Obama: �President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize

[powerman2000]

Obama: �President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack�

Wait...what'd he just say?


(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
�The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,� Obama responded.

[Domstar104]

dude, he could get away with a helluva lot more.











o and btw the lockerbie bombing killed americans

[stealth_swimmer]

dude, he could get away with a helluva lot more.











o and btw the lockerbie bombing killed americans

does that make it an imminent threat to the nation?

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

10/10 troll.



He's getting to Bush status.

[Penile_Dementia]

dude, he could get away with a helluva lot more.

I'm sure.

o and btw the lockerbie bombing killed americans

True. Doesn't deal with the point of the OP though. Which unlike the grotesquely distorted and false claim that supporting the attack on Libya but not on Iraq is inherently hypocritical, is valid. This is a direct example of hypocrisy (unless I am misunderstanding the use of the term "unilaterally").

[Streetbull]

Obama: �President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack�

Wait...what'd he just say?


(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
�The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,� Obama responded.

But...but...he wouldn't say something just to get elected, would he? He's our Messiah, the Second Coming, as prophesized by the Book of Soros...or was it the Book of Ayers?

[Ramoneb87]

No ****.

I don't think presidents really give a damn anymore about whether congress oks acts of war anymore: See Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan and now Lybia.

Bottom line is the president just doesn't give a ****.

[SlapBassist]

He's... correct? I don't understand what your getting at. I believe to officially go to war, has to be passed by congress to get the "ok". With that said he can send the marines to a place without congress approval, but there is a # amnt that can be sent.

[skinny buckeye]

when you have a nobel peace prize on your mantle, you are allowed to bomb whoever the hell you want!

[terriyaki]

why do we act so shocked that presidents say one thing and do another?

[r0gue6]

He got Senate approval March 1st so this was not a unilateral action.

What's the point of this thread?

The White House also noted that Mr. Obama had met with Congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation on Friday. On March 1, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Security Council approved such a measure Thursday night.

****ing retards.

[Cuchulainn]

He got Senate approval March 1st so this was not a unilateral action.

What's the point of this thread?



****ing retards.

1. The Senate does not equal the Congress. There are 2 chambers.
2. Passing a symbolic resolution supporting a United Nations imposed no fly zone is not the same as authorization for the United States to go to war.

[Streetbull]

"Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

--- Pat Buchcanan

Now libs, be sure to rip on Pat and not what he said. That's the way to be consistent.

[powerman2000]

But...but...he wouldn't say something just to get elected, would he? He's our Messiah, the Second Coming, as prophesized by the Book of Soros...or was it the Book of Ayers?

ROFL

[powerman2000]

when you have a nobel peace prize on your mantle, you are allowed to bomb whoever the hell you want!

[powerman2000]

1. The Senate does not equal the Congress. There are 2 chambers.
2. Passing a symbolic resolution supporting a United Nations imposed no fly zone is not the same as authorization for the United States to go to war.

You'd think he'd be able to see the difference.

[powerman2000]

He got Senate approval March 1st so this was not a unilateral action.

What's the point of this thread?



****ing retards.

You're SO clueless it's painful to watch.

[biggerplz09]

No ****.

I don't think presidents really give a damn anymore about whether congress oks acts of war anymore: See Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan and now Lybia.

Bottom line is the president just doesn't give a ****.

Trend: Wars initiated by the President have all come back to **** us over grandly.

[ManipulatedSelf]

He will smile and tell you otherwise and you will believe him.

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

He got Senate approval March 1st so this was not a unilateral action.

What's the point of this thread?



****ing retards.

[MonkeyC]

it was approved by the senate

[StoliFun]

Under the War Powers Act, doesn't the president just have to get congress's approval within 60 days of committing troops, or else he has to pull them all back?

[Pump that iron!]

BRB holding this president in particular to a standard even the lawd almightly could not meet

[BBmisc420196]

In after Rogue tries to defend Obama. Fuk Rogue if you put a (D) after GW Bush you would have defend Bush to the grave, I have no fukkin doubt. You have to be the worst partisan on the forums.

[r0gue6]

In after Rogue tries to defend Obama. Fuk Rogue if you put a (D) after GW Bush you would have defend Bush to the grave, I have no fukkin doubt. You have to be the worst partisan on the forums.

I never said Bush didn't have the right to invade Iraq or Afhganistan.

I just think it was retarded to do so.

Now go suck some more straw man cock.

[Afroclipse]

You can do what you want when the masses approve, then you have people act shocked and unhappy, yet the do nothing to stop it because they approve of it.

[MonkeyC]

i haven't paid as much attention as i should have to this but...

if the UN security council approved it
and the senate approved it

why is this no fly zone super illegal?

[r0gue6]

i haven't paid as much attention as i should have to this but...

if the UN security council approved it
and the senate approved it

why is this no fly zone super illegal?

Apparently those aren't good enough.

It's pure partisan posturing.

[BobisMighty]

"Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

--- Pat Buchcanan

Now libs, be sure to rip on Pat and not what he said. That's the way to be consistent.

Guess he forgot how the French helped some British colonies rebel against the crown...

[JeremyMaclin]

"Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

dumbest post of the year award