Sgt Petry

[Ms Tree]

You said you thought the WPA was unconstitutional. If that's the case how could Reagan's actions have been with in the law? Reagan used the WPA to bypass Congress. Obama used NATO to bypass WPA. The fact that you like Reagan and his 'violation' of the COTUS was only for one day and Obamas is longer has not bearing on the fact that both are a violation of the COTUS according to your reasoning. Again, you said the WPA was a violation of the COTUS. So according to your belief, both presidents violated the COTUS.

 

[SparrowHawk]

You said you thought the WPA was unconstitutional. If that's the case how could Reagan's actions have been with in the law? Reagan used the WPA to bypass Congress. Obama used NATO to bypass WPA. The fact that you like Reagan and his 'violation' of the COTUS was only for one day and Obamas is longer has not bearing on the fact that both are a violation of the COTUS according to your reasoning. Again, you said the WPA was a violation of the COTUS. So according to your belief, both presidents violated the COTUS.

Well until someone challenges the WPA in court it is the law of the land unconstitutional or not. So one POTUS followed the law whether he liked it or not. While the other merely ignored it and thumbed his nose at the rule of law and did as he desired. This speaks volumes about the two which is why to date one is held in high regard and the other despised now by a majority.

History has a way of sorting things out and it doesn't look good right now for Mr. Obama. However things change.

 

[Ms Tree]

Not exactly. According to your logic one followed a law that by passed Congress. The other followed a law that by passed the WPA. Both are legal other wise there would have been successful legal challenges against them which there have not. Both acts are legal till a court says otherwise, your hate of Obama not with standing.

Reagan did not 'follow it like it or not'. Reagan took advantage of the WPA and launched an attack. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Not exactly. According to your logic one followed a law that by passed Congress. The other followed a law that by passed the WPA. Both are legal other wise there would have been successful legal challenges against them which there have not. Both acts are legal till a court says otherwise, your hate of Obama not with standing.

WRONG!
Reagan followed the law and the WPA was not designed to usurp The Commander in Chief ability to act.

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, if a President authorizes military action without approval from Congress, they must terminate the action within 60 days unless they get specific approval from Congress, or unless there is a national emergency due to an attack on the U.S. In the case of Libya, the 60-day period has come and gone without any action from Congress, yet, in a direct violation of the law, U.S. military involvement in Libya continues. In fact, it has now been extended for another 90 days.

The Obama Administration argues that Libya is not a U.S. mission. It’s a NATO mission, they say. But as Kucinich points out in a letter to supporters of his resolution, the U.S. is still in charge. “The fact remains that we’re bombing another country and we pay, by far, the largest percentage of NATO’s military bills,” he says. “This is a war that we’re leading – and it’s a war that violates our Constitution and the War Powers Act.” The rest of the story

Reagan was well within both the scope and intent of the WPA. Obama hides behind NATO which is questionable. Thank God he won the Peace Prize or he'd have us in more wars than the four current ones. He is consistent, He doubled the deficit and the number of wars we're involved in, all in 30 months and with an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent and GDP growth hovering around 1.3% Hell of a guy that Obama, he defies Congress and the laws of economics, bankrupting the nation and ensuring our demise into a third world progressive dungeon where every citizen is a slave to the government.

When asked by CNN pollsters who should have final authority for deciding whether the U.S. should continue its use of military force in Libya — Congress or President Obama — 55% of respondents answered Congress.

 

[Ms Tree]

It's not 'wrong'. You do not believe the WPA is constitutional but you support a president who used it as an excuse to launch combat missions upon a sovereign state. Obama uses treaty agreements with NATO which you also do not agree with but you happen to hate the president who used that avenue. Perfectly logical.

 

[SparrowHawk]

It's not 'wrong'. You do not believe the WPA is constitutional but you support a president who used it as an excuse to launch combat missions upon a sovereign state. Obama uses treaty agreements with NATO which you also do not agree with but you happen to hate the president who used that avenue. Perfectly logical.

Because we are a nation of laws and not of men. What I feel about WPA is irrelevant, however it is the law and whether you agree with a law or not you obey it until you get it repealed or have it ruled unconstitutional in a court of law. Reagan followed the law, Obama ignored the law. To me a LAW enacted by Congress carries more weight than a treaty, a fact that the COTUS endorses.

Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Note the last sentence. This means the War Powers Act trumps the NATO Treaty, ergo the Empty Suit is in violation and should be impeached forthwith.

