NYTimes: [Libya] Attack Renews Debate Over Congressional Consent

[sailingaway]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

They don't allow comments and ignore that the 'unanimous consent' was for a resolution titled something like 'resolution condemning Libya murdering its citizens' which passed by unanimous consent, meaning no one voted, just no one who happened to be in the room objected, and the resolution itself was never read. And the HOUSE had no action at all. "Congress" is not the same word as "Senate" for a reason.

[acptulsa]

They don't allow comments and ignore that the 'unanimous consent' was for a resolution titled something like 'resolution condemning Libya murdering its citizens' which passed by unanimous consent, meaning no one voted, just no one who happened to be in the room objected, and the resolution itself was never read. And the HOUSE had no action at all. "Congress" is not the same word as "Senate" for a reason.

Sigh. It has been so long since the actual unvarnished, unspun facts of any matter have been deemed 'fit to print'.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


Link requires log-in...

[acptulsa]

Link requires log-in...

...but thanks to our friend sailingaway, we can keep tabs on the propaganda without all supporting it.

[sailingaway]

Oh. I don't want to get Josh and Brian in trouble with copyright laws, but apparently some Dems called him out on the Constitutionality in a caucus conference call, Obama has sent a letter from Chile saying it was perfectly fine and consented to, and they quote Rand, amongst others, as objecting to the no fly zone and saying (before it happened ) that it should be debated in Congress. They don't mention Ron.

[sailingaway]

Here's three paragraphs so you can see if it is worth registering:


Some Democratic lawmakers — including Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California and Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts — complained in a House Democratic Caucus conference call as the bombing began that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.

That sentiment was echoed by several Republican lawmakers — including Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland — as well as in editorials and columns published over the weekend and on Monday in conservative opinion outlets like the Washington Times editorial page and National Review.

On Monday, Mr. Obama sent Congress a two-page letter saying that as commander in chief, he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes, which were undertaken with French, British and other allies. He wrote that the strikes would be limited in scope and duration, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the best interest of American foreign policy and national security goals.

See my signature for my response.

[Brian4Liberty]

See my signature for my response.

Yep, that's a classic.

"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. Barrack "Flippy-Floppy" Obomba, December 20, 2007

[acptulsa]

Yep, that's a classic.

"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. Barrack "Flippy-Floppy" Obomba, December 20, 2007

...unless and until the U.N. barks orders to us.

[sailingaway]

By the way, they stressed at the time the resolution was passed that it was 'nonbinding with no force of law', and of course the House never saw it.