Again, where does the UN Charter allow the UN to force Member States to take military action when doing so goes against the laws of that Member State?

Authorizing and compelling are two different things.

BullBearMS: The War Powers resolution doesn't say anything about national security.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

There are a lot of people trying to use this as an excuse for why it's OK for Obama to go warmongering without Congressional authorization, but there is no way to make that case logically.

Libya has not attacked the US.

Libya posed no imminent threat to the US.

Not that you actually care. I've seen your derp hammer in use before. However, you may want to read the actual act instead of getting the wiki description.

Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date. (new window)

GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

BullBearMS: DarnoKonrad: PonceAlyosha: constitutional

Congress approved the U.N. charter. It gives the president the authorization to enforce U.N. mandates without congressional approval under certain circumstances. Which I'm sure is why they waited for U.N. approval in the first place.

[Citation Needed]

Where does the UN Charter allow the UN to force member states to take military action even if doing so goes against that member state's laws?

Wow... Way off base. No where was it stated that the UN forced the President to enforce the UN mandate. It gives the POTUS the power to do so. As with most executive powers it's a matter of choosing whether to exercise it or not.

/Seriously dude, like an ass.

GoldSpider:
Stop doing that.


Drawing attention to people who don't understand what 'unilateral' means?

BullBearMS: Again, where does the UN Charter allow the UN to force Member States to take military action when doing so goes against the laws of that Member State?

Authorizing and compelling are two different things.

You were attempting to make the point that Obama is violating the constitution by participating in the operation in Libya. Now that you have obviously lost that argument, you are attempting to shift the argument.

/keep hammering

Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

That solves that then.

lordaction: "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." - Barack Obama

I'll just leave this here and wait and see how the hypocritical left finds away to rationalize.

RON PAUL

dosboot: PonceAlyosha

Not trying to argue constitutionality, trying to describe what actually happened. Neither party will push that this is illegal/unconstitutional.

Which is a shame. So much for being a nation of laws.

From Obama December 20, 2007:

"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."

You people don't actually bother reading the comment thread here before posting, do you? *facepalm*

/for what it's worth, I'm not sure how "boobies" replaced "post" in my previous comment.

YoMammaObama: altinos: apeiron242: i hope some guy beats the crap out of you while onlookers shrug and mutter that it's not their problem.

We can't be the world's policeman.

War is an ugly thing, but it's not the worst of things. The degraded state of a patriotic feeling that dictates "Nothing is worth war!" is far worse. A person who has nothing for which they are willing to fight, nothing he cares for more than his own personal safety; is a pathetic creature who is made and kept free by the exertions of men and women better than himself.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." -John Stuart Mill

Nightsweat: U.N. was established by Treaty

Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing. "Unilateral" in the context of the Constitution is about getting authorization from Congress, and has nothing to do with the UN.

The UN charter, and the law authorizing the president to use force to enforce a UN charter without congressional approval (that DK so helpfully provided), are a completely different animal.

I think it's an important distinction.

BullBearMS: Again, where does the UN Charter allow the UN to force Member States to take military action when doing so goes against the laws of that Member State?

Authorizing and compelling are two different things.


Ozzy can't follow your logic.

yeah, blowing up 4 story buildings in Tripoli that have nothing to do with supporting the airforce is all about enforcing the no fly zone.

This is an act of war.

This blood and destruction is on Obama's hands.

Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

DarnoKonrad: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Just call it "Freedom Bombing," and poof! They're all on board.

Nah, Iraq took years of propaganda to make everyone lose their collective skepticism. You can't just whip up History Channel 'documentaries' about the evils of Gaddafi overnight.

Are you... not paying attention right now? You haven't noticed propaganda machine in full force for the last 3 weeks or so?

Shaggy_C: BullBearMS: You seem unable to understand that the War Powers Resolution requires that the US be under imminent threat for the President to be allowed to act without Congressional approval.

Where was the imminent threat to the United States in Grenada? In Panama? In Somalia?

Panama I'd buy. The canal is a strategic issue, and was under US control at the time.

GoldSpider: Nightsweat: U.N. was established by Treaty

Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing. "Unilateral" in the context of the Constitution is about getting authorization from Congress, and has nothing to do with the UN.

The UN charter, and the law authorizing the president to use force to enforce a UN charter without congressional approval (that DK so helpfully provided), are a completely different animal.

I think it's an important distinction.

Which is why we have legal frameworks that specifically allow the President to deploy forces to fulfill treaty obligations.

tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, blowing up 4 story buildings in Tripoli that have nothing to do with supporting the airforce is all about enforcing the no fly zone.

This is an act of war.

This blood and destruction is on Obama's hands.

Luckily for Obama's blood hands, there won't be much of a government left to MAKE war against us as of...five hours ago.

ferretman: BroadbandGremlin: The Thnikkaman: I was against the war in Iraq, I'm against these actions against Libya.

Yeah, it sucks that Qadhafi is killing his own people. He's a son of a biatch for doing the things he's doing. But it should be up to Libya to handle Libya's problem. If their uprising gets quelled, oh well. Not every revolution is a successful one, but that's life. But it's not America's problem, we shouldn't make it our problem.

