Thread to call on Barack Obama to become the first president to ACCEPT the War Powers Act

[Ken Burch]

Like Clinton and Carter, Obama has so far betrayed his party by opposing the act and defending the absolute right of the executive to order slaughter and mayhem around the globe without any Congressional constraint. Since war can never be progressive again, we need to call on him to do the right thing, to honor the memory of true Dems like Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy and accept the War Powers Act.

It simply isn't necessary anymore for any president to be able to start a killing spree without accountability. And no good has come of any use of U.S. force since 1945 anyway, so why shouldn't he just do the honorable thing and be reasonable about this?

And, no matter what else, there's simply no excuse for any Democratic president to be on the same side of any foreign policy question as Nixon, Reagan, Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer or either Bush.

[msongs]

1. the business of America is war. not likely to happen anytime soon nt

[boppers]

2. Interesting way of approving of genocide.

"no good has come of any use of U.S. force since 1945 anyway"

9 out of 10 living Kosovars might disagree.

[jefferson_dem]

6. And we should have left bin Laden be...to tend to his gardens, smoke his weed, and enjoy his porn.

:crazy:

[Ken Burch]

8. He could have been dealt with through low-scale intelligence operations

We didn't actually have to go to war with Afghanistan(and the Afghan people weren't collectively responsible for Al Qaeda in any case). Finally, the fact that he was caught in Pakistan proves that it was useless for us to have combat troops in Afghanistan at all.

Accepting the War Powers Act would not have stopped the hit on Bin Laden.

[Ken Burch]

10. It's not like the bombing was the only way to stop that.

n/t.

[midnight]

3. Our economy is being looted, and it can't be done unless

we extend this state of emergency B.S. via ignoring the War Powers Act....

[Vattel]

4. Too late. He's already violated it.

[robcon]

5. War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

A law can't override the Constitution in separation of powers - it would require an amendment.

[ieoeja]

16. Isn't that why the Graham-Rudmann act was overturned?

Didn't the US Supreme Court rule that Congress could not pass a law automatically establishing future budgets because they were constitutionally required to enact a separate budget each and every year?

[Hippo_Tron]

24. The Supreme Court actually won't rule one way or another

Because of the "political question" doctrine. And until the court does otherwise, arguments for and against its constitutionality don't mean anything outside of a law school classroom. What does matter is that because the courts won't rule on it, it is not enforceable.

[Kaleva]

27. I would think it's actually enforceable.

What I've read is that the courts won't touch this case because Congress already has the means to enforce the War Powers Act by either cutting off funding and/or impeaching the president.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Your last line is rather ironic...

Considering the source of the most vocal criticisms of Obama's foreign policy approach, with regards to the WPA.

Republicans challenge President Obama's war powers - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57597.html

[Ken Burch]

9. On LIbya, they may have a point.

Certainly, there's no reason for us to be treating Libya differently than Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The three countries are all equally oppressed. Qadaffi isn't worse than all of them.

[ellisonz]

17. That is not...

...what the current debate in Congress has been, currently is, or will be in the future.

[Ken Burch]

18. My thread isn't about the current debate. I've always felt that the executive should accept

the War Powers Act.

And it's unfair to act as if the only reason anybody in Congress is questioning the bombing of Libya is hostility to Obama. Most of those who question it would also do so if a McCain administration were in power and doing the same thing. It's almost entirely peace Democrats leading the opposition to the Libya bombing. The tiny handful of Republicans who are also questioning it are doing so because they actually get it that this isn't the right approach. They'd stand up to McCain on this, just as some Republicans stood up to Nixon on Vietnam.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. If by "tiny handful of Republicans" you mean Ron Paul and maybe his son, then yes I agree

But other than that, there are none that I can think of who are not hypocrites.

[Ken Burch]

22. The fact that those guys are hypocrites has nothing to do with MY point

No Democratic president should ever have refused to accept the War Measures Act. That kind of arrogance and Imperial Presidency mindset should be left to the Right. OUR party should be better than that.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Read my post #20 and respond to it

We need REAL limits on presidential war making powers, not just an illusion.

[Ken Burch]

25. OK, we need even MORE limits, but you can't push for more limits AND

refuse to accept the War Measures Act at the same time.

It's right-wing to defend the right of the executive to wage war at will. No Democratic president should defend any part of the foreign policy ideas of Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan and the Bushes.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. The first step toward solving a problem is admitting you have a problem

As long as liberals are unwilling to admit that the War Powers Act isn't worth the paper it's printed on, they will be unable to start pushing for REAL limits to presidential war making power.

