/dev/null Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Getting close to 60 days in Libya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) An interview with John Yoo, author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 Many scholars have argued that the declare war clause is the root of Congress's control over war; they argue that military hostilities cannot begin without Congress's ex ante authorization. But the history of the clause gives no indication that this was its original purpose. Many critics of the Constitution claimed that it vested too much power in the executive over the military; not a single defender of the Constitution responded that the declare war clause would give Congress any power to prevent this. Rather, James Madison in the Virginia ratifying convention argued that it would be Congress's power of the purse that would control the executive sword. The War Powers Act is paper that makes some in Congress feel like they have some measure of control over the Commander-in-Chief's use of the military, short of de-funding it. The short story is, they don't. Edited May 20, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html Yes We Can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html Yes We Can! I really love how he explains that we're involved in the "suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone" and "precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts,” but it's not like we're REALLY at war. I mean, yeah we're dropping bombs on Libya, killing people and all, but our vehicles are unmanned, and it's all just support, and hell, we don't really have a mission statement anyway, so what's the need for congressional authority? I'm genuinely going to need a bigger tub of popcorn to watch this comedy unfold. I don't remember the last time a president kept me this entertained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Does this mean President BO is still in the running for this year's Nobel Peace Prize or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I really love how he explains that we're involved in the "suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone" and "precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts,” but it's not like we're REALLY at war. I mean, yeah we're dropping bombs on Libya, killing people and all, but our vehicles are unmanned, and it's all just support, and hell, we don't really have a mission statement anyway, so what's the need for congressional authority? I'm genuinely going to need a bigger tub of popcorn to watch this comedy unfold. I don't remember the last time a president kept me this entertained. Same **** as the Iraqi no-fly zone. Wasn't "really" a war...it's never really "war" when you're "enforcing peace". Obama just goes to far greater lengths to try to justify it than most presidents do. But the policy is precedented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Same **** as the Iraqi no-fly zone. Wasn't "really" a war...it's never really "war" when you're "enforcing peace". Obama just goes to far greater lengths to try to justify it than most presidents do. But the policy is precedented. Very well stated. You simplified it to a point that even I can understand it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Very well stated. You simplified it to a point that even I can understand it! I didn't even know that was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Same **** as the Iraqi no-fly zone. Wasn't "really" a war...it's never really "war" when you're "enforcing peace". Obama just goes to far greater lengths to try to justify it than most presidents do. But the policy is precedented. I completely understand, and agree. I'm a right-wing partisan hack, so it's easy to imagine my comment was mocking Obama's position on this. That wasn't my intent. I just found it really funny that he's standing up saying "We're bombing towns and killing people, but don't misinterpret that as war." That's some funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts