Rule Of Law, Huh???

And President Obama has fulfilled his obligations under the War Powers Act, anyway.

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act a few days ago. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Critics complained the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48-hour time period had not yet elapsed.

The Constitution in Article I, like many of Obama’s critics cite, gives the power to Congress to declare war. But declaring war and making war are two different things. Consider what it means to declare war-- One way to look at it is to take it as the formal declaration of war. Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized."

On this view, Obama would seem to be acting in a legitimate way. As noted above, he has not issued a declaration of war. Rather, he has simply launched attacks within the territory of another sovereign nation-which has become something of a tradition among American presidents.

You did not read the War Powers Resolution Act. If you had, you would see that the quote that you posted is very ignorantly composed.
That is funny!

MB as I do have alot of respect for what you post, most of it is pretty much dead on and has facts to back it up. As I am not as "educated per say" as alot on here I pretty much read what you post on the War Powers Resolution Act but where it was in layman's term.

I remember hearing that President Obama did this under the WPR stating a immediate threat to the security of the United States. Under that, and what the War Powers resolution act states, at least how I understand it from reading it, so long as the President meets the 48 hour notification to Congress, he does have the authority to send the Military anywhere. Do I think Libya is a threat to us, no, Do I think he should have committed us to this Hell no. Not our problem. All Congress has to do, is meet, vote and overturn the Presidents decision as would be within the Power of Congress to do so. So whatever he was thinking when he sent our military over there, is not close to what the Act reads, but since in his letter of notification to Congress he used the so called threat to our security which everyone knows is just not there, that is what he is using to support his actions. Congress should just vote and overturn his decision. Anyway that is how I read it, and what I have read he did. Not right, but it keeps him within the guidelines as written. He is also using UN resolution of 1973 to help justify this. As the UN does not control our country or our armed forces IMO is that is does not hold water.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 53598.html

This is interesting reading. The Speaker of the House and the head of Intell committee both give the appearance of supporting what the President did. The President also consulted with some members of Congress. Regardless I still believe we have no business being there.

major bean wrote: That totally ignores the wording in the War Powers Act. It states that the U.S. must be directly threatened.
So I again suggest that you need at least an elementary education LJ. You are extremely ignorant. But you make up for it with hate.

OK, I read the text of the War Powers Resolution that you posted. I do not see anywhere it states that the US must be directly threatened. In fact, the words "directly" or "threatened" do not even appear in your post of the resolution. Could you please point out just what in the resolution you are referring to?

The word "imminent" does appear many times, but usually like this: "imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances". This leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Innocent people being slaughtered (whether US citizens or not) could fall under that interpretation.

The word "threat" does appear one time, but just as one example of where force can be used.

So far as I can tell, the Obama administration is following the letter of that law. Congress has been notified as required.

Twist, wring, spin, wrangle, warp. Nice try. No matter how badly you want a thing, you cannot change what the law says and its purpose and intent.

It depends upon what your definition if "is" is. Ha, ha, ha, ha! You liberals, there is no end to your disingenuousness.

I think Major Bean that post means you cannot answer LJs request that you point to where in the law it is required that we be directly threatened. Rather than making the silly little post about spinning just answer the question.

What do you mean?! Hell, I posted the law. It is in plain English. It cannot be misunderstood. Must I re-post it?
You people are just saying that it does not say what it says. Get real!

major bean wrote: Twist, wring, spin, wrangle, warp. Nice try. No matter how badly you want a thing, you cannot change what the law says and its purpose and intent.

It depends upon what your definition if "is" is. Ha, ha, ha, ha! You liberals, there is no end to your disingenuousness.

Major Bean, they continue to MAYTAG the issues.

No RT......we continue to ask questions and marvel at the 1001 ways a conservative can avoid answering them.

archer wrote: I think Major Bean that post means you cannot answer LJs request that you point to where in the law it is required that we be directly threatened. Rather than making the silly little post about spinning just answer the question.

You are in such a heat to spew hate that you failed to notice that is was not LJ's request, but, rather, pineinthegrass. THAT is funny!!