Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

"Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Congress


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Congress Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
"Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Congress - 6/3/2011 1:09:19 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. ObamaCongress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.


Full article here 


Drudges headline was more to the point though

OBAMA SUFFERS 'STUNNING REBUKE' ON LIBYA



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 1:22:42 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
Meh. They ain't doing shit.

The precedent is set. After Bush and Cheney, the executive can do whatever they want, without fear of legal consequences.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 1:41:55 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Meh. They ain't doing shit.

The precedent is set. After Bush and Cheney, the executive can do whatever they want, without fear of legal consequences.


Yet .... anytime - even now - you post all kinds of stuff and make outrageously insulting comments about Bush and his actions over the Iraqi war, yet, when Obama starts a war that doesn't meet his own definition of "needed" or "lawful" and blatantly disregards the law ... it's "Meh"?

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 1:43:11 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The precedent is set. After Bush and Cheney, the executive can do whatever they want, without fear of legal consequences.

Oh, wait ... I get it.

s/ Obama's actions are Bush's fault!  Of course!  How could I be so dense?  /s

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 1:58:04 PM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline
I'd support backing up the rebels, with supplies, park a few ships...but, no more wars!...Bring them all home from that God Foresaken part of the world! Bush, Obama, the one after Obama(2016...added that for THomas)....just no more freaking wars!

_____________________________

If you have sex with a siamese twin, is it considered a threesome?

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

It may be your sole purpose in life to simply serve as a warning to others!

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 2:01:56 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The precedent is set. After Bush and Cheney, the executive can do whatever they want, without fear of legal consequences.

Oh, wait ... I get it.

s/ Obama's actions are Bush's fault!  Of course!  How could I be so dense?  /s

Firm



Nah. That's not it at all. It's Congress' and the DOJ's fault for giving Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. a pass on their violations of 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001.

Congress CHOSE to exempt the executive from the rule-of-law. It's pointless to be bitching about it NOW that the horse is long gone from the barn....


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 2:08:47 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
LOL, schooling is suffered rather greatly as conservatives are watering it down from its original meaning.

They pretty much said, what? That; by god,  now hes clicking on that thirty day line in the sand and if he doesn't get an approval from congress(already bi-partisanly written and ready and waiting to push thru by McCain-Kerry)....they are going to censure him?  Jesus, does that come with scented asswipe?  Is it of a more diabolical nature than Clintons impeachment?

Next to W, it won't read very badly in the history books.  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 4:05:23 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Congress CHOSE to exempt the executive from the rule-of-law. It's pointless to be bitching about it NOW that the horse is long gone from the barn....

This is still nothing more than a justification to exempt Obama from the same criticism that you gave and continue to give Bush.

If it was illegal and immoral under Bush - who had the permission of Congress to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - then is it even more illegal and immoral for Obama who did not ask permission to engage in warfare in Libya and when no argument has been made that critical US interests are at stake.

Not asking permission, under current law is OK but not after the time-lines given in the War Powers Act has passed.

Whether or not the War Powers Act is unconstitutional is another question entirely. 

But, as it stands, Obama is quite simply an unconvicted felon, and you shrug it off, while arguing specious cases and reasoning that Bush "violated a bunch of laws" that no serious scholar agrees with.

You look to be a hypocrite and a partisan, plain and simple.  Although I think it is simpler than that.  I believe you do not even see the differences in your position between the two cases, which makes you not a hypocrite, but simply ignorant, unaware, and biased. 

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 4:07:20 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

I'd support backing up the rebels, with supplies, park a few ships...but, no more wars!...Bring them all home from that God Foresaken part of the world! Bush, Obama, the one after Obama(2016...added that for THomas)....just no more freaking wars!

I find that I am in basic agreement with your cognitive dissonance.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 5:01:56 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

This is still nothing more than a justification to exempt Obama from the same criticism that you gave and continue to give Bush.


You are incorrect. I'm all for the DOJ and Congress indicting and/or impeaching Obama for any indictable/impeachable offenses.

But in reality, the precedent has been set. It ain't gonna happen.

If you don't like the precedent, look in the mirror to find the person responsible.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 5:49:13 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
We want nothing but peace....  and the nobel peace prize committee agrees with us. 

