Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya

[John F. Kennedy]

Caligula, Vitellius, Domitian were dictators. Stop using dictator so liberally that the word loses its actual meaning.

Which is what I'm trying to point out. Granted I used negative examples, but still. Obama is far from being a dictator.

@Date Harumune
Shame the name of Hitler, Stalin, and all those REAL dictators? You don't want those names to have shame?

I think you missed the point entirely.

[Gaidin]

No I'll use it to describe Obama's move to start an illegal war with the U.S. military without the consent of the people, without Congress. This is a serious matter and only that word can describe the situation at hand. Why do you take the transfer of power from the people to a single person so lightly?

Sorry but in case you didn't know, NATO takes precedence over the War Powers Act which is probably one of the most unconstitutional laws ever passed that our highly conservative SCOTUS would probably love to strike down anyway. Get over it.

[bushbush]

Stop being so emotional. The Constitution is clear about the issue. Libya is an illegal war. Obama is a dictator for using U.S. forces in such a manner. You're argument is akin to saying that because someone got away with murder then it is a tradition and okay. It's weak but you still insist on weak arguments.

Congress will impeach if they want to see their constitutional power to declare war restored to them instead of taken by a dictator like president.

tradition matters in this country. Your own legal system is a precedent-based one. Constitution is NOT very clear on this actually. To me it actually seems rather confusing.

-congress can declare war
-but president is the commander-in-chief

u still haven't answered my question, if presidnet sends out troops to another country, what can congress do to oppose it? Congress can't command the troops. So what it can declare war? Wars are not fought by declaratoins, wars are fought by troops. Thus the core power of war making is at president's hand. History shows presidents repeatedly asserted this power over congress. Lincoln did it. Teddy Roosevelt did it. Every president after war power resolution act ignored it, republican or democrat. What does it tell you?

it tells you this is accepted as tradition and no one is getting impeached.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

I think you missed the point entirely.

I think you don't know the meaning of shame.

Sorry but in case you didn't know, NATO takes precedence over the War Powers Act. Get over it.

In case you didn't know the Constitution of the United States of America takes precedence over NATO and the war powers act. I'm so over it.

[bushbush]

Just curious, what are you own feelings on the matter. Are you generally supportive of the executive having this power?

as u might know, i am not a conservative. But on the executive power, i tend to agree with conservative scholars who read presidential powers more broadly, especially in military and foreign policy. I think it makes sense that way. Military and foreign policy are not suited to long debates participated by many, with votes and procedures going back and forth like how congress does things typically. It requires decisive and quick actions. The executive branch, with pentagon, intelligence community and national security council as supports, is more suited to this role of quickly gathering info, analyzing them, and producing options for the president. I don't like the idea of president asking congress for foreign policy or military decisions. That can get in the way in critical moments.

[Gaidin]

In case you didn't know the Constitution of the United States of America takes precedence over NATO and the war powers act. I'm so over it.

The Constitution says nothing about the President needing congressional approval to deploy troops. Merely that the power to declare war is theirs. To wit: they can declare war, but he can ignore them if he wanted, as they can't order the troops.

[Seether]

In case you didn't know the Constitution of the United States of America takes precedence over NATO and the war powers act. I'm so over it.

Your point is so incorrect it's not even funny; Obama never declared war. I assume you also think the Constitution also takes precidence over the Patriot Act as well?

[John F. Kennedy]

I think you don't know the meaning of shame.

I don't think you even know what I was trying to get across, it went right over your head and back again.

In case you didn't know the Constitution of the United States of America takes precedence over NATO and the war powers act. I'm so over it.

Shall I list the, very recent, wars we've fought that Congress never declared war in?

Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, The Gulf War, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, it's not like Libya is anything new.

Was Bush Sr., Jr., or Clinton impeached for those wars? I don't think so.

And your droll about Obama being a dictator is getting rather old. Here's the actual definition of the word "dictator":

dic·ta·tor

   /ˈdɪkteɪtər, dɪkˈteɪtər/ Show Spelled[dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Last I checked, Obama doesn't have absolute control of anything. We voted for him, and he's leaving shortly (or staying for another 4 years based on OUR votes), and the very fact the Legislative and Judicial Branches are still in control of themselves, in fact going against some of Obama's presidential actions, just underlines the fact he's far from a dictator.

So stop using the word.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

tradition matters in this country. Your own legal system is a precedent-based one. Constitution is NOT very clear on this actually. To me it actually seems rather confusing.

-congress can declare war
-but president is the commander-in-chief

u still haven't answered my question, if presidnet sends out troops to another country, what can congress do to oppose it? Congress can't command the troops. So what it can declare war? Wars are not fought by declaratoins, wars are fought by troops. Thus the core power of war making is at president's hand. History shows presidents repeatedly asserted this power over congress. Lincoln did it. Teddy Roosevelt did it. Every president after war power resolution act ignored it, republican or democrat. What does it tell you?

it tells you this is accepted as tradition and no one is getting impeached.

James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3]

It should be pretty clear to anyone that Obama commenced war without the explicit approval of congress. That is Congress role under the Constitution. I say it over and over again but you ignore it. The Commander in chief is the supreme commander of the military. Generals don't have the power to start wars with other nations. That is not a free society.

