OpieRadio Logo
Compound Media Logo
Jim Norton Logo

Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, others sue President.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Jun 15, 2011.

  1. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Lawmakers File Suit Against Obama Administration Over Libya Operation
    Published June 15, 2011

    A group of lawmakers filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration, questioning the constitutional and legal justifications for military action in Libya.
    The bipartisan group is being led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C., and includes GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
    According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News, the group is seeking "injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from a stated policy of defendant Barack Obama, president of the United States, whereby a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without the declaration of war from Congress required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution."
    The suit says the lawmakers are also seeking a judge to rule that the president may not commit the U.S. to war under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or under the authority of the United Nations, or in violation of the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force.
    It also calls for a ruling that the president may not use "funds, previously appropriated by Congress, for unconstitutional and unauthorized wars in Libya or other countries."
    Kucinich said the intent of the lawsuit was to "correct an imbalance."
    "This is an opportunity to rectify a direction that America has been going without the support of the Constitution," said Jones, who appeared with a group of lawmakers at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
    The White House has argued for months that NATO is not leading the way in Libya and so the president doesn't need permission from Congress to keep American forces fighting in the battle to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime.
    White House spokesman Jay Carney has also argued at multiple press briefings that the administration is working within the parameters of the law.
    The suit, however, offers examples that the plaintiffs say demonstrate all the hallmarks of American engagement in war, including the use of U.S. military forces, equipment and money in a bombing campaign against a sovereign nation and with the aim of taking out its leader.
    It notes that Libya is not a part of NATO, whose treaty permits military action only in the course of self-defense in the event that a NATO member in Europe or North America is attacked.
    The suit comes ahead of a deadline by the House of Representatives, which asked the Obama administration to detail its justification for military action in Libya and explain the endgame there. The complainants want to file the suit ahead of the Friday House deadline.
    On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner blasted President Obama for not giving Congress any sense of whether the Executive branch will comply with federal law requiring congressional approval for war operations.
    In a letter to the president, the Ohio Republican said Sunday marks 90 days since the March 19 start of military operations in Libya.
    Boehner asked the president to explain to Congress how the operation is outside the scope of the War Powers Act, which requires congressional approval for military action, and if he can't, Boehner warned the White House to get on the right side of the law.
    "On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the administration has not asked for, nor received, congressional authorization of the mission in Libya," Boehner's letter reads. "Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission."
    Several White House aides told Fox News on Wednesday a "package of materials" will be delivered to lawmakers on Capitol Hill "this afternoon" though the precise timing was not clear.
    On Tuesday night, NATO planes bombed Tripoli, Libya's capital and Qaddafi's stronghold. NATO has been conducting the aerial campaign in an attempt to help a loosely assembled group of rebels operating under the banner of a "National Transitional Council" to take over the country. The rebels have started to advance on several towns outside of Tripoli, though they are not yet close to seizing the capital.
    for length.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...istration-over-libya-operation/#ixzz1PMdDndOu
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...e-president-obama-over-illegal-libya-war.html
     
  2. Party Rooster

    Party Rooster Unleash The Beast

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    40,304
    Likes Received:
    7,462
    I saw the Boehner thing yesterday. Time to put up or shut up Obama.
     
  3. d0uche_n0zzle

    d0uche_n0zzle **Negative_Creep**

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    46,496
    Likes Received:
    6,783
    About fucking time.
     
  4. Token White Guy

    Token White Guy Continuously Jaded

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    349
    10-1 that nothing happens to Barry.
     
  5. Falldog

    Falldog Wackbag's Best Conservative
    Donator

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    18,990
    Likes Received:
    6,695
    Prospect aren't that good.
     
  6. Party Rooster

    Party Rooster Unleash The Beast

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    40,304
    Likes Received:
    7,462
    X2. I'll take that bet.
     
  7. JonBenetRamsey

    JonBenetRamsey well shit the bed

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    17,378
    Likes Received:
    8,780
    so, what about bush and that iraq thing? :trollol:
     
  8. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    I see the troll icon there, but Bush did receive a vote from Congress authorizing the Iraq war (this is coming from an Iraq war vet who is against the war). The War Powers Resolution dictates that the President can go to war for up to 90 days (60 if it is not an "emergency" situation), but after that 90 days, if Congress has not voted to authorize it, he must pull out. Sunday is the 90 day mark and still no vote or a plan to pull out. Also, no one knows how the President is paying for this war, since Congress has not authorized any funds for it.
     
  9. Party Rooster

    Party Rooster Unleash The Beast

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    40,304
    Likes Received:
    7,462
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Kirk Strong

    Kirk Strong Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    1
    Obama is above the law, nothing will happen and idiots will still vote for him and they will vote for him because they believe hes anti war and is fighting the man.
     
  11. BIV

    BIV I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    77,725
    Likes Received:
    27,101
    Ah, the "nuh uh" defense.
     
  12. Party Rooster

    Party Rooster Unleash The Beast

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    40,304
    Likes Received:
    7,462
  13. CousinDave

    CousinDave Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    25,297
    Likes Received:
    198

    I seem to remember the Congress including Hilary Clinton voting to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan & Iraq.

    I think the War Powers Act its self is unconstitutional, that said only the Congress can declare war and everything since WWII has not been a declared war. Its time for the Congress to start doing their job, if they don't want the responsibility for casting votes then they shouldn't be in office.
     
