VaultNetwork.netVault Network Boards
Author Topic: Obama's Coup! [Locked]
Sin_of_Onin  4 stars
Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
ill your complaint is noted but it is nothing new. No one with half a brain thinks this is anything new.


It is also in no way controversial or new to suggest that the US builds consensus and can add legitimacy(internationally) to military action through international agreements. That the US as an actor has to worry about the legal authority of our laws but also the legality of action from the standpoint of other nations.


The most interesting part of the video is the obtuse nature of Sessions and the fact it seemed like the general was trolling him.

 

-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
MatrexMistwalker  1 star
Posts: 188
Registered:
I thought the president could authorize small short term actions but it is supposed to take an act of congress to stay in a conflict for an extended time period.
Koneg  3 stars
Title: Evil Genius
Posts: 894
Registered: 2001-12-4 15:31:28
illmyrin posted:

Koneg the way you say that makes me wonder if you believe that's exactly how the Constitution describes the process. You're ideas are a product of 20 years of twisted executive power media arms.

I am reminding you of what the law is, not what you might dream it to be. Unless and until the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional the War Powers Act is the law of the land. Period.


You don't like it? Change the law.


Edit:


MatrexMistwalker posted:

I thought the president could authorize small short term actions but it is supposed to take an act of congress to stay in a conflict for an extended time period.

That's exactly what we're talking about - the War Powers Act.

 

-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun.
|
"Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is
indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
Z-Elder  3 stars
Posts: 671
Registered: 2002-3-15 13:58:39
Koneg posted:

illmyrin posted:

Koneg the way you say that makes me wonder if you believe that's exactly how the Constitution describes the process. You're ideas are a product of 20 years of twisted executive power media arms.

I am reminding you of what the law is, not what you might dream it to be. Unless and until the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional the War Powers Act is the law of the land. Period.

You don't like it? Change the law.

Edit:

MatrexMistwalker posted:

I thought the president could authorize small short term actions but it is supposed to take an act of congress to stay in a conflict for an extended time period.

That's exactly what we're talking about - the War Powers Act.



Boom!

 

-----signature-----
"The poison of our ordinary habits has killed the magic of the moment"
"Men are not in hell because God is angry with them . . .
they stand in the state of division and separation which by their own motion, they have made for themselves"
illmyrin  3 stars
Posts: 705
Registered: 2001-12-25 11:52:26
The War Powers Act was trumped by the War Powers Resolution.... I think Koneg is confusing the two. I'll find.. ok found.


Quote:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."



So What's the Law you're telling me I need to change? Obama ignored this in Libya. Clinton Ignored it in Bosnia. You should be on my side of this argument Koneg. Why aren't you?

 

-----signature-----
Hold up your opinions and I'll tell you which one is my favorit.
Koneg  3 stars
Title: Evil Genius
Posts: 894
Registered: 2001-12-4 15:31:28
illmyrin posted:

So What's the Law you're telling me I need to change?

This one? Act, Resolution - we're talking about the exact same law.


He does need to seek approval and funding - but only after the fact.

 

-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun.
|
"Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is
indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
illmyrin  3 stars
Posts: 705
Registered: 2001-12-25 11:52:26
Koneg posted:

illmyrin posted:

So What's the Law you're telling me I need to change?

This one? Act, Resolution - we're talking about the exact same law.

He does need to seek approval and funding - but only after the fact.



The war powers act was from the 40s Koneg. The resolution passed in the 70s. Not the same thing.

 

-----signature-----
Hold up your opinions and I'll tell you which one is my favorit.
Koneg  3 stars
Title: Evil Genius
Posts: 894
Registered: 2001-12-4 15:31:28
illmyrin posted:

The war powers act was from the 40s Koneg. The resolution passed in the 70s. Not the same thing.

Uh, I know that. I used the word "Act" but was in fact referring to the "Resolution". My bad. Sue me.


It's still the exact same law we're talking about. The President does not need to seek approval until after the fact.


In fact, the very next sentence in your cut-n-paste source material says exactly that - which is probably why you omitted it.

 

-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun.
|
"Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is
indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke

VaultNetwork.net is an independently operated community forum and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or technically based on IGN, GameSpy, FilePlanet, GameStats, or the former IGN/GameSpy Vault Network.
References to VaultNetwork.net mean this site/domain. VNBoards-style presentation is a visual homage only. By using this site, you agree to the forum rules.