I agree with Dennis Kucinich.

An act of war not authorized by Congress is unconstitutional. A president that authorizes an act of war without that authority has committed an impeachable offense.

Furthermore, an Attorney General who overlooks, at the behest of a president, the war crimes of torture has also broken his oath of office to uphold the constitution, and should be removed from office. The job should be given to someone who isn't afraid to uphold the law, regardless of who the lawbreaker might be.

Bush and his cronies should be investigated, indicted, tried and imprisoned.

And, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And, yes, I voted for President Obama.

both you and Kucinich are wrong.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Meanwhile, on a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday, Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Washington, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) all questioned the constitutionality of the president's actions


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20045508-503544.html

that they question the Constitutionality doesn't change the facts.

They are wrong.

And, if we had anyone with a spine on the High Court, it would be ruled so.

:sarcasm:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So yes. Unless the USSC says otherwise it is. In the over 35 years since passage no legal challenge has emerged. It is as constitutional as any law passed.

:eyes:

On what basis is it unconstitutional. Most of the controversies are on the side of the President's freedom to act as CinC.

and at that point it becomes un-constitutional, and always was?

because YOU or Kucinich claims it is.

but it doesn't "retroactively change reality." OTOH, legally speaking, a law isn't unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is.

Which is it? Was the law always unconstitutional, even before the Supreme Court said so?

strikes it down. And after that, it's constitutionality depends on what subsequent courts rule, ending with the SCOTUS.

what is constitutional or not, not "reality."

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

So, whether or not a law is unconstitutional is a matter that is emphatically left to the courts. Unless and until they say its unconstitutional, its constitutional and no amount of pontificating by Dennis Kucinich or anyone else can change that reality. Dennis would like to put the cart before the horse by declaring a law unconstitutional without actually seeking a ruling from the one body under our system of government with the authority to decide the issue. Why, one might even say that it is Dennis that is acting unconstitutionally.

If YOU think it is, seek an injunction to prevent its implementation.

when Congress has authorized war, or the U.S. is under IMMEDIATE threat of attack. Try again.

The act has nothing to do with war declaration. It refers to the use of force before a declaration has been made. The immanent attack provision is part of the set-up discussion of the text of the law and it is congress's *claim* about the limits of the constitution but repeated executive actions have never been judged illegal based on that part of the law.

And it probably will never be resolved by the Supreme Court pursuant to its Political Question Doctrine.

Therefore, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act cannot justifiably rest upon the fact that the Supreme Court has not invalidated it.

From an earlier post by a DUer

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


I remember when Prez Clinton conducted no fly zones and not a peep from a dem was heard about impeachment....I wonder what makes this any different....what is different about Obama and Clinton....hmmmmmm......

By the way, under the war powers act, a prez can act first and then get approval if the actions is an act of war...Obama clearly consulted with congress before hand by all accounts (Boehner decided to stay quiet during the consultation)

under the War Powers Act, and it's only been three days. Congress was also given notice of intent to invoke the act within 48 hours, as required by the law. You may not agree with the Libya action, but it isn't illegal.

I am curious what Kucinich's position was on the military action in the Balkans under Clinton back in the '90s, which was undertaken to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing, and whether he would have approved any action by the US or the UN to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

with immediate threats to the United States. Libya does not constitute such a threat.

Maybe the reason Kucinich didn't suggest impeaching Clinton then was because the Republicans were already working on it.

Clinton is said to regret having failed to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

or Panama again or the Philippines or Nicaragua or Cuba.

"On April 30, 1999, a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress, including Congressman Kucinich, filed a lawsuit to compel the President to follow the Constitution and halt U.S. armed forces from engaging in military action in Yugoslavia unless Congress declared war or granted the President specific statutory authority."

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1563#Kosovo

Nothing like getting stabbed in the back by a member of your own party. Et tu, Dennis?

Dennis could have added an article of impeachment if he wanted to....this is such a BS thread....

authorized military action as part of a UN operation to prevent the slaughter of civilians in a country that did not pose a threat to the United States. Kucinich finds this to be an impeachable offense as to Obama. I am wondering whether he suggested the same as to Clinton?

Has he introduced a resolution if impeachment? Nope

Kucinich is wrong:

constitute authorization? Only CONGRESS can declare war. They haven't done so.

the US is under immediate threat of attack.

Kucinich and a bunch of Republicans challenged that action in court and lost.

Korean war...congress never declared war, right? The black guy does the same thing as other presidents have done and there are calls for impeachment, pathetic!

since 1953.

let's impeach the ass of of Truman.....

from the CIA that you have access to are you relying on to make that statement?

along with 16 other Congressmen (15 of whom were Republicans- Barr, Tancredo, etc).

They actually filed suit against Pres. Clinton, and the court dismissed the case "for lack of standing" and was appealed with the same result.

he was not calling for impeachment

Why else the difference in treatment?

Also, Kucinich waited how long prior to bringing articles of impeachment
against Bush? 3 days? or was it more like 4 years?

are the same grounds that were dismissed as "without standing" by a judge.

If the judge and appellate court found that the President's use of the WPA for UN-Nato actions is ok, what would be DK's grounds for impeachment?

Seeing that EVERY SINGLE OTHER US PRESIDENT has done this.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They really have nothing but these desperate, flailing deflections.

YES, HE FILED ARTICLES AGAINST BUSH!

You're implication that he's now racist completely undermines your credibility.

and Afghanistan?

No, it wasn't.

to have to chase Teabagger votes.

You mean true, liberal Democrats who believe in following the Constitution?

Better than the "certain element" Obama panders to, i.e. republicans.

Just like Kooch

He wanted to know why the Constitution was not being followed. Is that against the rules?

Does the Constitution matter only when the republicans' actions are concerned?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but the rules are only enforced if a DUer has the audacity to defend the President.

There have been AUMF's which have served the same substantive purpose. But, Reagan didn't need authorization to invade Grenada, or bomb Libya, Clinton didn't need authorization to intervene in Haiti, etc etc etc.

Now Kucinich is a racist. What happened to the anit war faction in this country? the common sense faction that should realize that this country is broke and cannot be the policeman of the world any longer. NATO, Arab league and whatever is left of the UN can take care of this.

I feel so sick to my stomach reading all the pro war nonsense on DU

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your post will be unpopular, but I agree with you.

You are not a hypocrite.

Stand up, my friend, I'm with you.

I thought we learned our lesson in Iraq. Billions in treasure wasted and thousands killed and maimed.

And we are waging wars with BORROWED MONEY to be paid by our children & grand-children. And since
they are unlikely to afford paying back on principal, we are passing on servitude to China & Japan
for them since those countries hold lions share of our debt.

and would stand with what DK said.

Somehow I feel like I just got shoved down the same Alice hole again. War is good? Questioning authority is bad? Holding the president accountable is horrible? It isn't like he is drawing up articles of impeachment.

(I agree with Dennis Kucinich.)

Because it's been proven the scream of it being "unconstitutional" is wrong. Documents were given by the President and his governing body and the entire thing settled. Or I thought it was.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

Specifically, in Section 6:

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."

Article 42 of the UN Charter:

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

Remarkably and sadly (considering we're on a political forum) I think this needs to be a standalone OP.

I always see the guy pop-up during these times, but I don't see a lot of things coming out of his office in the way of tangible work.

"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." -- Barack Obama, 2007