or appointing czars that answer to no one but him. That's grabbing power.

[KartRacerBoy]

You answered your own question KB. In a lot of ways Obama has taken power he shouldn't have AND in a lot of ways he has given up powers he should have. As you say on a lot of issues where the POTUS should be taking the lead, he's nowhere to be found and then all of a sudden here he is mouthing off about shit that frankly he shouldn't be involved in, or appointing czars that answer to no one but him. That's grabbing power.

That's kRb, sir.

So what do you think of John Roberts and Samuel Alito being appointed to SCOTUS? Both seem to be pro-executive power compared to the other two branches and seem to give a "blank check" to the executive. Given that Obama is the chief executive, I wonder how you view this? Or do you disagree with the common perception? And don't be afraid to ask your wife, ConHog, even if she is on the wrong side of criminal law. :wink:

Kathianne, I'd be interested in hearing your take on this, too.

[Kathianne]

Ya......No. BTW, I'd love to know how you think Obama has overreached MUCH more than prior presidents but you agreee with Kathinanne that the executive has LOST power.

Kathianne, I agree that Obama has a lousy sense of leadership. He waits around in the corners and only steps in at the last minute. On many issues he lets Congress fight it out while setting no agenda. There are times where that's appropriate, but that's ALL he does. That is why his liberal base is angry.

As to manipulating the citizenry, isn't that what politics is all about. Why does it upset you?

Read that again. There's a difference between accomplishing and attempting. ;) We do agree about impeachment though.

There's also a difference between leadership and sense of leadership, I don't think the later means anything? He step in at the last minute not to lead, but to chastise that have and blame everyone that participated, including members of his own party. Thus, he has diminished himself and by nature of the office, the office.

[ConHog]

That's kRb, sir.

So what do you think of John Roberts and Samuel Alito being appointed to SCOTUS? Both seem to be pro-executive power compared to the other two branches and seem to give a "blank check" to the executive. Given that Obama is the chief executive, I wonder how you view this? Or do you disagree with the common perception? And don't be afraid to ask your wife, ConHog, even if she is on the wrong side of criminal law. :wink:

Kathianne, I'd be interested in hearing your take on this, too.

I believe that as per the COTUS , Obama has the right to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court if an opening occurs during his tenure as POTUS, not just judges with whom I agree.

And on SOME things I am pro executive power, when those powers are granted by the COTUS. For example, I myself believe that Bush and Obama both acted within their powers in regards to attacking Iraq and Libya respectively, so I don't always fall on the side of the POTUS should not have a certain power.

As for MrsConHog being on the wrong side of criminal law, she just laughed and said that someone had to take the respectable side of criminal law so that you could go to court and lose.

[KartRacerBoy]

As for MrsConHog being on the wrong side of criminal law, she just laughed and said that someone had to take the respectable side of criminal law so that you could go to court and lose.

:laugh:

It is true. Smart prosecutors tend to win more than 50% of the cases they go to trial on. On the other hand public defenders like Mrs KRB and I don't have the privilege of picking their cases/clients.

As to the Roberts/Alito issue, my question is more about the wisdom of such (if you believe it) hyper pro-executive branch positions for a SCt justice. Frankly, I think in an era where the executive branch has been asserting itself more and more, some push back by SCOTUS would be nice, at least in SOME areas. I'm not sure of the wisdom of pushing back in foreign policy/war powers in the modern world, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see it somewhere.

[ConHog]

:laugh:

It is true. Smart prosecutors tend to win more than 50% of the cases they go to trial on. On the other hand public defenders like Mrs KRB and I don't have the privilege of picking their cases/clients.

As to the Roberts/Alito issue, my question is more about the wisdom of such (if you believe it) hyper pro-executive branch positions for a SCt justice. Frankly, I think in an era where the executive branch has been asserting itself more and more, some push back by SCOTUS would be nice, at least in SOME areas. I'm not sure of the wisdom of pushing back in foreign policy/war powers in the modern world, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see it somewhere.

