Obama's John Yoo Moment-- Cherry Picking Lawyers to Break a Major Law

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-John-Yoo-Moment--by-Rob-Kall-110619-829.html

Bush and Cheney searched around until they found an attorney who would vet torture.

Now we have the news that Obama did the same thing to start an illegal war in Libya. He rejected the legal advice of the DOJ's office of legal counsel and Pentagon attorneys and cherry picked lawyers who would tell him what he wanted to hear. Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass advised Obama against invading Libya without congressional permission.

Instead, president Obama, following in the footsteps of Bush and Cheney, when they depended upon the legal counsel of John Yoo, went to White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the NY Times reported.

Now, there is a bi-partisan effort in the house to confront Obama's alleged violation of the War Powers act.


More at the link --

these lawyers do.

Obama knows it's wrong. So why does he have to go to extraordinary lengths to circumvent a fairly obvious and basic law?

The authors of the Constitution CLEARLY didn't want the President to have the powers to wage war. It's supposed to be the decision of the people's representatives in Congress.

before you're really up on the issue. Unless you disagree with Marbury v. Madison. But M. v. M. has been accepted as law for over 200 years, so that's usually the position only of nutcase libertarians and states' rights loonies.

Unless you do not think there is any difference between "declaring war" and "waging war".

"Waging war" is more synonymous with "making war"; the notes of the Constitutional Convention make it clear that the Founders thought that the power to "make war" was too broad for Congress, and thus changed it to "declare war".

I doubt anyone thinks the President should be required to convene Congress and get Its consent before repelling an invasion on U.S. soil.

smack down

would suggest otherwise. It was a weak and logically flawed argument.

Retroactive immunity? Blanket warrants? Sure, I'll vote for cloture.

"Constitutional scholar."

the question is, does he care?

"Lawyer's job not to tell me what I can or cannot do, lawyer's job is to tell me how to do what I want to do."

Well known saying in Chicago, attributed to Al Capone.

So it won't be a problem for the Obama administration, right? Not with the librul media covering up for the administration, just like it always does for all libruls.

And not as extreme. The US has done similar things before, it's nothing like torture.

And you're doing the same thing here. Just believing the lawyers who tell you what you want to hear. You want it to be illegal, you'll believe those lawyers.

I seriously doubt DU will really look into the legal arguments. And even if it somehow went to court, if the court decided the war was legal, then there'd be a back-off on that position? Of course there would not be.