Obama’s War on Libya: A Constitutional View

Obama’s War on Libya: A Constitutional View


by Michael Boldin

With military action taking place in Libya right now, the essential question must be asked: Is it even Constitutional? For those of you who don’t want to read more than a sentence or two, here’s the short answer. Absolutely not.

DELEGATED POWERS

The ninth and tenth amendments, while they didn’t add anything new, defined the Constitution. In short, they tell us that the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. Everything else is either prohibited or retained by the states or people themselves.

What does this have to do with Libya? Well, whenever the federal government does anything, the first question should always be, “where in the Constitution is the authority to do this?” What follows here is an answer regarding American bombs being dropped on Libya.

WHO DECIDES?

READ MORE::
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/21/obamas-war-on-libya-a-constitutional-view/

Nmysys, you need to get into reality... Obama and the other Marxian Socialist and libtards in government believe the Constitution is organic and evolving....basically it means nothing to them....it was a document written by a bunch of white men who were religious and had slaves.

It may have been, but it is still THE LAW OF THE LAND!!!

Boy, it's a good thing we didn't elect John McCain...

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain says the military strikes against Libya were necessary because there would have been "a horrible blood bath" under besieged strongman Moammar Gadhafi without international intervention.

The Arizona Republican and 2008 presidential candidate tells CBS's "The Early Show" the no-fly zone the U.S. and its NATO allies implemented is working and it's time for "a no-drive zone."

McCain says the message the world needs to send to Gadhafi's army is, "don't leave your barracks" and kill Libyan civilians or there will be consequences. McCain calls Gadhafi a man "with American blood on his hands," saying he was responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan American flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. He says the U.S. and its allies must turn momentum in the Libyan strife over to the rebel side.

I guess good ol' John would have committed our forces right off the bat and gone in there with guns blazing to oust Gadhafi... But I guess, then it would have been okay with the radical-right.

Interesting.... I guess "the law of the land" doesn't apply when it's Bush...or McCain...

What you are not saying LJ, because you wouldn't, is that he would have gone before Congress First, then he would have responded in a timely fashion, instead of dithering for two weeks first, playing golf, then making sure he had something to say in Chile, that sounded like he really had some kind of a plan. Oh yeah, have I mentioned the fact that it was much more important to announce his picks in the basketball tournament?????

But how about a defense from you as to his violating his authority? Oh no, why would we expect that from you? You have never failed to meet our expectations!!

Some day Bush will no longer be president.

Nmysys wrote: he would have gone before Congress First, then he would have responded in a timely fashion

You know that for a fact? Wow... I wish I could see into the future like that! (Of course, if I could see into the future like you, I would have foreseen that McCain was going to lose the election in a landslide, and I would have stayed home on election day.)

I call bullsh*t

I have noticed many libs here, have toned down their attacks on bush since obama attacked libya, I wonder why that is? Can you hear the surprise in my voice!!! :thumbsup: rofllol :thumbsup: :woo hoo:

The "libs" here have been consistent regardless of the words others have tried to put into their mouths. It seems to be those who were so hawkish on Iraq and Afghanistan that are doing the mighty flip flop. To be against an action just because you don't like the president shows a clear lack of integrity. To be against an action because you are opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds shows an abundance moral clarity.

To be against an action just because you don't like the president shows a clear lack of integrity. To be against an action because you are opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds shows an abundance moral clarity.

I am only opposed to the bombing for two reasons, so let me make it clear to you.

First, as this OP says, Obama did not have the authority to do this. George Bush went before Congress for both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Do your research and you will see that statement is totally TRUE.

Second, Obama waited and waffled and made threats and then too late IMO did this. Again IMO if he had done this sooner, it would have cost less in Libyan lives and would have had much more effect.