LOL - Think my wife is more around 80% , but truth be told she doesn't spend much time in court. Small town, most of the arrests are for stupid shit done by stupid shits and they simply plead guilty and move on.

She is however involved in a murder trial right now , I doubt they reach any kind of plea. Well actually I wouldn't be surprised if the victim's family blows the damn jail up to kill the guy long before we go to court, these mofos are crazy, I can't even believe this dude killed their kin.

[Kathianne]

That's kRb, sir.

So what do you think of John Roberts and Samuel Alito being appointed to SCOTUS? Both seem to be pro-executive power compared to the other two branches and seem to give a "blank check" to the executive. Given that Obama is the chief executive, I wonder how you view this? Or do you disagree with the common perception? And don't be afraid to ask your wife, ConHog, even if she is on the wrong side of criminal law. :wink:

Kathianne, I'd be interested in hearing your take on this, too.

I'm a bit confused with the question, see bolded. Remind me if I'm forgetting something, but there's 3 branches, which 2 are you referring two? I'll assume agreement that the executive wants the executive branch to have most power possible.

Rather than sending us all to look up cases, can you summarize with some particulars on what you are referring to regarding being 'blank checks' to the executive? Scalia certainly seems to have been with them on case I find cited, Hamdan.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm a bit confused with the question, see bolded. Remind me if I'm forgetting something, but there's 3 branches, which 2 are you referring two? I'll assume agreement that the executive wants the executive branch to have most power possible.

Rather than sending us all to look up cases, can you summarize with some particulars on what you are referring to regarding being 'blank checks' to the executive? Scalia certainly seems to have been with them on case I find cited, Hamdan.

Of course I'm talking about the SCt and Congress ceding power to the executive. Or was I referring to the United Nationn as the 4th branch? I just can't remember.

I'm not talking about any SCt cases in particular, but I am rather referring to the popular media perception that Alito and Roberts tend to defer to the Executive branch. Do you think the executive has too much power in certain areas? Where?

Certainly this is a 3 way (4 way?) tug of war that ebbs and surges towards one branch or another, but since the era of the Warren court, I'd say that the power has been piling up on the executive side of things, rather than SCOTUS or Congress.

[Kathianne]

Of course I'm talking about the SCt and Congress ceding power to the executive. Or was I referring to the United Nationn as the 4th branch? I just can't remember.

I'm not talking about any SCt cases in particular, but I am rather referring to the popular media perception that Alito and Roberts tend to defer to the Executive branch. Do you think the executive has too much power in certain areas? Where?

Certainly this is a 3 way (4 way?) tug of war that ebbs and surges towards one branch or another, but since the era of the Warren court, I'd say that the power has been piling up on the executive side of things, rather than SCOTUS or Congress.

Well excuse me! It seemed to me that you were saying the court was leaning pro-executive, as with those members you listed, plus the liberal faction, you've got only Clarence Thomas for restricting the executive, no? Yeah, an assumption on my part that Stevens in this case would make it 8-1.

Actually I don't see the executive having 'too much power' in a Constitutional sense, rather I see that Congress over the last century and a half has abdicated powers given to it. I see the SCOTUS occasionally ruling that the executive cannot do certain legislative actions, that the Congress must.

[KartRacerBoy]

Was my implication of world govt too cheeky for you Kathianne? :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Was my implication of world govt too cheeky for you Kathianne? :laugh:

It's good that you amuse yourself. :cool:

Now you asked for my thoughts, I tried to give you some of how I think. Your only response is a smiley? That's not the start of a great conversation.

I'm wondering if by my response, I'm addressing what you are asking?

[KartRacerBoy]

It's good that you amuse yourself. :cool:

Now you asked for my thoughts, I tried to give you some of how I think. Your only response is a smiley? That's not the start of a great conversation.

I'm wondering if by my response, I'm addressing what you are asking?

