Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[JoeTheJuggler]

The origin of this, I think, was nuclear weapons. The existence of nuclear weapons, and particularly ICBM nukes, created an existential military threat which Congress would never be able to act on in time, and so some shift in war-making authority had to be transferred to the presidency out of dire necessity, though that never seems to have been properly handled by constitutional clarification.

I agree that nukes were part of it, but I think Vietnam was the main impetus for the War Powers Act.

As for "constitutional clarification", the law itself invoked the "necessary and proper" clause (as being necessary and proper to providing for the common defense, one of the enumerated powers of Congress).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Presidents have been doing this since Korea, at least.

Was there ever a formal declaration in the tripolitian wars?

 

[Toontown]

Didn't the UN pass a resolution authorizing the no-fly zone?

Doesn't the constitution require that the US honor international agreements?

Didn't the US sign the UN charter?

Isn't it true that UN military interventions are viewed as police actions, rather than "attacks", under international law?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Irrelevant.

Obama can still do it and can generally get away with it for 60 days. It's the limitations of the Act. He's not ignoring the law for 60 days.

(Incidentally, BaC: Yes, congratulations, you are catching the democrats in hypocrisy. Also irrelevant. Like all politicians they say one thing out of power and another in power: if you want a good example of this, watch the Daily Show archives - they've caught both parties doing this, will catch both parties doing this, and it's a standard element of politics: When out of power talk. When in power, ignore what you said.)

 

[CptColumbo]

I don't think you're recalling correctly. In fact, I'm not sure where that idea came from. What treaty that Congress ratified do you think authorizes this use of military force?

I think maybe you're thinking of SOFA agreements which are usually negotiated and ratified after we have been involved militarily somewhere for some time, or at least as part of establishing U.S. military bases on foreign soil.

The UN charter and NATO.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So many presidents have done it "to protect America's interests" that I can't see starting a big hullabaloo over this instance. And I hate B.O.

I do too, and that's why I use Old Spice.


Come on people, three pages and no one made this joke yet?

 

[Toontown]

I was initially disinclined to accept the argument that Congress, by ratifying a treaty that might require military intervention, Congress has provided advanced consent.

I might have changed my mind. The structure of the NATO Charter specificallly allows for a circumstance whereby the US would have engaged in war (presumably) with the Soviet Union without first gaining the approval of Congress or even possibly the President.

It seems reasonable to argue that the UN Charter might demand the same of us, no matter how hard I try to see an iron-clad argument to the contrary.

The UN charter demands nothing of the U.S., for the simple reason that the U.S. has veto power in the U.N.S.C. - a fact which has been largely overlooked in the argument to this point.

 

[BeAChooser]

Incidentally, BaC: Yes, congratulations, you are catching the democrats in hypocrisy. Also irrelevant. Like all politicians they say one thing out of power and another in power

But, but, but ...

We were promised change. A more honest administration. A more transparent one. And no, not all politicians have been as hypocritical as democrats are now demonstrating in full view of everyone.

By the way, Biden and Obama are not the only ones whose tune has changed ...

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/hillary-clinton-2007-if-adm-believes.html

Hillary Clinton 2007: "If The Adm. Believes Any Use of Force Against Iran Is Necessary, The President Must Come to Congress to Seek That Authority"

 

[Meadmaker]

Doesn't the constitution require that the US honor international agreements?

No.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

And I wanted a missle pony. Your hyperactive confirmation bias aside, no politician should be neccesarily expected to follow through what they say in different roles for various reason.

 

[theprestige]

And I wanted a missle pony. Your hyperactive confirmation bias aside, no politician should be neccesarily expected to follow through what they say in different roles for various reason.

Ah, memories. KM, your comments take me back to the heady days of 2008, when Obama was campaigning for president, and people across the country were saying, "sure, he's a lying hypocrite just like every other politician, but I'm still voting for him because my faction's lying hypocrite is better than their faction's lying hypocrite!"

Of course I expect all kinds of people to crawl out of the woodwork now, claiming that's what they thought all along. But I'd be interested to see how many of them care to link to their analysis of Obama as a candidate, posted on this board in 2008.

ETA: Tu quoque, vintage 2008, is of course acceptable, if the member in question is willing to admit that's all they had in defense of voting for Obama, at the time.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Ah, memories. KM, your comments take me back to the heady days of 2008, when Obama was campaigning for president, and people across the country were saying, "sure, he's a lying hypocrite just like every other politician, but I'm still voting for him because my faction's lying hypocrite is better than their faction's lying hypocrite!"