In this entire debate over Libya, I haven't seen a single member of congress even mention the prospect of a constitutional amendment to put the War Powers Act into the constitution. And the reason for that, is because that would require them to admit that they can't enforce the War Powers Act, and they don't want to do that.

[JoePhilly]

11. I hear he kicks puppies too!!

[Ken Burch]

12. This isn't picking on Obama...it's calling on him to do what's right

If the War Powers Act was justified in the seventies, it's still justified now. No president can ever be trusted with unaccountable war-making powers and our wars now are only in the service of the rich.

[JoePhilly]

14. "slaughter and mayhem around the globe"

"for any president to be able to start a killing spree"

You're claiming that Obama supports "slaughter, mayhem, and killing sprees" .... but you are not picking on him.

OK.

[Ken Burch]

15. I'm not singling him out. That's what our wars since 1945 have been about.

That's what Korea and Vietnam were about...and no war since has been different from Korea and Vietnam...fortunately, in recent years they realized they didn't have to kill quite as many(or at least not count them, as was the case in Iraq, because it doesn't matter if non-Americans die).

The War Powers Act is something every civilized nation should have. No American president ever again needs to be able to commit to a long-term war without Congressional oversight. Such commitments can only lead to Vietnams. They simply can't have positive results.

And full-scale war wasn't needed to get Bin Laden. Nothing we did in Afghanistan had anything to do with catching him, since he wasn't there.

[Ken Burch]

13. Didn't know there were so many Henry Kissinger groupies on this board

You have to agree with Dr. K on everything to oppose the War Powers Act. There's no way to use unencumbered killing powers for the people anymore. The need for them died with Hitler.

[cbc5g]

19. I think we all know

That if Bush were in the White House and launching these wars, everyone would be calling for impeachment.

What's sick is, we let it go with Obama because our "team" is in the white house now. So war is okay now. Well it isn't to me. Either you're anti-war or you're not. It makes me sick that some of those folks I marched with against war with Iraq are now cheerleading this one. We have no right interfering in another countries internal issues. You know as well as I do that if there were a rebellion here, it would be squashed with tanks and missiles.

The fact is, Gaddafi was trying to nationalize his oil and the west couldn't have that so they started the rebellion through covert means, exchanges of money and through food prices.

It's all a show and we're all being taken for a ride.

Here is an interesting fact. More innocents have been killed by drone strikes than by Gaddafi the past year. Peace prize, really?

If things don't change, I'll be sitting this election out..I won't vote for a DEM that acts like a REP and ignores the constitution. Christ, even Bush went to Congress for war. Obama's actions have been shameful.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. If the War Powers Act were viable, Obama wouldn't have to "accept" it

He would be FORCED to abide by it. However, the courts won't rule on it and therefore it's a meaningless measure.

The ONLY enforceable way for congress to control military action is via the power of the purse. However, everybody knows that congress is way to chickenshit to ever cut off funding for a military operation. So, they come up with the "War Powers Act" to create the illusion that they can exert control via other means.

Tell me, when since its passage in 1973 has the War Powers Act ever stopped a President from taking military action? Not a single fucking time. That's because it can't. Congress creates the illusion that it can by either approving resolutions for the use of force or looking the other way and saying it fits under one of the exemptions when he doesn't, or some combination of both.

Trying to limit executive power by asking the executive to voluntarily accept limits on his power (that he can renege on at any point) is not going to work. We either need to put the War Powers Act in the constitution or we need to demand that congress actually exercise the power of the purse.

Nixon, Reagan, Kissinger, Krauthammer, and the Bushes are 100% right in their belief that the War Powers Act can't limit the President's power to use military force. They are 100% wrong in their belief that the President SHOULD have unlimited power to use military force.

[joshcryer]

28. Congress would maybe have something if they followed priority procedures mandated by the act.

Instead they twaddled purposefully, ignored the priority procedures and then when they finally did vote on it they voted to not authorize it and to not deauthorize it. In other words, they are playing everyone.

Had they followed priority procedures at the bare minimum we would've had a vote within the 60 day period, but had they chosen to not authorize or not deauthorize the actions we'd still be where we're at. The President claiming no hostilities, and liberals siding with Republicans. The only way they could've had an argument in court is if they actually deauthorized it, entirely.

Then the SCOTUS would've had to make a decision real quick. Whether it'd have standing or not, I dunno. I have my doubts given that the actions taken by the President are fully within the law. Remove the drones and no one can say we're acting within hostilities.

[robcon]

29. War Powers Act is unconstitutional. It would not survive a USSC test, IMO.

Can't change Commander-in-Chief powers without an amendment.