Good lord women. Having been married 18 years, intellectual mastubation is all I've got. You would take that from me too???

But I asked real questions, and I think you've given me your answers.

[Kathianne]

Good lord women. Having been married 18 years, intellectual mastubation is all I've got. You would take that from me too???

But I asked real questions, and I think you've given me your answers.

Well then? A response, argument, agreement?

[logroller]

intellectual mastubation

:laugh:


Well then? A response, argument, agreement?

He's already asleep. How very stereotypical.

[Kathianne]

Hey KRB, I researched and thought about your premise. Surprised? Don't be. I've an inquiring mind, which you in this thread at least, seem to lack.

Should the President have the right to involve him/her self in the actions regarding a strike? The most recent 'big strike' is Verizon where the workers are now going back (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110821/NEWS01/108210310), under previous contract. What if though, it were a national strike? Would the outcome be different?

What about executive privilege? Something I'm certain Nixon, Clinton, Bush would have found interesting. Where should it fall? Are you claiming that Robers, Alito would have come down on Nixon's side? There's lots not to agree with there.

Seriously, I'm curious to why you brought the topic up and then bailed.

[KartRacerBoy]

Hey KRB, I researched and thought about your premise. Surprised? Don't be. I've an inquiring mind, which you in this thread at least, seem to lack.

Should the President have the right to involve him/her self in the actions regarding a strike? The most recent 'big strike' is Verizon where the workers are now going back (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110821/NEWS01/108210310), under previous contract. What if though, it were a national strike? Would the outcome be different?

What about executive privilege? Something I'm certain Nixon, Clinton, Bush would have found interesting. Where should it fall? Are you claiming that Robers, Alito would have come down on Nixon's side? There's lots not to agree with there.

Seriously, I'm curious to why you brought the topic up and then bailed.


What is your problem, women? I try to give you respect and all you do is get snooty. Bail? Sorry if I dont sit on the internet awaiting the "brilliant" posts flowing from your great curiosity. Get over yourself.

[Gaffer]

What is your problem, women? I try to give you respect and all you do is get snooty. Bail? Sorry if I dont sit on the internet awaiting the "brilliant" posts flowing from your great curiosity. Get over yourself. Kath asked some questions. I would expect a whizbang like yourself to be able to respond to them. And no one is expecting an immediate answer. Everyone has a life. All you had to do was give her an answer or say I'll get back with you. "What's your problem woman" is a typical liberal response. I think it's you that needs to get over yourself. Your horse isn't so high it can't be hobbled. get back with her when you have time and save the insults for conhog.

[KartRacerBoy]

Hey KRB, I researched and thought about your premise. Surprised? Don't be. I've an inquiring mind, which you in this thread at least, seem to lack.

Should the President have the right to involve him/her self in the actions regarding a strike? The most recent 'big strike' is Verizon where the workers are now going back (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110821/NEWS01/108210310), under previous contract. What if though, it were a national strike? Would the outcome be different?

What about executive privilege? Something I'm certain Nixon, Clinton, Bush would have found interesting. Where should it fall? Are you claiming that Robers, Alito would have come down on Nixon's side? There's lots not to agree with there.

Seriously, I'm curious to why you brought the topic up and then bailed.

I do think that Roberts and Alito would look at executive privlege very broadly and defer to the president's power.

There was a case involving Congress and FBI investgating a member by getting a subpoena to search the Congressman's records. I don't know if it got to the SCt but I would expect Roberts and Alito to allow such a search, despite the claim that it violates separation of powers. I would also agree with them on that point. Congress can't police itself.

I think the greatest expansion of executive power is in national security. With the advent of nuclear weapons, the President can essentially declare war by ordering ICBMs to be launched without Congressional authorization. Surely that is a violation of Congress' power to declare war, but no one calls it becz that's the reality with ICBMs. You don't have time to convene Congresss. However, I think is was the first hole in the dike that allowed the president to order military strikes on countries we haven't declared war on.