 

[Ms Tree]

No that's not what it means. You need to look up the word 'notwithstanding'. In this application it means that laws or the COTUS are secondary to the agreement negotiated by President and agreed to by Congress. The President and Congress typically negotiate treaties that comply with the COTUS but there are exceptions as in this case where a treaty enters us into a obligation. We have several treaties with other countries that obligate the US to come to their defense if they are attacked. Per the treaty, Congress has already pre-authorized the attack by ratifying the treaty. Same with NATO.

Do you honestly think that if a POTUS was in violation of the Constitution that someone would not have mentioned it? Do you not think that Bachmann, Palin, Paul or Boehner just to mention a few might have not said something about the POTUS who they hate violating the US constitution? You crack me up.

 

[SparrowHawk]

No that's not what it means. You need to look up the word 'notwithstanding'. In this application it means that laws or the COTUS are secondary to the agreement negotiated by President and agreed to by Congress. The President and Congress typically negotiate treaties that comply with the COTUS but there are exceptions as in this case where a treaty enters us into a obligation. We have several treaties with other countries that obligate the US to come to their defense if they are attacked. Per the treaty, Congress has already pre-authorized the attack by ratifying the treaty. Same with NATO.

Do you honestly think that if a POTUS was in violation of the Constitution that someone would not have mentioned it? Do you not think that Bachmann, Palin, Paul or Boehner just to mention a few might have not said something about the POTUS who they hate violating the US constitution? You crack me up.

Kicinich & Paul both said Obama's actions were impeachable

 

[Ms Tree]

I say pigs can fly.

 

[777 fixer]

Not a fan of Reagan's little incursions. However, he followed the rules set forth by the UN Charter and under the War Powers act. Since the advent of the UN, it's much easier to enter into conflicts without consent of the people these days and that's wrong.

What Reagan did with Libya was in many ways similar to how the world solved problems with rogue or upstart nations. When their were vast Naval Armadas at sea it was quite common to give intruding vessels a "Whiff Of the Grape" which meant firing one or two rounds of grape shot into the rigging. It sent a powerful message. Just as Reagan did with his one Day blasting of Libya. You'll note until recently we've not heard to much about Libya. Reagan's plan worked.

Obama's decision to go at Libya was/is a totally different thing due to the fact that it's ongoing to this very day, the Congress has not approved it, Obama in his arrogance didn't even seek consent of Congress. One incident shows respect for the rule of law while the other shows arrogance and contempt for it.

A typical Progressive move! If the law in inconvenient, ignore it and blame the other side. What Reagan did was started and over before anyone could even get their panties in a bunch over it and it kept Libya at bay for decades. Reagan acted in accordance to the law and COTUS

Once again you are contradicting yourself. What this really sounds like is when your but might be on the line you want an act of Congress. Once the draft was gone and Ronald Reagan was calling the shots your all for it.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Once again you are contradicting yourself. What this really sounds like is when your but might be on the line you want an act of Congress. Once the draft was gone and Ronald Reagan was calling the shots your all for it.

Scope & length of an incursion make a difference. Even the WPA delineates that.

 

[777 fixer]

Scope & length of an incursion make a difference. Even the WPA delineates that.

And whether or not your draft number is up is that it?

 

[SparrowHawk]

And whether or not your draft number is up is that it?

NO, I think what Reagan did was an appropriate use of his discretionary powers in regards to Libya. I think was on far shakier ground with Grenada.

Bush with Desert Shield/Storm was as he sought the advice and consent of Congress, the UN and maybe got a note from his Mom approving his actions. I'd argue it was bad foreign policy and should have had a Declaration of War from Congress.

The 4 Bush/Obama wars are IMO totally without justification of any kind. The reasons why are to long to comment on. We don't belong in any of those countries. The Arabic/Islamic folks over there claim to despise us, so leave them alone in every way except maybe sell them weapons.

 

[777 fixer]

Scope & length of an incursion make a difference. Even the WPA delineates that.

That's of little consulation to the families of those KIA.

 

[SparrowHawk]

That's of little consulation to the families of those KIA.

Then maybe the Khadaffi Duck shouldn't have blew up Pan Am 103.

Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Iraq pose no direct threat to the USA. Really what are they going to do? Storm Virginia Beach? We, as a matter Foreign Policy are meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

Common sense would dictate that is not what our military is for. Which gets to the root cause, Common Sense isn't all that common any longer.