Presidential Use of Offensive Military Force w/o Congress...

[Coito ergo sum]

H.Con.Res.107 - Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-hc107/show

[Gawdzilla Sama]

H.Con.Res.107 - Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-hc107/show

Showboating.

[Coito ergo sum]

I do find it interesting that it is difficult to find an article about this in the major media outlets. Even the Bush Administration sought Congressional authorization.

[eXcommunicate]

So, Mr. Walter Jones would have voted to impeach Ronald Reagan, then? I doubt it.

[Coito ergo sum]

No approval necessary, then?

[Svartalf]

Remind me, how much was Congress consulted before bush sent you folk into the Afghan/Iraqi mire?
and he still ruled for a full 2 terms.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

[Coito ergo sum]

Remind me, how much was Congress consulted before bush sent you folk into the Afghan/Iraqi mire?
and he still ruled for a full 2 terms.

He received prior approval from Congress for both.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Yep --

the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

NOTE - Clinton and Obama disregarded it. Neither of the Bushes did that.

[Feck]

Did congress approve all the other terrible things the US has done ? all of this stuff is being thrown up for partisan political reasons . You don't hear the Republicans shouting that US military aid to Israel breaks the rules about military aid being spent only on US produced arms and not used to fund the establishment of an arms industry in the recipient country do you ? This goes in the same box as the rubbish from the birthers and claims that health-care is godless communism .

[maiforpeace]

They're just looking for any excuse to impeach Obama.

This about Syria - and once again the hypocrisy of the Republicans is astounding, considering how Romney and many other Republicans beating the war drum continue to ridicule Obama for apparently insisting he wouldn't take military action action in Syria. (which is untrue)

[Coito ergo sum]

Did congress approve all the other terrible things the US has done ?

What are you referring to?

If a terrible thing is done, like the massacre the other day in Afghanistan, then no, Congress does not approve the details. Congress did not approve the escalation by Obama of the war in Afghanistan, the drone missions into Pakistan or Yemen, either -- at least - they did not provide additional approval other than that obtained under Bush.

all of this stuff is being thrown up for partisan political reasons

Let's assume that to be the case. Does the question still remain whether it was illegal to use offensive military force without Congressional approval?

Were the objections to Bush's actions "being thrown up for partisan political reasons?"

. You don't hear the Republicans shouting that US military aid to Israel

Why would they? The Republicans are in favor of aid to Israel that is given, as are the Democrats, generally speaking, and all the aid is authorized by Congress.

breaks the rules about military aid being spent only on US produced arms and not used to fund the establishment of an arms industry in the recipient country do you ?

What are you referring to here? Is there a suggestion that Israel is not spending the money lawfully?

This goes in the same box as the rubbish from the birthers and claims that health-care is godless communism .

So, under the given circumstances, Congressional approval is not needed then?

[Coito ergo sum]

They're just looking for any excuse to impeach Obama.

I don't doubt it at all. Sounds familiar, ay?

And, does the question still remain? Is Congressional approval required or not? yes? no? maybe?

This about Syria - and once again the hypocrisy of the Republicans is astounding, considering how Romney and many other Republicans beating the war drum continue to ridicule Obama for apparently insisting he wouldn't take military action action in Syria. (which is untrue)

He took military action in Libya without Congressional approval and without complying with the War Powers Act.

Was he supposed to? Or, is it legal to take that kind of military action without Congressional approval?

I mean - hypocrisy? Hypocrisy? Bush was railed against incessantly for whether he had the proper approval to go to war -- "no approval from the UN to go to war = illegal war" - remember that? And, now it's not supposed to matter that he didn't even get the approval of our own Congress? And, you're claiming that is REPUBLICAN hypocrisy?

Criminy...

[maiforpeace]

They're just looking for any excuse to impeach Obama.

I don't doubt it at all. Sounds familiar, ay?

And, does the question still remain? Is Congressional approval required or not? yes? no? maybe?

This about Syria - and once again the hypocrisy of the Republicans is astounding, considering how Romney and many other Republicans beating the war drum continue to ridicule Obama for apparently insisting he wouldn't take military action action in Syria. (which is untrue)

He took military action in Libya without Congressional approval and without complying with the War Powers Act.

Was he supposed to? Or, is it legal to take that kind of military action without Congressional approval?

I mean - hypocrisy? Hypocrisy? Bush was railed against incessantly for whether he had the proper approval to go to war -- "no approval from the UN to go to war = illegal war" - remember that? And, now it's not supposed to matter that he didn't even get the approval of our own Congress? And, you're claiming that is REPUBLICAN hypocrisy?

Criminy...

The hypocrisy I'm claiming isn't the "tit for tat" you are claiming...it's the fact that out of some Republican mouths they are essentially daring Obama to go to war in Syria, otherwise he's a ninny, while at the same time proposing this act. Big difference.

I don't recall any Democrats daring Bush to go to war in Iraq, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ian]

I do find it interesting that it is difficult to find an article about this in the major media outlets.

Perhaps that's because it's a bullshit posturing bill that hasn't even gone through Committee yet, and will never become a law.