Jump to content

Ten Congressmen Sue President Obama Over Libya Mission, War Powers Act


lord_casek

Recommended Posts

But it does apply. If this guy is spouting shit about presidential powers reaching into assassination of American citizens, he's automatically deemed full of shit and cannot be

trusted.

 

But what does that have to do with Libya and how does he trump a legal opinion by an attorney general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

wait, talk about changing subjects, lets talk about changing POSITIONS.

first you are trying to argue the war powers act is 'unconstitutional' because it LIMITS executive power. now you are saying the constitution is not a 'fixed' document. (then you have no problem with eliminating the first amendment? after all, the constitution is 'living' you see. and next time you are charged with a crime, we'll be sure to take away your jury trial. no need for this in the new living constitutional land) if the document is not 'fixed' then 'unconstitutional' is meaningless. so your entire logic behind all your previous posts is discredited, if you keep changing what the constitution means. you cant find anything in it about engaging in aggressions against other nations, so you resort to some BS put out by the same people who claim they can constitutionally assassinate american citizens. (which you claim as irrelevant, but any sane person would see this as this administration knows absolutely no limits to its own powers. so citing these jokers is like josef stalin citing a show trial)

 

everything in the constitution is easily applied to the modern world. the first amendment obviously protects free speech on the net, digital media and in print form from newspapers printed on high speed printing presses. amendments are passed by 2/3 majority vote and ratification by 3/4 of the states. amendments fine and dandy. they are hardly used anymore. but they are what is needed to make the federal government have jurisdiction on that specific issue if it isnt already in the constitution.

 

since you are a firm believer in judicial review, you'd be surprised to know that marshall also wrote in the opinion that laws and actions that are 'repugnant' to the constitution are 'null and void'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position has not changed and you can not admit to losing. You have no idea about the constitution or legal precedent. Everything you just said shows that.

 

Libya is well within the presidents constitutional rights and is backed up by legal cases that explain it. Just because you do not understand it or accept it, does not make it false. It just shows us that you are not able to be logical and are an extremist.

 

Stop grasping at a false agreement that legal precedent has no play in interpreting the constitution, because it does, and if you can not understand that, then you are seriously misguided by whatever crackpot that is leading you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what does that have to do with Libya and how does he trump a legal opinion by an attorney general?

 

 

You quoted the attorney general, so did AOD. If he says that the president can call for an assassination of an American citizen, he cannot be trusted. Nothing the AG says can ever be trusted. He's a traitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe casek but that has nothing to do with Libya and if that I legal or not. An opinion artcke is exactly that, an opinion.

 

hahaha.

so you are denying that this happened? that the obombya administration went to court over this assassination business?

 

for fucks sake...read the damn thing yourself. al aulaqi vs obama

http://aclu-nca.org/sites/default/files/docs/docket/Aulaqi.31.decision.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

 

Go draw a L on your mirror and stand in front of it.

 

Btw, show me something in the attorney generals paper that is not true.

 

the entire thing is not true, because there is no authority in the constitution to base the case on.

none. nadda. zip. you cant show it to me. it does not exist. all that AG 'press release' is them saying they are going whatever they want and that is the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the entire thing is not true, because there is no authority in the constitution to base the case on.

none. nadda. zip. you cant show it to me. it does not exist. all that AG 'press release' is them saying they are going whatever they want and that is the end of it.

 

Hahaha you do not understand how the different branches of the government work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it one of those many cases in that paper?

 

I did not research individually all those cases cited, because there was alot of them.

 

How does that case relate to Libya?

 

Edit, I just went through and reread that opinion paper. Where did I cite that and I still do not see how it applies to what we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go big guy, read the whole thing:

From the Attorney Generals office/B]

 

Key part, with references to court cases

 

"The Constitution, to be sure, divides authority over the military between the President and Congress, assigning to Congress the authority to “declare War,” “raise and support Armies,” and “provide and maintain a Navy,” as well as general authority over the appropriations on which any military operation necessarily depends. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 11-14. Yet, under “the historical gloss on the ‘executive Power’ vested in Article II of the Constitution,” the President bears the “‘vast share of responsibility for the conduct of our foreign relations,’” Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 414 (2003) (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610-11 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)), and accordingly holds “independent authority ‘in the areas of foreign policy and national security.’” Id. at 429 (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 291 (1981)); see also, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S.

6

Authority to Use Military Force in Libya

at 635-36 n.2 (Jackson, J., concurring) (noting President’s constitutional power to “act in external affairs without congressional authority”). Moreover, the President as Commander in Chief “superintend the military,” Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 772 (1996), and “is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command.” Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850); see also Placing of United States Armed Forces Under United Nations Operational or Tactical Control, 20 Op. O.L.C. 182, 184 (1996). The President also holds “the implicit advantage . . . over the legislature under our constitutional scheme in situations calling for immediate action,” given that imminent national security threats and rapidly evolving military and diplomatic circumstances may require a swift response by the United States without the opportunity for congressional deliberation and action. Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization, 4A Op. O.L.C. 185, 187 (1980) (“Presidential Power”); see also Haig, 453 U.S. at 292 (noting “‘the changeable and explosive nature of contemporary international relations, and the fact that the Executive is immediately privy to information which cannot be swiftly presented to, evaluated by, and acted upon by the legislature’” (quoting Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965)). Accordingly, as Attorney General (later Justice) Robert Jackson observed over half a century ago, “the President’s authority has long been recognized as extending to the dispatch of armed forces outside of the United States, either on missions of goodwill or rescue, or for the purpose of protecting American lives or property or American interests.” Training of British Flying Students in the United States, 40 Op. Att’y Gen. 58, 62 (1941)."

 

 

There ya go. You cited the AG here.

 

and Here. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, because I cited the AG, that means that every case that they have anything to deal with applies to what we are talking about? How does that article or even that case that AOD cited have anything to do with Libya and the US being involved?

 

Edit, the opinion article and case record seem to be just a try at changing the subject from AOD because he has nothing of substance to back up his claims other then him saying he is right and I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, because I cited the AG, that means that every case that they have anything to deal with applies to what we are talking about? How does that article or even that case that AOD cited have anything to do with Libya and the US being involved?

 

 

It doesn't. What does is that the AG is not someone you can trust. Therefore, anything he says, whether it relates to Libya or space flight should be regarded as complete and utter shit.

He says it's fine to assassinate Americans. Fuck that. he should be arrested on sight, tried,

and strung up in the city center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be right, but his legal opinion is what he has to defend if this case ever goes to court. He has cited all the legal precedent which brings him to his conclusion that it is legal. He might be wrong, but I have yet to see any legal precedent against it. All I see is people on the news and here that say they do not like it and it is wrong without really saying why that is.

 

Right or wrong, he has backed up his position more then the opposing side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideological views will not match up with reality, it is all good and well talking rights and wrongs but these are our opinions, if legal precident has been set then the law trumps our ideological rights or wrongs. I don't agree with it but it doesn't stop it being fact whether it is right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...