Of course I expect all kinds of people to crawl out of the woodwork now, claiming that's what they thought all along. But I'd be interested to see how many of them care to link to their analysis of Obama as a candidate, posted on this board in 2008.

ETA: Tu quoque, vintage 2008, is of course acceptable, if the member in question is willing to admit that's all they had in defense of voting for Obama, at the time.

More like that pretty much all you can judge a candidate by is what they say and what they've done. Like, when Dubya said gay marriage should be left to the states then promoted the amendment banning it, supported the Patient's Bill of Rights in a debate then opposed it in office, budgeted less than promised to fight aids, promised to fully fund energy assistance programs then cut funding, and so on. Nothing too outlandish. A bunch of placate-the-center type promises.

I think it would unfair to rag on Bush supporters for believing him when he made those promises, or at the time of his breaking them demand that they post links to an analysis where they predicted he'd break them or admit being stupid partisan knee-jerk republican-worshippers.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Actually, kinda more cyncial.. regardless, I voted for Obama because I agree more with the general arrows [of his policy]

 

[respect]

More like that pretty much all you can judge a candidate by is what they say and what they've done. Like, when Dubya said gay marriage should be left to the states then promoted the amendment banning it, supported the Patient's Bill of Rights in a debate then opposed it in office, budgeted less than promised to fight aids, promised to fully fund energy assistance programs then cut funding, and so on. Nothing too outlandish. A bunch of placate-the-center type promises.

I think it would unfair to rag on Bush supporters for believing him when he made those promises, or at the time of his breaking them demand that they post links to an analysis where they predicted he'd break them or admit being stupid partisan knee-jerk republican-worshippers.

This, and other things like it, will just serve to teach young, naive Obama voters to be more cynical like every other politician before him has done. Obama only stands out in this regard because he was so popular with young people who weren't familiar with politics.

That politicians routinely do different than they said on the campaign trail happens for a variety of reasons of course. Obama has taken a lot of flack from the left for largely adopting Bush's anti-terror measures despite having criticized them so much before he was president. I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that this wasn't dishonesty on Obama's part, rather that as a young naive politician he found it easy to criticize Bush for abandoning assorted ideals. But as president, he has found that Bush was right about many things that he had previously criticized. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

 

[theprestige]

More like that pretty much all you can judge a candidate by is what they say and what they've done. Like, when Dubya said gay marriage should be left to the states then promoted the amendment banning it, supported the Patient's Bill of Rights in a debate then opposed it in office, budgeted less than promised to fight aids, promised to fully fund energy assistance programs then cut funding, and so on. Nothing too outlandish. A bunch of placate-the-center type promises.

I think it would unfair to rag on Bush supporters for believing him when he made those promises, or at the time of his breaking them demand that they post links to an analysis where they predicted he'd break them or admit being stupid partisan knee-jerk republican-worshippers.

Tu quoque it is, then.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Tu quoque it is, then.

You saw "Bush" (eta: or "Dubya" I suppose, technically) and just turned your brain off, then.

IOW: No.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...bya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action

White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action'

I think Obama just told Congress to KMA.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

... kinetic military action. Points for creative use of words, words, words there

 

[eeyore1954]

I am guessing this is not an attack just an exercise.

I was wrong it was kinectic military action.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...nt-who-goes-to-war-without-authorization.html

Here's how Obama visibly struggled during a South American news conference this week to explain the U.S. national interest now in Libya:

The American people and the United States have an interest, first of all, in making sure that where a brutal dictator is threatening his people, and saying he will show no mercy and go door-to-door and hunt people down and we have the capacity under international sanction to do something about that, I think it’s in America’s national interest to do something about that.

Say what? The ex-state senator who so famously said the U.S. had no business overthrowing the brutal Saddam Hussein poison gas-spewing regime in Iraq is now into ousting Kadafi based on his broadcast threats to "cleanse" Libya of opponents?

So how then is it not in alleged American interests to police brutality in, say, Sudan, Yemen, even China, whose president Obama instead recently hosted at a White House state dinner? How about Syria where authorities killed 15 protestors Wednesday. Or what about North Korea's Kim clan starving millions to live high?

Well, Obama supporters?