Featured Yea, now he wants to work with congress for the first time

:thumbsup::thumbsup::wavey:

YUP!!!:wavey: People don't understand the dynamic.

The President "CAN" begin waging war like a fool.............and then have the Congress defund it on him (which is why they have the power of the purse)......and then make him a Capital Fool.

That's why Obama can't wage unilateral war on Syria....'cause he knows Congress won't give him the dollas to wage such a thing.
Ain't the Constitution GRAND!!!

The President doesn't have to have a "Declaration" of War......but.......then again....only Congress has the power to actually "raise Armies" that Presidents want to fight those wars with!!!

It works. It's a system, and it works. Prez can launch a random attack on Toronto Canada if he wants to...........but, then...he has to go cap in hand to Congress to give him the Armies he wants to actually FIGHT the war he just started. The Constitution works.

 

I believe this is one time Obama is looking forward to being vetoed. but will he learn ?
narcissists seldom do.
he'll probably look at himself in the mirror and congratulate himself for his restraint in attacking Syria, while holding his Nobel statue: ha ! you did it again, Barry, ole boy !

 

Where there's a will there's a way.

Obama's handlers (global corporate interests) can always stage a big false flag event here at home and blame Assad. If they did it right congress and at least 72% of the people would line behind dear leader and march their kids off to another war. No questions asked.

 

Idiot.

The Congress shall have power . . .

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
​

This power is not given to the Executive Branch.

​

 

He could always pull an Ollie North and traffic in drugs to support his war habit. Hey he might even get his own tv show afterwards. Just like Ollie!

 

Just ain't any pleasing some of ya. Just got to have something to complain about with this President.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if Obama and his Wall Street administration weren't such evil and thuggish lawless corrupt authoritarian scum that hate every form of liberty and love to rob us blind and destroy everything our forefathers created so much. Other than that I'm sure they are all very nice people.

 

You are mistaken. There is a dearth of evidence against your position and precedent beginning with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson themselves. I think John Yoo knows the Constitution a little better than you or I. Having the power to declare War is not synonymous with the capacity to utilize military force. Do you recall Thomas Jefferson waiting for Congress to "Declare War" on the Barbary Pirates? Did we ever? Did Jefferson "Declare War" on Libya when Marines took Tripoli?

Call John Yoo an idiot. I think you haven't particularly studied the issue for yourself before Aaron. Not that you'll bother to read this, since your only purpose was to gin up an excuse to gratuitously call me an "idiot", but:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-strike-syria-without-congressional-approval/
...
"The practice of presidential initiative, followed by congressional acquiescence, has spanned both Democratic and Republican administrations and reaches back from President Obama to Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington."

 

Let's look at your words again . . .

"The President "CAN" begin waging war like a fool . . . "
​

Like I said . . . idiot.

 

Better watch out he'll call you a liberal like he did me. John Yoo, the great constitutional scholar who once argued that Bush could legally torture children by crushing their privates in front of their parents .

This is a text transcript excerpt of this exchange between International Human Rights expert Doug Cassel and John Yoo:

Doug Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
John Yoo: No treaty.
Doug Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...
John Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

John Yoo was to Bush what Carl Schmitt was to Hitler. A sicko lawyer that thought dear leader should be above the law and all powerful.

If Inspector Javert has been listening to John Yoo's legal arguments it's no wonder he thinks "The President "CAN" begin waging war like a fool . . . "

Talk about being a treasonous traitor to the constitution (another thing Inspector Javert accused me of being) and the rule of law John Yoo is a poster child for it.

 

Constitutionally, he can. And it has always been thus, but congrees has the power to defund anything he does if necessary. You cannot show anywhere in the Constitution where that is mistaken; and I can show you where Presidents beginning with Adams on down have never understood the Constitution that way.

Is the National Security Act of 1957 Unconstitutional? How about the part wherein the President can uni-laterally wage war for (I believe it is 60 days) WITHOUT Congressional approval? The SCOTUS has never ruled that Unconstitutional. Utilizing Military Force.....is not the same as "Declaring War". Grow up and address arguments rather than simply call people names. You are being....well....yourself.

 

Poncho... you're not a liberal......but you argue like one. You don't know how to read your own transcripts and follow what is being said. You are looking at it completely wrong. Yoo isn't arguing whether he likes something or not...he is arguing the LAW. Yoo doesn't write the laws, he simply KNOWS them, and I'll bet you a thousand bucks he's dead right that there is neither any Treaty, or law passed by Congress. Maybe there Should be, but that isn't the point. Dura lex sed lex. The Constitution doesn't forbid you to beat your wife either....but that doesn't mean that you should. The law isn't whatever you want or prefer it to be Poncho......it's what actually exists on the books at the time. Rather than get caught up in your sensationalist comparisons between Yoo and Shmitt, Do this one simple thing instead:

Show where, in the Constitution that Presidents are forbidden to ordering the use of Military Force unless and until a "Declaration of War" is issued. Then, possibly demonstrate how ANY Congress or President from Washington on down has interpreted the Constitution that way. Your refusal to Quote the Constitution itself is compelling. You have no CONSTITUTIONAL nor historical argument. Why can't you make one? If you have the Constitution on your side, (or two hundred years' of it's interpretation).....then quote it.

You're simply operating under a common misconception and commonly held erroneous belief which people have never investigated for themselves. It's a mistaken one. People believe that the Bible says "Spare the rod and spoil the child" too.....but, it isn't so. They've just heard that all their life.

I defy you or Aaron, or anyone to make a case from the Constitution and from History that that is so. Answer this:
Was it "Unconstitutional" to order the storming of Tripoli by U.S. Marines in the Barbary Pirates war?

Was it "Unconstitutional" for the U.S.S. Constellation to capture L'Insurgente in the Quasi-war? Did Congress not intentionally authorize the building of Frigates for the express purpose of protecting U.S. merchants from French Privateers?.....Did Congress actually "Declare War" with France? No, they funded a Navy to use, but they didn't "Declare War". They didn't want to.

 

Okay. Show me.

 

Rather misleading Rev. Obama tried to work with Congress in his first term. But the GOP had held a meeting before he was sworn in and vowed to oppose anything he proposed. And that is what they did, even opposing idea they had pushed for over a decade or more. Remember Mitch's proposing a quick vote and the Dems accepted his proposal and immediately he filibustered his own idea.

Nice try Rev. but it won't fly when you look at the entire record.

As I said in a post yesterday Obama's decision was going to cause the GOP to gnash their teeth and take a lot of gas. Here is proof from your own article:

So now Peter King is criticizing Obama for following the Constitution. This is such a funny turn of events. Again the GOP is left with a puzzled look on their face, scratching their collective heads and asking, "Now he made us look like fools again. What can we do? And he has undermined some future Republican president's ability to go against the Constitution and start a war on his own"

The GOP comedy rolls on. I do hope they wake up and return to being traditional Republicans with some sense of what needs to be done and stop being just an opposition, "NO", party. Again as I have often said, we need two good responsible parties and right now we do not have that.

 

Oh Rev., what short memories some have ... or is it selective memory.

Read the following article:

Here is a great photo of the typical GOP reaction to having been told they have to vote and go on record as for or against attacking Syria: