PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton Reiterates, Obama Doesn't Need Congress For Libya War Actions




Immortal Technique
03-19-2011, 06:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SjmBzoTS_Y

Hillary Clinton airing date March.19, 2011

Hillary Clinton Reiterates, Obama Don't Need Congress For Libya War Actions

tangent4ronpaul
03-19-2011, 06:36 PM
FUCK YEAH! - Unilaterally NUKE MECCA!

Please - someone take the "football" away from this moron before he kills the world!

RonPaulFanInGA
03-19-2011, 06:52 PM
So a President can now unilaterally go to war without congressional improvement? Is this a joke?

Sad thing is: Obama can absolutely get away with it. Because the Congress, including the opposition party, won't raise a big enough fuss for the American people to pay attention.

low preference guy
03-19-2011, 06:53 PM
I hope Amash or Paul introduce an impeachment resolution. I'd be disappointed if nobody does.

aGameOfThrones
03-19-2011, 06:56 PM
"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore." -Henry Hyde

This!

cswake
03-19-2011, 06:58 PM
At least Bush 2 had the courtesy of appearing to follow the law:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

mport1
03-19-2011, 07:03 PM
Thanks for posting this. Shared on Facebook.

newbitech
03-19-2011, 07:06 PM
This!

who appropriated the 500k per tomahawk? these missiles are not being used in defense of the united states of america. therefor the use of the tomahawk missiles is illegal. if they want to use tomahawk missiles for anything other than the defense of the united states, then that use of the tomahawk missiles is an aggressive act of war. who gave the president of the united states the authority to commit aggressive acts of war? who gave this office of the president sole discretion to commit this nation to aggressive use of force?

The united states of america has committed an act of war on the sovereign nation of libya. the constitution has not been overtaken by events or by time. the constitution of the united states has been overtaken by a group of people who answer to no one. this usurpation of the will of the people of the united states of america is covered in the declaration of independence.


That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This "government" does not have my consent to initiate war with libya. If I am to remain independent, it is my right to alter or abolish this government and institute a new one.

If you accept the initiation of war with libya, then you consent to this war. Therefor, you pay for it and you own it. I for one am not with you.

nate895
03-19-2011, 07:06 PM
Articles of impeachment need to be written and heard on the floor of the House ASAP. This is a constitutional crisis.

Dreamofunity
03-19-2011, 07:12 PM
Ugh.

tangent4ronpaul
03-19-2011, 07:30 PM
Hitlary: I keep trying to talk that n*ger into getting his balls cut off and taking estrogen to go TG, so no one will dare question him on anything he dictates on PC grounds....

:rolleyes:

PermanentSleep
03-19-2011, 07:30 PM
How many times did she say "uh"?

aGameOfThrones
03-19-2011, 07:37 PM
who appropriated the 500k per tomahawk? these missiles are not being used in defense of the united states of america. therefor the use of the tomahawk missiles is illegal. if they want to use tomahawk missiles for anything other than the defense of the united states, then that use of the tomahawk missiles is an aggressive act of war. who gave the president of the united states the authority to commit aggressive acts of war? who gave this office of the president sole discretion to commit this nation to aggressive use of force?

The united states of america has committed an act of war on the sovereign nation of libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. the constitution has not been overtaken by events or by time. the constitution of the united states has been overtaken by a group of people who answer to no one. this usurpation of the will of the people of the united states of america is covered in the declaration of independence.



This "government" does not have my consent to initiate war with libya. If I am to remain independent, it is my right to alter or abolish this government and institute a new one.

If you accept the initiation of war with libya, then you consent to this war. Therefor, you pay for it and you own it. I for one am not with you.

Fixed it for you.

Huh? Calm down. I merely quoted someone who disagrees with the Constitution that he was by oath to uphold. Read the title of the thread then my post and you'll notice why I posted the quote.

speciallyblend
03-19-2011, 07:39 PM
So a President can now unilaterally go to war without congressional improvement? Is this a joke?