The tradition is not what you say at all. We have had many declared wars and we have had many military engagements that were approved by Congress.

Now we have Obama the dictator getting involved on one side of a civil war over "humanitarian reasons".

[John F. Kennedy]

It should be pretty clear to anyone that Obama commenced war without the explicit approval of congress. That is Congress role under the Constitution. I say it over and over again but you ignore it. The Commander in chief is the supreme commander of the military. Generals don't have the power to start wars with other nations. That is not a free society.

The tradition is not what you say at all. We have had many declared wars and we have had many military engagements that were approved by Congress.

Now we have Obama the dictator getting involved on one side of a civil war over "humanitarian reasons".

Did we land any troops in Libya? *looks left, looks right* Nope. We've merely bombed and committed some air strikes. That's not really war.

[Gaidin]

It should be pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that Obama commenced war without the explicit approval of congress. That is Congress role under the Constitution. I say it over and over again but you ignore it. The Commander in chief is the supreme commander of the military. Generals don't have the power to start wars with other nations. That is not a free society.

It should be pretty clear to anyone that the Constitution has no statement in it removing the ability for the President to deploy troops(well, Air Support for a treaty alliance we are a member of really) without Congress' permission.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Shall I list the, very recent, wars we've fought that Congress never declared war in?

Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, The Gulf War, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, it's not like Libya is anything new.

Was Bush Sr., Jr., or Clinton impeached for those wars? I don't think so.

And your point? So? They should have been impeached. Obama should be impeached. We need to bring power back to the people instead of continuing the accumulation of powers into the executive branch.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Did we land any troops in Libya? *looks left, looks right* Nope. We've merely bombed and committed some air strikes. That's not really war.

Like I said before 100 tomahawk missiles on your country and you would be an idiot to think its not really a war. There are special forces on the ground

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...443133798.html

[John F. Kennedy]

And your point? So? They should have been impeached. Obama should be impeached. We need to bring power back to the people instead of continuing the accumulation of powers into the executive branch.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

It should be pretty clear to anyone that the Constitution has no statement in it removing the ability for the President to deploy troops(well, Air Support for a treaty alliance we are a member of really) without Congress' permission.

Uh wrong. They can cut funding. They can impeach him.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

what is the definition of shame?

[Gaidin]

Uh wrong. They can cut funding. They can impeach him.

Uhh, that doesn't deny the President the ability to order the troops without their permission. That's a possible consequence should they get vindictive. Not a constitutional law explicitly saying he can't do it. Learn to tell the difference.

[John F. Kennedy]

what is the definition of shame?

You do not understand a goddamn point I was trying to make, the idea of "sarcasm" alludes you. Or do you not know that word? Obviously Hitler and Stalin were bad people, but that's the goddamn point. Obama isn't rounding up Jews or sending thousands to freeze in Siberian gulags. In fact this whole Libya bit you're making such a big issue out of is minuscule in comparison to past happenings. We haven't landed any troops on the ground, unlike past "undeclared wars". All we've done is provide air support. In fact we're not even a big part of any of this, European NATO members are taking most of the jobs.

You constantly make an issue of of Libya as if it's the ing Apocalypse. You make it look like this one thing makes Obama this evil enemy of democracy, when he's just doing his job. He didn't want Libya, NATO did. US is a NATO member. When NATO needs help, we're OBLIGATED to provide assistance. It takes total precedence over the Constitution, which you constantly bring up as if it's the Ten Commandments. There's a little something called the "elastic clause" in there you know, and the Executive branch is probably one of the weakest branches in the whole set up. It's not gaining any more power than it had back in 1940. Congress still rules. This whole suit against Obama is just a political move, just as impeaching Clinton over something as stupid as cheating on his wife.

tl;dr Stop calling him a dictator when there is far worse he could be doing. It not only takes any spark out of your arguments but it makes you come off as an uneducated 12-year old ranting on over bits and pieces you overheard your staunch Republican father was ranting about.

[bushbush]

It should be pretty clear to anyone that Obama commenced war without the explicit approval of congress. That is Congress role under the Constitution. I say it over and over again but you ignore it. The Commander in chief is the supreme commander of the military. Generals don't have the power to start wars with other nations. That is not a free society.

president isn't just a general. he is the commander-in-chief. Congress isn't. Get over it. James Maddison could have left "make war" in there. The fact that it was left out shows congress' declare power is merely secondary to president's.

Otherwise, why make president the commander-in-chief and take out "make war" from congress' power?

The tradition is not what you say at all. We have had many declared wars and we have had many military engagements that were approved by Congress.

do u deny lincoln, roosevelt, nixon and other presidents all had wars without congress' approval AND after war power resolution was past, it was ignored by all presidents?

the tradition stands on your way, so is the text, which is at best ambigious. Cry me a river if you disagree.

If you really think so, go write a brief to the supreme court about this when the case reaches there. (but i doubt you are even a qualified lawyer.....)

[bushbush]

And your point? So? They should have been impeached. Obama should be impeached. We need to bring power back to the people instead of continuing the accumulation of powers into the executive branch.

that's just stupid. The history and tradition shows president has such power.

your view is just in the extreme and marginal. No one will take you seriously. If you really want to change this, go to law school with me, become a lawyer and litigate this matter in the supreme court. Doubt you have the ability to do that.