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 6:27:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

If it was illegal and immoral under Bush - who had the permission of Congress to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Based on lies told to congress by the administration

- then is it even more illegal and immoral for Obama who did not ask permission to engage in warfare in Libya and when no argument has been made that critical US interests are at stake.

Kinda puts you in a pickle doesn't it. If it is wrong for obama then it must have also been wrong for bush&co...admitting that must burn your ass more than a little. Funny how much shit you will eat just to smear a bit of it on obama.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/3/2011 6:33:01 PM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 10:01:25 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

already bi-partisanly written and ready and waiting to push thru by McCain-Kerry  




I think the issue is worth a good debate. Let them bring it it the floor. I'll even set up the DVR on C-Span, for that one.

I did see an interesting tidbit in the news, that a justification being used in Europe is that the actions are required to prevent a flood of refugees onto their continent. I don't imagine that would play well here, when the conversation turns to securing our own border.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/3/2011 11:51:38 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Boy, there's going to be a lot of people in here who are going to be shocked, stunned and surprised when Oblunder gets the boot in Nov 2012.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/4/2011 1:38:29 AM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Boy, there's going to be a lot of people in here who are going to be shocked, stunned and surprised when Oblunder gets the boot in Nov 2012.


When he is reelected will you freeze your CM account and post that you are a dumbass and that you don't really understand politics? I will if he's not reelected. Metaphoric money where your mouth is?


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/4/2011 3:27:02 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
Lets see if I get this straight....

If a Democratic President does something even an millimeter over the line, Republicans thrash him with everything they have (including making stuff up). But when a Republican President does it, this same bunch of Republicans do absolutely nothing. Case in point. Clinton was impeached for what? Lying to Congress about getting a blow job from some jewish intern? Bush lies to Congress over getting us in to Iraq. Over 5K of our soldiers are killed; four times that in injuries. We rake up $3 Trillion paying for it, and STILL....under Bush's watch, NEVER found the guy that attacked us on 9/11. And what did the Republicans do? Absolutely NOTHING.

So, going into this, the Republicans have a serious credibility problem. Democrats only need tap US History, to turn the Republicans into a laughing stock of idiots. And do it with an election coming up.

Last I checked, Bush simply ignored whole sections of the laws Congress had set before and during his time in the White House. These 'signing statements' simply told Congress to go to hell. And did the Republicans hold Bush accountable for snubbing them? What keeps Obama from simply doing the same tactic?

This bullshit is simply another 'tactic' in the Republicans arsenal to attack the Democrats over something/anything. Rather than deal with any of the 500+ serious/critical issues this country is facing, let's bring up something totally absurd. Well, when they lose hardcore in this next election....MABYE....this time they'll decide to become more 'middle of the road' direction instead of the lunatic-fringe direction.

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/4/2011 3:45:51 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
How many fucking times do you lefties have to be told that Congress saw the same fucking intelligence Bush did, and voted to give Bush the authority to wage the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Unlike Obama, who didn't even fucking bother to interrupt his golf game to ask Congress.

Your blatant hypocrisy is nauseating.

Bush lied my ass, he just did what Clinton didn't have the balls to do.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/4/2011 4:06:50 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

How many fucking times do you lefties have to be told that Congress saw the same fucking intelligence Bush did, and voted to give Bush the authority to wage the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Ypou can say it all you like, it doesn't makeit true. Bush knew or should have known, senior members of his administration definitely did know, that the so called intelligence was incorect.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/4/2011 5:09:54 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
You have just coined a phrase :

"Intelligence was incorrect".

That sounds like a pretty good sig line.

T^T

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Cong... - 6/4/2011 6:41:35 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

How many fucking times do you lefties have to be told that Congress saw the same fucking intelligence Bush did, and voted to give Bush the authority to wage the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Unlike Obama, who didn't even fucking bother to interrupt his golf game to ask Congress.

Your blatant hypocrisy is nauseating.

Bush lied my ass, he just did what Clinton didn't have the balls to do.



Congress and The People DID NOT receive the intel the President had.

A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.

C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well.

N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

< Message edited by farglebargle -- 6/4/2011 6:48:27 AM >


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> "Constitutional Scholar" Schooled By Congress Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

1.063