I'm not sure I agree with you on executive "legislating." If the Republican Senate leader's plan to allow Pres Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling had gone through, that would've surely been allowing the the executive to take essentially legislative action. I've heard in the past some conservatives argue that executive regulatory bodies writing rules/regs to implement Congressional legislation was executive usurption of legislative power, but I don't buy it. As long as Congress authorizes the regulatory agency to issue regulations, that's ok, IMO. One exception was the recent SCt case on the Clean Air Act when the EPA sought to develop regulations on CO2 due to the threat of climate change. I believe anthropomorphic induced climate change is real, but I disagreed with the SCt. I don't think CO2 regs would fall under the Clean Air Act and I think such regulations would require additional Congressional legislation. And I worked in the EPA's Climate Change Program in the Office of Policy Analysis.

[ConHog]

Kath asked some questions. I would expect a whizbang like yourself to be able to respond to them. And no one is expecting an immediate answer. Everyone has a life. All you had to do was give her an answer or say I'll get back with you. "What's your problem woman" is a typical liberal response. I think it's you that needs to get over yourself. Your horse isn't so high it can't be hobbled. get back with her when you have time and save the insults for conhog.


Hey, how did I get dragged into this? :dance:

I to have had people post something in response to me after I've logged off for the night, or at least a little while , and then demand to know why I ran. KartBoy that is just odd behavior, some of us do occasionally wander off the board.

As for the question about strikes. Well I certainly do think that in the case of a private company versus labor that the POTUS should not have any input, but if you're talking about something similar to the FAA strike when Reagan stepped in, that's a little different.

[Gunny]

Hey, how did I get dragged into this? :dance:

I to have had people post something in response to me after I've logged off for the night, or at least a little while , and then demand to know why I ran. KartBoy that is just odd behavior, some of us do occasionally wander off the board.

As for the question about strikes. Well I certainly do think that in the case of a private company versus labor that the POTUS should not have any input, but if you're talking about something similar to the FAA strike when Reagan stepped in, that's a little different.

Yeah, that's a cheesewhistle accusation. I've had people that would wait until they KNEW I was off the board before logging on to accuse me of running off. Not like some people have to work, eat, sleep, etc. And just might want to speak to the humanoids in their houses on occasion.

[KartRacerBoy]

Hey, how did I get dragged into this? :dance:

I to have had people post something in response to me after I've logged off for the night, or at least a little while , and then demand to know why I ran. KartBoy that is just odd behavior, some of us do occasionally wander off the board.

As for the question about strikes. Well I certainly do think that in the case of a private company versus labor that the POTUS should not have any input, but if you're talking about something similar to the FAA strike when Reagan stepped in, that's a little different.

I was actually getting quietly drunk on scotch last night at a neighbor's house. When someone invites me to drink their single malts, I try to humour them.

As to the strike thing, there was a famous case under Truman I believe when he tried to nationalize the steel industry during a strike. during the Korean war. The SCt shut that down pretty fast. As for the air traffic controllers, they actually had a no-strike contract as part of their govt employment. REagan was perfectly within his rights to say "bye." He did nothing outside of his powers.

[Gunny]

I was actually getting quietly drunk on scotch last night at a neighbor's house. When someone invites me to drink their single malts, I try to humour them.

As to the strike thing, there was a famous case under Truman I believe when he tried to nationalize the steel industry during a strike. during the Korean war. The SCt shut that down pretty fast. As for the air traffic controllers, they actually had a no-strike contract as part of their govt employment. REagan was perfectly within his rights to say "bye." He did nothing outside of his powers.

Interesting. Two things immediately stand out in your post.

One, you choice of alcoholic beverage begs questioning your judgment and taste.

Two, you use Old English. "Humour" is a dead giveaway.

The President, regardless who it is, should have the authority to quell a strike that cripples this nation in any way. A strike by steel workers during a war? Really?