If we keep interfering in other people's governments, it'll continue to keep biting us in the ass later.

I think we should mind our own business in regards to Libya up until Qadhafi starts making threats against America. And no, we shouldn't be provoking his government until he does just that.

This is a Libyan problem, not an American problem.

===

What if the French had the same attitude during America's Revolutionary War?

They'd be speaking German now.

====

Excellent response.

Whoops! Silly me.
HereI "ass-u-me-d" the headline matched TFA.
My bad. (hangs head in shame)
/Sorry. I got told.

Another illegal war by the clinton/bush regime. America needs liberation.

As far as I am concerned, going in with the UN, Great Britain, France, Italy, etc. is not a unilateral action. I am glad Obama did it this way so the Regressives couldn't tie us up with a bunch of their political bullshiat where they oppose everything Obama tries to do.

F*ck you, Regressives. Get back on the team and work for America for once and not against it.

BroadbandGremlin: ferretman: BroadbandGremlin: The Thnikkaman: I was against the war in Iraq, I'm against these actions against Libya.

Yeah, it sucks that Qadhafi is killing his own people. He's a son of a biatch for doing the things he's doing. But it should be up to Libya to handle Libya's problem. If their uprising gets quelled, oh well. Not every revolution is a successful one, but that's life. But it's not America's problem, we shouldn't make it our problem.

If we keep interfering in other people's governments, it'll continue to keep biting us in the ass later.

I think we should mind our own business in regards to Libya up until Qadhafi starts making threats against America. And no, we shouldn't be provoking his government until he does just that.

This is a Libyan problem, not an American problem.

===

What if the French had the same attitude during America's Revolutionary War?

They'd be speaking German now.

====

Excellent response.

But we'd still be speaking English and with a gayer accent to boot!

DarnoKonrad: Drawing attention to people who don't understand what 'unilateral' means?

Context matters.

Also, I love the new brand of Pacifist!Conservatroll, these guys are awesome and hilarious. Good on you guys.

toraque: BullBearMS: Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Dude. You've lost your argument. Find some way to gracefully concede, and move on with your life before you go full Czarangelus.

So you don't understand who the Supreme Court is either?

Treaties do not override the Constitution.

apeiron242: Slaxl: government

This must be some new meaning of government. Libya doesn't have a gov't, they are occupied by a goon squad, much like Iraq was until 2003.

Likewise for North Korea, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Palestine, Pakistan, and until recently, Russia and China. Where is our invasions of liberation in those?

meanmutton: Cajnik: I love how the war-mongering Republicans are feigning outrage at going to war.

Umm -- who are? I haven't seen a single one. You didn't even read the article's actual headline, did you? I mean, I know that clicking on a mouse is a lot of work but the article is about Democrats being critical of the President, not Republicans. The headline was using this newfangled linguistic tool called "sarcasm".

I read TFA, I was referring to subby and the dolts in here

muck4doo [TotalFark] 2011-03-21 12:41:54 PM
Farrakhan is pissed too.


// News: Somebody pissed in his 0bama milkshake/
Fark: It was 0bama hisself.
Awkward

Cajnik: meanmutton: Cajnik: I love how the war-mongering Republicans are feigning outrage at going to war.

Umm -- who are? I haven't seen a single one. You didn't even read the article's actual headline, did you? I mean, I know that clicking on a mouse is a lot of work but the article is about Democrats being critical of the President, not Republicans. The headline was using this newfangled linguistic tool called "sarcasm".

I read TFA, I was referring to subby and the dolts in here

Awesome save (not really). Just admit like I did and say something stupid and funny to distract everyone.

toraque: BullBearMS: Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Dude. You've lost your argument. Find some way to gracefully concede, and move on with your life before you go full Czarangelus.

Not possible. If you've followed this guy's posting history at all, it seems more and more likely that he is one of the paid GOP sockpuppets we've been hearing so much about lately. He just works too hard at cherry picking quotes from left-leaning websites and quoting things out of context to support the standard GOP propaganda to be just your typical forum troll.

Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

Follow the order of precedence in that statement. The Laws of the United States do not take precedence over the Constitution. This statement merely says that Federal laws and treaties take priority over State laws.

This text is now purple: Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

Follow the order of precedence in that statement. The Laws of the United States do not take precedence over the Constitution. This statement merely says that Federal laws and treaties take priority over State laws.

yeah because only people from the GOP are hard headed and idiots. i am from the GOP and I am here to help.

Tor_Eckman: toraque: BullBearMS: Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Dude. You've lost your argument. Find some way to gracefully concede, and move on with your life before you go full Czarangelus.

Not possible. If you've followed this guy's posting history at all, it seems more and more likely that he is one of the paid GOP sockpuppets we've been hearing so much about lately. He just works too hard at cherry picking quotes from left-leaning websites and quoting things out of context to support the standard GOP propaganda to be just your typical forum troll.



Don't you dare criticize Democrats for starting yet more endless wars!

