Are they serious?

[2008f450]

Watching the news this morning. Saw Dennis "koo koo " Kucinich talking about how the big O went around the congress on the Lybia no fly zone.My favorite line in the whole thing was. "the constitution is very clear. It says he must get congresional approval." wait wait wait. You mean the constitution says it so thats it. Its funny how these pricks say the constitution is a living breathing thing when it comes to the 1st and 2nd but when it hurts thier ego its a concrete document. Which is it you fucks? If you believe that your gloriuos leader must abide by the letter of the paper then "shall not be infringed" should be too. Ok im done venting. Need my orange juice.

[Hoosier]

Watching the news this morning. Saw Dennis "koo koo " Kucinich talking about how the big O went around the congress on the Lybia no fly zone.My favorite line in the whole thing was. "the constitution is very clear. It says he must get congresional approval." wait wait wait. You mean the constitution says it so thats it. Its funny how these pricks say the constitution is a living breathing thing when it comes to the 1st and 2nd but when it hurts thier ego its a concrete document. Which is it you fucks? If you believe that your gloriuos leader must abide by the letter of the paper then "shall not be infringed" should be too. Ok im done venting. Need my orange juice.

The actual synopsis of the law isn't that difficult to parse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Just like Bush, Clinton, and Reagan before him, he gets a 60 day pass before Congressional approval is applied.

If memory serves, Congress has never enacted their War Powers since the act was passed, in all cases passing legislation which deferred to the CONUS power to conduct that particular war as he sees fit. I could be wrong.

H.

[2008f450]

Im not so much worried about wheter he can or cant send our military there with out congressional approval. Its more about how they once again pick and choose what is etched in stone in the constitution and what they can interpret or deem not relevent in the document.

[Hoosier]

Im not so much worried about wheter he can or cant send our military there with out congressional approval. Its more about how they once again pick and choose what is etched in stone in the constitution and what they can interpret or deem not relevent in the document.

If you're looking for consistency in the face of changing conditions from politicians, I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention for more than one election cycle during which either the Presidency or one or more houses of Congress change political hands. It's like the Cheshire Cat announcing that it's time to switch places, and all the politicians dutifully do so, leaving the tired arguments in the seat they're leaving. The people in power take their new seat as the opposition party, pick up the arguments sitting in the chair, and begin hurling them anew without the slightest hint or irony or hypocrisy.

Probably my favorite thing about watching Jon Stewart is when he brings up video of a politician saying "X is true" only to roll video several months/years latter of the same person saying "X is clearly false!" Doesn't really matter if there is a (R) or a (D) after their name, they're all just sock puppets of the monied interests (PAC, Lobby, Union, wealthy individual(s), corporations) that fund their campaigns.

H.

[ChadAmberg]

War Powers says he has 60 days to get an extension if he needs it, but he only has 48 hours to go before Congress with an explanation of what is going on. That's the part Obama apparently has missed.

[Byte Stryke]

I Agree with the OP to an extent, seems there is always a certain level of hypocrisy with the Polis on the hill in one manner or another. I think we just all have varying degrees to thick-skin to it by now.

[2008f450]

Hoosier I have been watching for years. Im just so sick of the politicians picking and choosing what they believe is true and what isnt in the Constitution. Doesnt matter if its (R) or (D) next to the name. I guess it just proves what I have been saying for years. The vast majority of the country is either too dumb to see it or they truly believe the politicians have their best iterests in mind

[68Charger]

someone sent me this;

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

-- Then-Sen. Barack Obama answering a December 2007 question by the Boston Globe

source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2...rack_Obama.htm
complete quote, with the question:
On War & Peace: No action against Iran without Congressional authorization

Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

[Byte Stryke]

Look at the gun grabbers... people read the constitution in any way that benefits them.
Politicos are included