It's leftist bullshit that puts the individual and his/her selfish, self-serving whims ahead of the nation. Not to mention just stupid and self-defeating. The left takes for granted those that provide it the right to flap their gums and criticize everything while contributing nothing. As usual, willfully blind to the fact that if someone wasn't out there protecting their asses, they wouldn't be saying shit. Their weak asses would have died long ago in some labor camp because they're too weak to survive without Big Brother along with some Kimwipes and Huggies.

[KartRacerBoy]

Interesting. Two things immediately stand out in your post.

One, you choice of alcoholic beverage begs questioning your judgment and taste.

Two, you use Old English. "Humour" is a dead giveaway.

The President, regardless who it is, should have the authority to quell a strike that cripples this nation in any way. A strike by steel workers during a war? Really?

It's leftist bullshit that puts the individual and his/her selfish, self-serving whims ahead of the nation. Not to mention just stupid and self-defeating. The left takes for granted those that provide it the right to flap their gums and criticize everything while contributing nothing. As usual, willfully blind to the fact that if someone wasn't out there protecting their asses, they wouldn't be saying shit. Their weak asses would have died long ago in some labor camp because they're too weak to survive without Big Brother along with some Kimwipes and Huggies.


You're just jealous of the scotch because you're still living on a lifetime supply of Jagermeister. Sucks to be you! :laugh:

And I wanted the word "humor" to be BIGGER. Just like all those idiots that say "historical" instead of "historic," as if an extra syllable makes them smarter. As the English know, only a "u" can accomplish that.

And you support forced nationalization by the American govt? WTF are you? A Socialist? Big Brother? Or are you truly ignorant as to what real socialism is?

As to the rest of your blind hatred, it doesn't deserve a response. Actually, none of your post really deserved a response.

[Kathianne]

Hmmm, KRB seems to want a comment here from me? I guess about Truman and the labor issues with Steel Industry. Reading through this wiki post, I remember reading the case years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer


I'm not sure what you are looking for, that there's a past case against the executive trying to seize power and today's court seems to be heading the other way? I think that was the premise of earlier assertion?

BTW, my use of 'bail' earlier, wasn't so much about answering 'on demand,' for the same reasons you mentioned, real life, I don't like folks that do that either. In fact, my post using that was in response to this of yours:


Good lord women. Having been married 18 years, intellectual mastubation is all I've got. You would take that from me too???

But I asked real questions, and I think you've given me your answers.

I was hoping for, but certainly not demanding that you respond with something.

[KartRacerBoy]

Hmmm, KRB seems to want a comment here from me? I guess about Truman and the labor issues with Steel Industry. Reading through this wiki post, I remember reading the case years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer


I'm not sure what you are looking for, that there's a past case against the executive trying to seize power and today's court seems to be heading the other way? I think that was the premise of earlier assertion?

BTW, my use of 'bail' earlier, wasn't so much about answering 'on demand,' for the same reasons you mentioned, real life, I don't like folks that do that either. In fact, my post using that was in response to this of yours:

I was hoping for, but certainly not demanding that you respond with something.

I'm not really looking for anything in particular. What do you think about the president and his commander in chief power since the advent of the bomb? Constitutional? Not? Why? IMO, clearly the bomb and ICBMs are something that changed the world but not the Constitution. Realism demands we be flexible but giving the president the power to help end the world clearly isn't constitutional.

Or what did you think about the debt ceiling deal (McConnell?) proposed? Unconstitutional or not?

[KartRacerBoy]

And Gunny's stand on the whole nationalization of steel industry thing is pretty damn funny. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

I'm not really looking for anything in particular. What do you think about the president and his commander in chief power since the advent of the bomb? Constitutional? Not? Why? IMO, clearly the bomb and ICBMs are something that changed the world but not the Constitution. Realism demands we be flexible but giving the president the power to help end the world clearly isn't constitutional.

Or what did you think about the debt ceiling deal (McConnell?) proposed? Unconstitutional or not?

