Obama v Congress (Whether to declare war)

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Darulian, Jun 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darulian
    Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

    Seems the Obama administration is fighting Congress over whether US actions in Libya are "hostilities".

    For those that don't know, Congress has the power to declare war. The President can only authorize attacks for 60 days, after which he/she needs Congress' approval.

    From the article it says that the US is currently supporting NATO in Libya by providing refueling and intelligence services.

    While I would concur that intelligence services would not be hostilities, to me refueling vehicles that then attack would be "hostilities".

    *shrug* Then again I don't know the specifics of the law, but sometimes we don't need a lawyer to tell us what the "spirit" of the law is.
     
  2. Ryld Baenre
    Veteran FPS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,487
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Seems like a similar idea to the thread Saffaya had about companies and the Nazi party. If they are enabling the fighting to occur I would say they have a hand in it.
     
  3. s o k a r
    Veteran Star Citizen Officer

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    6,431
    Likes Received:
    62
    Gender:
    Male
    A bunch of crazies trying to fight a Constitutional Law Lawyer and President. Good Luck.
     
  4. Saffaya
    Veteran Star Citizen Officer

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    France
    They are not a bunch of crazies.
    They are fighting for application of the law and upholding the US constitution.
    The separation of powers is what makes the difference between a real country and a banana republic.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2011
  5. Ben K
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Artist
    Location:
    Auckland
    Considering that the Senate would have given approval immediately anyway, for the rest of the world the outcome of this case changes nothing much.
     
  6. Darulian
    Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    You're right that in this case doesn't change much. The problem is that the president should not have the power to declare not-war on folks, which flies in the face of "two heads are better than one". (100 heads are better than 1 too ;))
     
  7. Ben K
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Artist
    Location:
    Auckland
    My handbook to life disagrees.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Blackice
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Baker
    Case Study: If Walmart provided great savings on gas to French taxis in WWII, would it be considered TOTAL WAR?!?

    Ninja, pleez.
     
  9. dusanyu
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    932
    Likes Received:
    0
    no "a bunch of crazies" is a fitting description for the US congress"

    "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm; and that three or more become a Congress" --Misattributed to John Addams
     
  10. decoyninja
    Veteran Crowfall Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,068
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Florida
    Add in a two party system where one side will always support the president on their team while the other will fight him on every decision though? That is what makes our country just plain bananas.

    That's never what it has all been about. Congress has no problem pulling down their collective pants and taking a deuce on the constitution, it isn't what they are "fighting for." Politics in general is a game where each side tries to score as many points as possible, the victors are determined on the various election days.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.