  14. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Yeah, I see how this could be confusing:


    This is one of those rare cases where a law is really easy to understand. They spell out everything in fucking kindergarten language and lawyers still try to find a way around it. FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
     
  15. Owenay

    Owenay Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,666
    Likes Received:
    248
    But what about the U.N. Charter's Articles 41 & 42? Everybody knows this is a UN operation and therefore American laws don't apply. :trollol:
     
  16. MayrMeninoCrash

    MayrMeninoCrash Liberal Psycopath

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    24,065
    Likes Received:
    8,333
    Someone finally gets it.

    Maybe Congress doesn't agree with our ratification of NATO and UN Treaties. Let's start there. Or even better, let's see Congress man up and cut off all funding to soldiers. Put their money where their mouth is.
     
  17. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Well that would be nice, too. Although I don't think they should cut off funding to "soldiers"; they should cut off funding for the war, keep paying the soldiers.
     
  18. MayrMeninoCrash

    MayrMeninoCrash Liberal Psycopath

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    24,065
    Likes Received:
    8,333
    Never gonna happen, you know we live in the era of "cut off your nose to spite your face" politics.

    How would you separate the two anyway? Isn't soldier's pay drawn from the general fund provided to the armed forces for all expenses? How would they earmark money for salaries as planes come crashing down for lack of jet fuel?
     
  19. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    I believe that each branch of the military has a budget that is outlayed by Congress. I don't think they just give a billion dollars to the Airforce and say "Don't spend it all in one place". I would imagine that the troops pay comes out of one fund, and then specific projects and money for wars etc come from a separate fund. Or they could just write a law saying that the troops still get paid but no new money goes to anything else; they are Congress after all, writing laws is what they do.
     
  20. TheDrip

    TheDrip I'm bi-winning.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a valiant effort, but in the end it will prove to be a waste of time.
     
  21. VMS

    VMS Victim of high standards and low personal skills.

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    What some (like Mayr) doesn't seem to understand is that in the United States of America, international law does not take precedence over American law.

    On our soil, our law rules. Period.

    Alright, here's the situation in a nutshell: NO President, of either party, has ever recognized the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Not even Presidents that are former Congressmen/Senators who believed in the War Powers Resolution when they were in Congress.

    So, on principle, President Obama isn't doing anything different from his predecessors.

    But here's the thing: EVERY President (other than President Obama) has gone to Congress for an authorization for his military actions over 90 days. By going to Congress for authorization every time, all previous presidents since 1973 have been avoiding this test. Every previous president has recognized that, even if the War Powers Resolution isn't Constitutional (which is up for debate), if it loses a SCOTUS test it will severely damage the office of the President of the United States of America. Every previous president has been prudent enough to seek that authorization and to do what was necessary to get that authorization. It's both politically smart (it spreads the blame if things go wrong, it protects the office of the President, etc., etc.) and it's a practical necessity since the money has to come from somewhere.

    And President Obama is risking this test, a test that every President from Nixon to Bush v2 has assiduously avoided... for Libya? LIBYA? This "I don't have a fucking clue" abortion of a fucking campaign? This Keystone Kops I Started Trying To Topple A Dictator Half A Month Too Late To Do It Right waste of billions of dollars?

    For LIBYA?????

    Holy fucking shit. He either didn't see this coming, which is utter failure that he hasn't gotten his grown up boy britches in his two years in office (so far...) AND that President Obama didn't think this entire Libya thing through to the point where he needed Congressional approval, or he WANTED this to be the seminal test of the War Powers Resolution which shows that he's a fucking moron who's starting shit when shit doesn't need to be started. Because it's not like we don't have enough on our fucking plate these days that we can have a full blown Constitutional crisis just for the fucking hell of it.

    Look: IMO, yes, the War Powers Resolution is unConstitutional. It also doesn't matter, because unless the President has a shitload of money sitting around he can't prosecute a war for very long without Congress' approval. You need money to make this shit happen.

    The truth is, this is just President Obama not thinking through the Libya campaign and fucking it up from beginning to end. He started the war to late, he didn't think it through to the end, it wasn't planned from the beginning, there's no clear leadership of the entire campaign, and he's delegated all regional authority to the Brits and French while using all of our equipment and munitions.

    This is fucking retarded. And I stand by my assertion that Gadaffi will still be in power a year after that date on that other thread. Because it's looking like the US will be pulling out of this effort soon, and the Brits and French can't do shit by themselves.

    MASSIVE failure on President Obama's part, here.
     
  22. MayrMeninoCrash

    MayrMeninoCrash Liberal Psycopath

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    24,065
    Likes Received:
    8,333
    Kucinich, Boehner and Paul have some support in their efforts

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/...thank-you-note-for-chastising-obama-on-libya/
     
  23. MayrMeninoCrash

    MayrMeninoCrash Liberal Psycopath

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    24,065
    Likes Received:
    8,333
    What Congressional resolution authorized Truman to send troops to Korea?
     
  24. VMS

    VMS Victim of high standards and low personal skills.

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    War Powers Resolution of 1973. I made it pretty clear that I was talking about the Presidents from Nixon to Bush v2. Leave it to you to be a douchebag and try to "catch" me on the one time I didn't pedantically lay it out in nice, little bite-sized pieces that even your retarded brain could understand.
     
  25. CousinDave

    CousinDave Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    25,297
    Likes Received:
    198

    You know the Little Barry though Gadaffi would be gone in a few days, and then he would take the credit for "bringing democracy to Libya."

    Hey Barry, you take credit for the rain, then you're going to get blamed for the drought.
     

Share This Page