I've been responding to your questions for awhile now, with little response from you. I'm still awaiting such from my stated opinion that the executive has grown more powerful in response to Congress abdicating their own powers. As far as a president's powers regarding war, seems the framers, you, and I agree that it's regarding this one power, CIC, during war that the powers certainly expand and neither the SCOTUS nor Congress act in ways to curtail. Lincoln of course is the easiest example, but it was observed to be the case in the war of 1812 as well.

[KartRacerBoy]

I've been responding to your questions for awhile now, with little response from you. I'm still awaiting such from my stated opinion that the executive has grown more powerful in response to Congress abdicating their own powers.

I think I already addressed that when I spoke of regulatory agencies of the executive, climate change, etc. And the debt ceiling act.

[Kathianne]

I think I already addressed that when I spoke of regulatory agencies of the executive, climate change, etc. And the debt ceiling act.

I found the posts I think you are referring to. Regarding the president's ability to have invoked the 14th amendment, I think if he'd done so he'd have been in even more hurt than is the case today. That would be saying a lot.

http://volokh.com/2011/08/01/natelson-on-the-14th-amendment-and-the-debt-ceiling/

I also agree with the climate change attempt by SCOTUS, it seems obvious even to non-legal folks that that would take Congress. Which again brings me back to my point that Congress has given up it's role in many ways, being immersed in lobbyist payoffs, not wanting to make laws that may alienate either interests groups or their constituents. Doing nothing is the path of least resistance. When they do 'move' as we saw in health care, they try to take cover behind the executive.

The 'tensions' that should be at work between the branches too often ceases to exist.

[KartRacerBoy]

I found the posts I think you are referring to. Regarding the president's ability to have invoked the 14th amendment, I think if he'd done so he'd have been in even more hurt than is the case today. That would be saying a lot.

http://volokh.com/2011/08/01/natelson-on-the-14th-amendment-and-the-debt-ceiling/

I also agree with the climate change attempt by SCOTUS, it seems obvious even to non-legal folks that that would take Congress. Which again brings me back to my point that Congress has given up it's role in many ways, being immersed in lobbyist payoffs, not wanting to make laws that may alienate either interests groups or their constituents. Doing nothing is the path of least resistance. When they do 'move' as we saw in health care, they try to take cover behind the executive.

The 'tensions' that should be at work between the branches too often ceases to exist.


I don't think I said anything about the 14th amendment. I was talking about Sen. Mitch MConnell's plan to pass legislation to let Pres Obama decide whether and how much to raise the debt ceiling. To me, that looks like Congress abidicating its legislative powers for pure political expediency.

And I look at the EPA thing a bit differently. While I agree Congress is frozen on the issue of climate change, I view it more as the executive branch (the EPA) then moving to assert a power they probably didn't have (regulating CO2 emissions under the CAA). Two different sides of the same coin, I guess.

[Kathianne]

I don't think I said anything about the 14th amendment. I was talking about Sen. Mitch MConnell's plan to pass legislation to let Pres Obama decide whether and how much to raise the debt ceiling. To me, that looks like Congress abidicating its legislative powers for pure political expediency.

And I look at the EPA thing a bit differently. While I agree Congress is frozen on the issue of climate change, I view it more as the executive branch (the EPA) then moving to assert a power they probably didn't have (regulating CO2 emissions under the CAA). Two different sides of the same coin, I guess.

I'd like to see each branch try to stick a bit more closely to their duties as outlined in the COTUS. A budget would be really handy, don't you think?

Rather than abdicating their responsibilities onto the other branches, Congress should take seriously their advise and consent duties, passing legislation that would prevent a collapse as we saw in the housing sector, actual debate the big issues of the day on their positions and why they hold them, rein in the war powers of the president especially on entanglements such as Libya, etc.

[fj1200]

And I look at the EPA thing a bit differently. While I agree Congress is frozen on the issue of climate change, I view it more as the executive branch (the EPA) then moving to assert a power they probably didn't have (regulating CO2 emissions under the CAA). Two different sides of the same coin, I guess.