Sad thing is: Obama can absolutely get away with it. Because the Congress, including the opposition party, won't raise a big enough fuss for the American people to pay attention.

we have the gop to thank for this as well ;) if it wasn't for the complete failure of the gop leadership .This would of never happened period! blame is with the gop establishment and obama! The gop paved the road for obama by using the us constitution as TP and that is not tea party!!

tangent4ronpaul
03-19-2011, 07:51 PM
So a President can now unilaterally go to war without congressional improvement? Is this a joke?

DUDE? - that is like sooo pre 9/11, er wait... pre Vietnam, er wait....

sailingaway
03-19-2011, 08:14 PM
Senator Obama thought differently in 2007. See my signature.

HOLLYWOOD
03-19-2011, 08:21 PM
Any catch the Cozy Clinton/Wolf Blitzer bullshit photo op in Tahrir Square, Egypt? Besides the media traveling on US Federal Jets with Clinton, et al conspiring game, the CNN cameras kept the viewing angle to a minimum. Why, because Clinton, CNN, must not reveal the "5 deep" 50 security agents surrounding them. So tired of this rigged choreographed propaganda for America's ignorant viewers and BS statements from Clinton. I guess if you say it enough times, the incapable of critical thinking Americans will believe it all. These tyrants will do what they wish, it's the simple minded, uninformed, American people who are the fools to listen to the 4th branch of government and Washington DC.

Theirs NO STRUCTURE left in Washington DC... it's all the Imperialists, Zionists, Swindlers, Charlatans, and Theives free wheeling as they please... but American mundanes, better follow every law and don't you dare step on a crack while you walk!

CNN = Clinton News Network
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XEInyb4-d5w/SduTJKOR5CI/AAAAAAAAAMo/AuPyuPxhu3I/s400/cnn_corrupt.jpg

QueenB4Liberty
03-19-2011, 08:28 PM
This just makes me so sad. How this is basically Iraq all over again, Obama is a hypocrite, but yeah nothing to see here folks. It's fine and dandy. And no one seems to realize it's about oil.

VIDEODROME
03-19-2011, 08:34 PM
So a President can now unilaterally go to war without congressional improvement? Is this a joke?

Sad thing is: Obama can absolutely get away with it. Because the Congress, including the opposition party, won't raise a big enough fuss for the American people to pay attention.

Why.... because they'll have to admit they let Bush do the same.

tangent4ronpaul
03-19-2011, 08:35 PM
This just makes me so sad. How this is basically Iraq all over again, Obama is a hypocrite, but yeah nothing to see here folks. It's fine and dandy. And no one seems to realize it's about oil.

It's also about the northern faction of 34N - the "Dirt bag belt". Libya is the queen "problem child" in that region - has been for decades.

-t

awake
03-19-2011, 08:36 PM
Forget Qaddafi, who is going to stop the "liberators" from massacring the Libyan populace?

aGameOfThrones
03-19-2011, 08:42 PM
Senator Obama thought differently in 2007. See my signature.


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.--Sen. Barack Obama, 2007 "Nevermind!!!"~ President. Barack Obama

sailingaway
03-19-2011, 08:44 PM
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.--Sen. Barack Obama, 2007 "Nevermind!!!"~ President. Barack Obama

LOL!

and, Awake, I tried to put your link in my signature but couldn't get it to say 'revolution wear'. I'll figure it out.

awake
03-19-2011, 08:46 PM
LOL!

and, Awake, I tried to put your link in my signature but couldn't get it to say 'revolution wear'. I'll figure it out.

No worries, I am glad you can fly my colors.

anaconda
03-19-2011, 09:30 PM
I hope Amash or Paul introduce an impeachment resolution. I'd be disappointed if nobody does.

Definitely. Should be jointly introduced with Paul & Kucinich also.

newbitech
03-19-2011, 09:37 PM
Fixed it for you.

Huh? Calm down. I merely quoted someone who disagrees with the Constitution that he was by oath to uphold. Read the title of the thread then my post and you'll notice why I posted the quote.

I am calm, why so personal? are you being sarcastic? Your post didn't really contain much original content.

