The Constitution, The War Powers Resolution, & Libya: Rand Paul Defends Congressional...

[sailingaway]

Firedoglake

The Constitution, The War Powers Resolution, & Libya: Rand Paul Defends Congressional Authority, Carl Levin Cedes It

http://my.firedoglake.com/powwow/201...evin-cedes-it/

I generally like firedoglake better than huff po, because you are more likely to find principled progressives there (maybe it is a matter of concentration amongst the readers). Some of them care about issues.

[Valli6]

This Carl Levin statement is somewhat mind-blowing:

Carl Levin apparently quietly inserted a statement for the record here, in lieu of speaking on the floor. It urges that the Paul motion "be tabled" because (per its plain language...):

"The amendment would in effect make it illegal for the President to unilaterally order the use of military force to protect U.S. interests except only in situations that involve preventing an actual threat to the United States or an imminent threat to the United States. Numerous Presidential decisions to order the use of military force over the last 30 years would not meet the standard of the Paul amendment. [...] There are numerous other examples over the past decades [in addition to Reagan's 1983 Grenada invasion and Bush's 1989 Panama invasion] when Presidents have ordered the use of military force to protect U.S. interests, but where such actions would not have met the standards of the Paul amendment”]

If we pretend that's not already the law, then nothing illegal has actually happened!

[sailingaway]

The war powers act already says that, and Obama was interpreting it, as an attorney, when he made the statement that constituted the amendment.

I was afraid someone would take the opportunity to insert something like that. It gives a future interpreting court the leeway to recognize that statement as an interpretation guide, if they want to. However, the alternative was to not fight it, which wasn't a bearable option.

[Valli6]

"The amendment would in effect make it illegal for the President to unilaterally order the use of military force to protect U.S. interests except only in situations that involve preventing an actual threat to the United States or an imminent threat to the United States.

It should be interpreted as an admission of guilt!

[sailingaway]

It should be interpreted as an admission of guilt!

Yeah.

Sigh....

[speciallyblend]

Yeah.

Sigh....

what rises above a facepalm?? for expression?

[sailingaway]

[acptulsa]

So, we have Carl Levin and Mark Levin on the same page. They could be brothers. Which one is the Demopublican and which is the Republicrat again? I lost track.