Or insert the FCC and Net Neutrality. It's either the regulatory powers trying to assert powers that they don't have based on ideological leanings or the POTUS using the agencies to assert that power.


Rather than abdicating their responsibilities onto the other branches, Congress should take seriously their advise and consent duties, passing legislation that would prevent a collapse as we saw in the housing sector, actual debate the big issues of the day on their positions and why they hold them, rein in the war powers of the president especially on entanglements such as Libya, etc.

That will be the day but how do you expect them to prevent collapses? Congress, as an institution, is stupid and unable to pass sensible legislation in the most part so they have less sense to see something coming down the pipe.

[KartRacerBoy]

Rewind. Didn't this thread initially deal with Obama ordering our military to get involved in Libya? So the Libyan govt is collapsing. Do you folks, in restrospect, think the US involvement was gor good or ill?

I liked the principles Obama invoked to support the rebels (supporting democracy and supporting our allies' strategic interests even those interests weren't our own), but I was afraid that our already stretched military was once again being stretched too far.

So we now see the apparent collapse of the Libyan govt. Will it lead to a more democratic (but not necessarily democratic in the absolute sense) govt? I hope so but it clearly isn't guaranteed. Just look at Iraq, a nation we had "boots on the ground" in.

Whadya think?

[Kathianne]

Or insert the FCC and Net Neutrality. It's either the regulatory powers trying to assert powers that they don't have based on ideological leanings or the POTUS using the agencies to assert that power.



That will be the day but how do you expect them to prevent collapses? Congress, as an institution, is stupid and unable to pass sensible legislation in the most part so they have less sense to see something coming down the pipe.

Like Fast & Furious/Gunrunner it's most likely the executive using the agencies for reasons beyond their mandates. I understand to some degree, that those agencies, especially their Secretaries are there to carry out the president's wishes; It's even possible that they are trying to push an agenda they think is the president's and may or not be interpreting their will correctly. It's also possible that with many like minded people, they naturally come to picking policies that will meet their personal opinions. An echo chamber if you will.

Congress certainly could have stepped in to the looming financial mess years before it grew like Topsy. They had warnings, they just ignored them. They took the perks that came from Fannie, personal use and political. Once again the assumption that folks would blame the regulators, if something bad happened. That it could be 'so bad' I don't think they thought about. But they should have. Even Greenspan warned over a year before the collapse that the risks assumed too much on the backs of taxpayers.


Rewind. Didn't this thread initially deal with Obama ordering our military to get involved in Libya? So the Libyan govt is collapsing. Do you folks, in restrospect, think the US involvement was gor good or ill?

I liked the principles Obama invoked to support the rebels (supporting democracy and supporting our allies' strategic interests even those interests weren't our own), but I was afraid that our already stretched military was once again being stretched too far.

So we now see the apparent collapse of the Libyan govt. Will it lead to a more democratic (but not necessarily democratic in the absolute sense) govt? I hope so but it clearly isn't guaranteed. Just look at Iraq, a nation we had "boots on the ground" in.

Whadya think?

I disliked Obama's 'lead from behind' from the get-go. Libya is not a place where democracy is likely to flourish, take a look at Egypt, a far better bet before the revolution. I do not see improvements coming in the ME, far more likely to deteriorate, imo.

[KartRacerBoy]

I didn't mind the "lead from behind" thing. I think we need to support our allies (as they did with us in Afghanistan), isince t was Europeon strategic interests at stake, not ours. I was doubtful that a mere air campaign that denied its goal was to kill Quadafi would actually accomplish anything, but it has actually done ok even if it took much longer than promised.

So it was good for Europe to take command and lead for once. Came at a bad time for their economies, of course, and they needed more of our help than they anticipated.