Feeding the Abscess
03-19-2011, 09:45 PM
The time for Ron to announce his campaign is NOW.

aGameOfThrones
03-19-2011, 09:56 PM
I am calm, why so personal?

That's what I thought about your post,
If you accept the initiation of war with libya, then you consent to this war. Therefor, you pay for it and you own it. I for one am not with you.~You


Your post didn't really contain much original content.

Of course it didn't contain much original content, I was quoting Henry Hyde's explanation of violating the constitution.

AFPVet
03-19-2011, 10:15 PM
We can thank FDR for this mess... War Powers Act....

Carehn
03-19-2011, 10:26 PM
well if she says so... Good to know that they had previously given them selfs this power. for a minuet there i though i was being screwed.
.

nate895
03-19-2011, 10:45 PM
We can thank FDR for this mess... War Powers Act....

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is opposed to this kind of action. The War Powers Act went out of effect six months after the peace treaty with Japan. Furthermore, the WPA only applies once we are at war. It does not apply to peacetime.

The War Powers Resolution was passed over presidential veto, and the Presidency considers it unconstitutional, but the Office of the President has always made an effort to at least look like it is "consistent" (as opposed to complying) with the resolution up until now.

Theocrat
03-19-2011, 11:06 PM
Obama is a tyrant, and this recent decision of his to go to war with Libya shows furthermore how he is no different than the king our Founders separated themselves from. Recall some of the "injuries and usurpations" listed in the Declaration of Independence, and see how they match Obama's abuses of power with this Libyan situation:


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people...

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Obama, for being such a Constitutional scholar, doesn't honor anything in his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He acts like a king, instead of a president.

anaconda
03-21-2011, 12:07 AM
We can thank FDR for this mess... War Powers Act....

Thought it was passed in 1973?

anaconda
03-21-2011, 12:11 AM
The time for Ron to announce his campaign is NOW.

Yes indeed. It would be CLASSIC. He should say that the invasion of a nation that has done nothing to us has so disgusted him that it made him decide to run. And that if Americans want an end to preemptive war then he is offering them the choice. It would be great political theater and allow him to immediately control the current debate on Libya. The administration would be on the defensive and seriously pissed at Dr. Paul.

angelatc
03-21-2011, 12:16 AM
We can thank FDR for this mess... War Powers Act....

It was the Nixon administration, and Nixon vetoed it. Congress overrode him.

Sola_Fide
03-21-2011, 12:27 AM
*facepalm*

tpreitzel
03-21-2011, 08:17 AM
Frankly, it's a BS excuse that the POTUS should be able to act unilaterally without an official Declaration of War in case of an imminent threat to the US. With modern communications, ALL members of the US Congress could be contacted securely within mere minutes. If the situation to the nation were so grave, immediate, and the evidence overwhelming, the US Congress could be polled for a vote remotely within minutes. However, the odds are great that the situation to the nation would NOT be grave, immediate, or the evidence convincing which is precisely the kind of reckless action from the POTUS that the founders wanted to prevent. Governors should regain much of the power of defense currently assigned to the federal government.

Brian4Liberty
03-21-2011, 09:45 AM
Restrained by The Constitution? Are you serious? Are you serious?!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0AADDovxvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0AADDovxvk

doodle
03-21-2011, 09:52 AM
Allegedly this guy's wife is one of the architects of Obama's Libya war policy:

Cass Sunstein
In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush's creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist that "[u]nder existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions" and that "President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground." Sunstein scorned as "ludicrous" the argument from Law Professor George Fletcher that the Supreme Court would find Bush's military commissions without any legal basi

Brian4Liberty
03-21-2011, 09:58 AM
Here's a good article on the subject. It includes both candidates Hillary and Obama claiming that the Constitution require Congress to authorize war (or just bombing a country)...



Hillary: ...the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action -- including any kind of strategic bombing -- against Iran without congressional authorization.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html

Brian4Liberty
03-21-2011, 01:13 PM
Why don't we call this what it is: a flip-flop.

Obama and Hillary are flip-floppers!

Brian4Liberty
03-21-2011, 09:27 PM
Flip, flop, flump.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html