The federal government has gone too far. As far as I am concerned they have no right to represent us (The American People) in NATO. Need I remind you that it is up to congress to declare war, supporting an act of war (no fly zone) is no different. Need I remind you people of the 11th amendment and the balance of powers or did you not pay attention in 3rd grade.

Is that you, Moammar?

The president can start a military action lasting 60 days without needing Congressional approval. Plus American hasnt declared war since WW2.

If it makes you feel any better, this is a good war that is worth fighting.

Glenn Greenwald (someone I'm not a big fan of in general) made the same point in a blog post (second story down). I'm obviously a supporter of the intervention, but I'm open to the idea that what Obama is doing might not be constitutional, but I'm obviously not a constitutional expert.

So as long as he gets Congressional approval before the 60 days is up, it's all constitutional?

I would guess so. Like you i am not a constitutional expert either. However Obama is so im sure he knows what he is doing.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL

No - the constitution makes no mention of "60 days" or anything like that.

When did the representatives of US citizens vote to spend money on defending people living in Libya? We do not live in a dictatorship, where one man may decide everything on all levels of government.

He can do whatever he wants for 60 without Congressional Approval. But, and this is a big one. President usually never strikes without at least giving the Speaker, Majority Leader and other high ranking Congressional members a heads up before hand.

lmao, awesome. I made this exact same post as a joke on facebook - everyone found it funny, but you made it seriously.

Obviously torture, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, undeclared war in four nations, are all constitutional now because Obama is a constitutional expert and he's doing them.

We don't vote on specific issues very often. For a number of good reasons. We live in a Republic where we elect leaders to make the decisions. This is like basic stuff man.

I didn't say "we", did I? I was referring to the elected representatives.

Clinton set the precedent to engage in military maneuvers without direct Congressional approval when he went into Kosovo.

It can be argued the operation, as the impending Libyan operation will be, was part of our larger obligations to NATO and associated treaties, which the Congress did vote on.

No, there isn't a 60 day requirement or anything along those lines. The President does have the authority to engage in military actions without Congressional approval (not constitutionally tested, but there are a lot of precedents) although he is required to report to Congress.

In effect, the President can commit American troops whenever and wherever he feels like as long as Congress doesn't tell him to stop.

Where does that claim come from then, what is the logic used to arrive at that conclusion?

Legitimately interested here, I don't have any horse in this race, I'm just interested as to whether this action is strictly constitutional or not.

Sources already saying massive amounts of civilian casualties. OBAMA=Mass Murder

If I had to guess I'd say it comes from the War Powers Act from the mid 1970s.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Pow...lution#History

Err, the precedent was way back in the Korean war according to what i googled up.

Edit, and yeah, the War Powers Act is where the 60 days comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada, Korean war, Vietnam war, etc.

This.

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

Also, courts have upheld that congress does not have to actually declare war. They can hand over their constitutional powers to the president via simple resolution.

See Doe Vs. Bush

Right, there is plenty of precedents. I just used the Kosovo exampled because it was specifically shrouded under NATO authority.

It's my mistake about the 60 days requirement. I was always under the impression that it's more of a formality. In reality the Congress can and probably would put an end to any engagement, possibly even before the report is formally submitted, if they objected to the engagement.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of politicians doing unconstitutional things, as well as evil things.

Just because they have been done before does not make them constitutional, moral, or pragmatic (and history shows us that they are in fact rarely pragmatic, indeed).

Well to answer your question, it was when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over Nixon's veto.

I was reading the article so my pony got slow.

I linked to that a few posts ago. Not sure what question this answers? When did "my representative" vote to spend my money on bombing Libya?

Well if the war power resolution is constitutional, then your representative in this case under the laws of the land is the president who voted to spend your money on bombing Libya. Obviously.