Of course, this afternoon's news says that Quadafi's forces are rallying in Tripoli, but we'll see. My bet is that Quadafi will be killed. As you note Kathianne, the real gamble is whether anything good will come out of the whole revolution.

[ConHog]

I'm not entirely sure why some of yall believe that recent President's have made a power grab by using the military without Congressional permission. Anyone heard of The Monroe Doctrine? The fact is that we have engaged in war on 187 separate occasions and yet only 4 of those were wars declared by Congress.

[Kathianne]

I'm not entirely sure why some of yall believe that recent President's have made a power grab by using the military without Congressional permission. Anyone heard of The Monroe Doctrine? The fact is that we have engaged in war on 187 separate occasions and yet only 4 of those were wars declared by Congress.According to Wiki there were 5 declarations of war, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8Ink2rDyNbMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States+declaratio ns+of+war+us+congress&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

3 of them involved North and South America, though 1 predated Monroe's administration, War of 1812.

Has Congress always been happy to immunize themselves from possible fallout regarding war? Certainly. Should they be allowed to without criticism? No.

I find it very difficult to use Monroe Doctrine or the Roosevelt Corollary to explain Vietnam, Korea, etc.

[ConHog]

According to Wiki there were 5 declarations of war, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8Ink2rDyNbMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States+declaratio ns+of+war+us+congress&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

3 of them involved North and South America, though 1 predated Monroe's administration, War of 1812.

Has Congress always been happy to immunize themselves from possible fallout regarding war? Certainly. Should they be allowed to without criticism? No.

I find it very difficult to use Monroe Doctrine or the Roosevelt Corollary to explain Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Oops I forgot about the Mexican-American War actually being a declared war.

I understand the thought that the POTUS should not have the power to unilaterally send our military into action; but the COTUS in fact does make him the commander in chief, and does not limit military engagements to declared wars only.

I would concur however that perhaps the Congress should vote on war or not when the POTUS feels military action is justified, but what if just as a political statement they vote no ? Then you have a POTUS who is either cut off at the knees OR you see a POTUS engaging in military action with a public "we do not agree" from Congress.

I just think it's better the way it is.

[Kathianne]

Oops I forgot about the Mexican-American War actually being a declared war.

I understand the thought that the POTUS should not have the power to unilaterally send our military into action; but the COTUS in fact does make him the commander in chief, and does not limit military engagements to declared wars only.

I would concur however that perhaps the Congress should vote on war or not when the POTUS feels military action is justified, but what if just as a political statement they vote no ? Then you have a POTUS who is either cut off at the knees OR you see a POTUS engaging in military action with a public "we do not agree" from Congress.

I just think it's better the way it is.

I'll go along with the CIC having the right to call up military response, but that if the response is going to last more than say 90, Congress must approve of that by a declaration. There shouldn't be any increase in funding for military after the 90 days, without said approval.

[ConHog]

I'll go along with the CIC having the right to call up military response, but that if the response is going to last more than say 90, Congress must approve of that by a declaration. There shouldn't be any increase in funding for military after the 90 days, without said approval.

Agreed 100%. That is the law and it should be followed.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oops I forgot about the Mexican-American War actually being a declared war.

I understand the thought that the POTUS should not have the power to unilaterally send our military into action; but the COTUS in fact does make him the commander in chief, and does not limit military engagements to declared wars only.

I would concur however that perhaps the Congress should vote on war or not when the POTUS feels military action is justified, but what if just as a political statement they vote no ? Then you have a POTUS who is either cut off at the knees OR you see a POTUS engaging in military action with a public "we do not agree" from Congress.

I just think it's better the way it is.


ConHog, you should read "Bomb Power," a book I listed in my Non-Fiction thread. It's entertaining on this issue.

[ConHog]

ConHog, you should read "Bomb Power," a book I listed in my Non-Fiction thread. It's entertaining on this issue.

I'll check it out.


I know my stance here seems to be in conflict with my beliefs in a small federal government , but damn if the US doesn't stand for protecting those who need protection. What does she stand for?