I would not say that Obama is on his own - The UN was behind it and the Arab League made the plea for help, not to mention that NATO is in command. Not to mention that their are 2 Arab countries, that have planes in the air enforcing the no fly zones.

An executive order does not trump the Constitution, which gives the power to engage in a war to the Legislative branch, not the Executive ...


It's American forces engaged in combat, and the UN doesn't trump the US Constitution either ...


Unless he was talking specifically about a formal declaration of war, the talking head is wrong.

Vietnam, both Iraq wars, and Afghanistan were all authorized by Congress (although it later revoked the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which Nixon ignored, which is why the questionable War Powers Resolution came about) ... Panama was a limited-duration engagement which fell under the War Powers Resolution (ditto actions such as Grenada) and thus didn't require specific Congressional approval. The only extended military engagement not explicitly authorized by Congress was Korea, although many at the time deemed authorization implicit in the fact that Congress continued to fund the war. Such interpretations of "implicit authorizations" have since been specifically invalidated by language in the War Powers Resolution ...

The whole point of the Constitution requiring Congressional approval is so the Executive can't engage US forces in a war on his own whim -- he needs the approval of the people as represented by Congress. I'm not sure Obama even gave Congress the 48-hour notice required by the War Powers Resolution much less seek actual Congressional approval. At best Obama's entry into this conflict is highly, highly questionable; at worst it's outright unconstitutional.

Oh you mean like GW's vindetta against Saddam ??

Well, he asked for Congressional approval and got it -- so I guess the vendetta belonged to all of us collectively. Ain't democracy a b!tch? =P

An executive order does not trump the Constitution, which gives the power to engage in a war to the Legislative branch, not the Executive ...

Apparently your wrong Like I said it has been going on for a long long while - right or wrong thats the way it is.

Maybe your confused by the congress having to vote - Really they are only voting on the funding of the WAR - they are NOT voting on giving permission for the WH to go into war.

Keep in mind (wording) the Korean incursion was called (Police Action) it was not called a WAR <-- maybe thats it ?

It's American forces engaged in combat, and the UN doesn't trump the US Constitution either ...

They were not engaged in combat - they were enforcing a UN mandate, with the invitation of the Arab League. Besides WHAT combat? ? No, NATO plane was in any dog fight that I know of.

Unless he was talking specifically about a formal declaration of war, the talking head is wrong.

Exactly and that takes congress to declare a war.
Executive order is to help out our so called friends, in their time of needs.

The whole point of the Constitution requiring Congressional approval is so the Executive can't engage US forces in a war on his own whim

Your using that term of WAR again - Keep in mind these colorful terms - Police Action, Humanitarian Aid, Recuse Mission, yada yada <-- the word WAR is never injected.

Also
The war on terrorist and the war on drugs all have already been approved by congress decades before.

Simply
The president can give executive orders to provide, humanitarian, policing, protection, evacuation, yada yada - everything short of a declaration of war.

I know Sixer... just rattling your cage !!

and it is a Btch !!

Um ... no. The only other instance of an action not having explicit Congressional approval outside the War Powers Resolution is the Korean War. That's hardly "going on for a long long time."


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

"The Congress shall have Power (Clause 1) ... To declare War (Clause 11)" -- Seriously, "funding"??


Are you really contenting that as long as the Executive uses any other word aside from the specific word "war" to describe an engagement it has complete license to do anything it wants with the military? Really?



ugh. If launching TLAMs and dropping bombs and wiping out entire tank columns isn't combat,what is?



Double ugh. See above. You *really* believe the Executive is at liberty to throw around the US military at will unless it slips and utters that single word? Is that what the Constitution really says?

I thought the official term regarding Libia was "Kinetic Action"

Um ... no. The only other instance of an action not having explicit Congressional approval outside the War Powers Resolution is the Korean War. That's hardly "going on for a long long time."

I still disagree - Sorry I don't have a link to provide on that talking head video. CNN has a way to go and do a search on their archive files extremely difficult.

"The Congress shall have Power (Clause 1) ... To declare War (Clause 11)" -- Seriously, "funding"??

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Theres that word (WAR) again - Keep in mind we are not at WAR with Libya or with any other country outside of WWII.

Not to mention the Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water - the US had no intention of capturing land and or water, during any of those conflicts I mentioned.

ugh. If launching TLAMs and dropping bombs and wiping out entire tank columns isn't combat,what is?

They are calling it (Humanitarian) those tanks were shelling civilians.

A term for combat

Combat in warfare involves two or more opposing military organizations, usually fighting for nations at war (although guerrilla warfare and suppression of insurgencies can fall outside this definition)

Depends on how you want to politically color your wording.

Double ugh. See above. You *really* believe the Executive is at liberty to throw around the US military at will unless it slips and utters that single word? Is that what the Constitution really says?

Keep in mind that the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all come under the executive branch.

Only the WWII, WAR on Terror , WAR on Drugs, where congress voted. Every incursions since where just Police Actions and only needed congress votes on funding.

Its all there in your link.

Muahahahahha...


Just thought I would throw that in....