Libya...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm so confused. Are you guys saying that when the US acts like Qaddaffi (whether it's Nixon or Obama), we shouldn't spend US blood (or money?) to stop it, because governments have a right to quell an uprising as they see fit? We should just let it happen because whoever is in charge is in charge?

I'm trying to say something more fundamental than that. Namely, if the president is not going to follow the rules, then what we think doesn't really matter. We the people may think a particular cause is worthy, but what we're really doing is ceding the power to the president to do what he likes, when he likes, without respect to laws which he's sworn to uphold and without respect to the very important separation of powers.

The constitution is unequivocally clear on which branch of government has the authority to declare war (it's not the executive branch nor is it the UN Security Council). The president has sworn to uphold the constitution. The president, by launching an attack on a foreign country without authorization from congress has unquestionably committed a very high crime, and all that this implies.

The prudent course of action would be for congress to impeach Obama and then set about debating whether we should wage war on Libya.

This of course isn't going to happen. The train is so far off the tracks that congress will (for the most part) manage not to notice the abject executive usurpation of their powers. They'll probably just order up some freshly printed dollars from the fed to pay for the Libyan mission creep, then get to work on the next boondoggle.

The train is so off the tracks.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm trying to say something more fundamental than that. Namely, if the president is not going to follow the rules, then what we think doesn't really matter. We the people may think a particular cause is worthy, but what we're really doing is ceding the power to the president to do what he likes, when he likes, without respect to laws which he's sworn to uphold and without respect to the very important separation of powers.

The constitution is unequivocally clear on which branch of government has the authority to declare war (it's not the executive branch nor is it the UN Security Council). The president has sworn to uphold the constitution. The president, by launching an attack on a foreign country without authorization from congress has unquestionably committed a very high crime, and all that this implies.

The prudent course of action would be for congress to impeach Obama and then set about debating whether we should wage war on Libya.

This of course isn't going to happen. The train is so far off the tracks that congress will (for the most part) manage not to notice the abject executive usurpation of their powers. They'll probably just order up some freshly printed dollars from the fed to pay for the Libyan mission creep, then get to work on the next boondoggle.

The train is so off the tracks.

Can't argue with that.
But it makes me wonder where is the breaking point? When is a president kicked out of power? Lying to congress about sexual relationships seems to be close.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Can't argue with that.
But it makes me wonder where is the breaking point? When is a president kicked out of power? Lying to congress about sexual relationships seems to be close.

If President lying was the point:
Kennedy -- Bay of Pigs, etc
Johnson -- no new troops
Nixon -- Watergate
Ford -- (exempt as he was never voted in)
Carter -- Iran hostage
Reagan -- Iran Contra
Bush Sr -- no new taxes
Clinton -- nothing to say here except there is not enough space to type it all
Bush Jr -- not enough space to type it all
Obama -- just more of the same - Libya

So, I can't say as any of them should have stayed in power. This takes you back to before my time.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If President lying was the point

That depended on what your definition of was was.