General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSenator Obama, 12-20-2007..."The President does NOT have the authority..."
Clear?
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I guess gallows humor brings out the best in me.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)global1
(25,247 posts)and you know - everything he is for - the Repugs are against. So knowing that - they won't authorize a strike and then anything that happens henceforth would be blamed on the Repugs in Congress. (sarcasm)
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)emergency session.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He's still busy cutting social security.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)And of course, in the age of Terror(tm) EVERYTHING is an imminent threat to the USA.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)And...what can he do with Dick Cheney dogging him on the Sunday Shows every time a country in the ME has unrest because a Western Friendly Dictator causes the people there to rise up? To make sure he got the message on Syria, I read that Colin Powell was thrown in on this past Sunday's Show to verify Cheney's view, just for good measure.
What can he do? What can he do.....sigh. It's out of his hands now that he's President. A Senator has so much more power that a President.
tsuki
(11,994 posts)something other than the Sunday Pun-Twits.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)"Rational Times"....since...
Well...I can't remember..
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)President Obama has yet to bomb Iran, unless I missed it.
Just for accuracy, this is the rest of Senator Obama's reply.
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. The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)DURec
Divernan
(15,480 posts)He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors - at University of Chicago. They are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He taught three courses:
Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.
Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Filed away for future reference.
I would like to know a little more about his Community Organizing too.
So much of it now seems like a smokescreen,
and even grooming for a run at the White House
Even though I found him to be charismatic and inspiring at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I always wondered how a little known State Senator with NO record at all, landed such a coveted speaking spot so high on the Prime Time Democratic Party Convention schedule.
Politicians will KILL for that kind of PRIME Time National Exposure!
kath
(10,565 posts)The nerve!!
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)I just heard a blip of John King (CNN) saying that "running for President is very different than being President".
Politics as usual. Say what they want to hear to get elected; then do what you want when you are.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Because that's not what I'm seeing discussed anywhere.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I doubt he can even get a NATO resolution.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You were saying?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Seeking a resolution is good. But, getting one that authorizes force is necessary.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)We see no avenue forward, given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful Council action on Syria, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
We cannot be held up in responding by Russias continued intransigence at the United Nations, and quite frankly the situation is so serious that it demands a response, Harf said.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/obama-not-ready-to-order-syria-strike-but-gives-up-on-un/
I said get back to me because I knew there was no way in hell anything was coming from the UN Security Council.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Even if it's just the UK and the USA, it's not unilateral. Words mean things. So take your sad little trump card and put it back in the deck.
Acting unilaterally is the point of this OP, morningfog. It's quoting Senator Obama's words as if to say that President Obama's being hypocritical. But that isn't what's happening here - even if the UN proposal comes to nothing, there is still no action unilaterally. Congress is being consulted. There are other partners involved in any proposed action. And when I point this out, you move the goalposts.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)the executive acting on his own authority without the approval or consent of Congress.
In 2007, then-Sen. Joe Biden thought a president using military force (or as he said, "taking us in to war" was an impeachable offense. See Post #59
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)The OP is just fear mongering.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)without UN sanction is most certainly an illegal war. You saying "bullshit" is worth everything else you say and doesn't change the international law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The only real goal.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)instead of making crap up, though. It would give their arguments more weight.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You were saying?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)So it's still not unilateral.
Please proceed.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)or anyone that he wants to blow up:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... that Barack Obama is hidden. Seems that about the only thing that guy had in common with the Prez, is a name and physical appearance.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)MuseRider
(34,109 posts)Well of course he said that. He has said many things that are 100% different than the way he has and is governing.
Thanks bvar, I have been reading, you have been doing some great posting.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...whatever happened to him?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The current Obama is indistinguishable from the Republicans.
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)The clip starts off slow. The good part starts at the 7:00 mark.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52861022
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)So I don't think he is planning on doing it unilaterally.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)R2P - Responsibility to Protect
If it comes to action, albeit limited, the British, French and Americans are likely to fall back on a number of arguments to legitimise the use of force.
Among them are the breaking of the Geneva Conventions, various treaties reacting to chemical weapons which date all the way back to 1925, and a concept known as R2P - Responsibility to Protect.
In 1999 US President Bill Clinton justified the bombing of Serbia on the ground of the moral responsibility protect large numbers of civilians.
He assembled the Nato countries to give "international cover" on what was a US-led operation.
In 2005, the UN adopted R2P as an "international norm" but there is fierce debate about whether it can be invoked without a UN Security Council resolution.
http://news.sky.com/story/1133677/syrian-crisis-morality-of-war-and-jungle-law
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)r2p can be invoked if all parties agree otherwise you need UN
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Syria & International Law
With increasing speculation about a possible U.S. action against Syria, along with a consensus that Russia would block any U.N. Security Council authorization for such an action, speculation has begun as to possible legal justifications for a U.S. action in the absence of U.N. authorization. Last night, Elise Abbott of CNN summarized this as follows:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in Indonesia Monday, said if there is any action taken, it will be in concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification.
The United States is examining a variety of potential legal justifications for any type of military action. While three United Nations Security Council resolutions have failed to pass because of Russian veto power, officials say some in the administration believe it may be worth it to make the effort. But with Moscow already promising to declare any military intervention illegal, the United States and its allies would likely have to act without a U.N. mandate.
Officials have pointed to the 1999 conflict in Kosovo as a precedent, where President Bill Clinton used NATO backing and the responsibility to protect (R2P) as a legal basis for airstrikes without a U.N. mandate. Adopted by the United Nations, including Russia, as an international norm in 2005, the R2P seeks to justify outside intervention in a countrys internal affairs, if that state had failed to protect its population from atrocities.
Given that the use of chemical weapons is considered a crime against humanity and banned by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the R2P could be applied to Syria, although its legitimacy in the absence of a U.N. mandate is debatable.
Meanwhile, Professor Julian Ku wrote this piece about some takes on the legality of a potential action from the UK, France, and Russia.
http://afgeneralcounsel.dodlive.mil/2013/08/27/syria-international-law/
There is precedence. I would not be surprised if they will use it since Russia will veto anything we put forth.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)They will result in the Syrian government going all out to destroy the anti-government threat, meaning that any civilians that support the anti-government threat will be massacred. And guess who gets the blame? Obama / the US.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Obviously we are not dealing with a rational 'leader'.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)He can't kill massive numbers without the world looking elsewhere. Elsewhere will be the smoldering "orphanages" that the US is bound to be hitting.
Otherwise he has to keep the slow slog going, the back and forth, the "pew pew." This slow civil war is killing his regime slowly but surely, ala Algiers. He can't afford for it to go on for many more years. Better to end it with as much brutal force as possible. And he simply can't do that without the world saying something.
rug
(82,333 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The Constitution does not directly grant him that authority. It is granted to the Congress, which in turn granted the authority to The President, within certain limitations.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541
^snip^
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...once elected, he doesn't have to do anything he promised, you know, like Republicans say about "exit strategy" and "nation building." Just words. And commas. Ha ha.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Its easier to ignore this than it is to argue with the Man Himself,
though I was curious as to how this would be twisted and tortured by someone insisting that Obama did not mean what he said.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)budkin
(6,703 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Stating that if the President of the United States took us to war without congressional approval, it would be an impeachable offense.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Adding to my library of clips.