YoMammaObama: War is an ugly thing, but it's not the worst of things. The degraded state of a patriotic feeling that dictates "Nothing is worth war!" is far worse. A person who has nothing for which they are willing to fight, nothing he cares for more than his own personal safety; is a pathetic creature who is made and kept free by the exertions of men and women better than himself.

When Muammar Gaddafi launches his fleet to invade the US, I'll be there with my rifles to defend this land. Until then, those pictures are just those of an imperialistic army expanding the dying American Empire.

PonceAlyosha: tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, blowing up 4 story buildings in Tripoli that have nothing to do with supporting the airforce is all about enforcing the no fly zone.

This is an act of war.

This blood and destruction is on Obama's hands.

Luckily for Obama's blood hands, there won't be much of a government left to MAKE war against us as of...five hours ago.

five hours ago? is that when they announced that the Illinois National Guard is going to Libya (true)? Do you think that that was the turning point?

Remember kiddies, you can win the war and then get involved in the "nation building" and getting rid of the insurgents and others...that may take some time, money and lives or did you forget about that already?

meanmutton: Cajnik: I love how the war-mongering Republicans are feigning outrage at going to war.

Umm -- who are? I haven't seen a single one.

Ahh, so you've skipped the entire thread, how nice.

If only you could see the 'Fark Independent' colors I have on my screen of all the 'concerned' constitutional scholars...

savage henry: meanmutton: Cajnik: I love how the war-mongering Republicans are feigning outrage at going to war.

Umm -- who are? I haven't seen a single one.

Ahh, so you've skipped the entire thread, how nice.

If only you could see the 'Fark Independent' colors I have on my screen of all the 'concerned' constitutional scholars...

Looks like elements of the Illinois Air national guard are being mobilized.

PonceAlyosha: Also, I love the new brand of Pacifist!Conservatroll, these guys are awesome and hilarious. Good on you guys.

Not all opposition is purely partisan; there are those of us who maintain consistent principles regardless of which party is in power. Foreign intervention was wrong in Iraq under Bush, and it's equally wrong now.

Thankfully we haven't put soldiers on the ground yet, so at least this quagmire will take a little longer to fully suck us in. ...but, after Gaddafi is ousted or killed & Libya descends into chaos, then we'll be compelled to come in and set up a transitional government (unless -- miracle of miracles -- the Europeans do this). We'll probably be lucky to be out of Libya before 2020.

/oh well, at least we've got a huge budget surplus to fund yet another war in the Middle East

savage henry: meanmutton: Cajnik: I love how the war-mongering Republicans are feigning outrage at going to war.

Umm -- who are? I haven't seen a single one.

Ahh, so you've skipped the entire thread, how nice.

If only you could see the 'Fark Independent' colors I have on my screen of all the 'concerned' constitutional scholars...

Congratulations. I've added you to my list of assholes who claim to oppose our endless wars, when in fact they think more wars for oil are awesome provided your team starts them.

EWreckedSean: Macinfarker: This is far different than Bush's Iraq war."

// you are correct,
This time with nuclear goodness.
Emphasis on Good

Arab Lover: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." -John Stuart Mill

I didn't look it up, I wrote it from memory. But thanks for the word-for-word.

altinos: When Muammar Gaddafi launches his fleet to invade the US, I'll be there with my rifles to defend this land.

I hope you get butt raped on a subway with many onlookers who do not care to help you because it isn't their problem.

DarnoKonrad

dosboot: "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."

And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Invoking the Consitution for unilateral means "without Congressional approval"; the Consitution makes no mention of the UN. Furthermore, treaties don't trump the Constituion, else you could lose your rights, such as the First Amendment ones, simply by having the President sign, and the Senate approve, a treaty to same.

jshine: jake3988: Well, they've made it clear it's only a very short operation with help from the UN and that's it.

Yes, this is certainly true. After all, they will greet us as liberators!

So, you honestly don't understand the difference between a UN peacekeeping mission in a country torn by civil war, and a non-UN sanctioned invasion of a country that was done because they might have WMDs?

YoMammaObama: Arab Lover: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." -John Stuart Mill

I didn't look it up, I wrote it from memory. But thanks for the word-for-word.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-mill

/ were you too lazy to copypasta the entire thing?

BullBearMS: Tor_Eckman: toraque: BullBearMS: Nightsweat: GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: And you wonder why they went through the U.N. to do this?

Stop doing that. The powers specified by the Constitution have nothing to do with the UN.

Might want to look for that whole "treaty" thing.

Article VI -
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.N. was established by Treaty

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Dude. You've lost your argument. Find some way to gracefully concede, and move on with your life before you go full Czarangelus.

Not possible. If you've followed this guy's posting history at all, it seems more and more likely that he is one of the paid GOP sockpuppets we've been hearing so much about lately. He just works too hard at cherry picking quotes from left-leaning websites and quoting things out of context to support the standard GOP propaganda to be just your typical forum troll.



Don't you dare criticize Democrats for starting yet more endless wars!

For those keeping score at home: When he posts this picture, it's a sure sign that his little argument has been torn to pieces and he has nothing left.