Obama being sued over Libya.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by StruckANerve, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #1
    I say it's about time. We should not be getting in the middle of the problems going on in the Middle East.

    Kucinich Sues Obama For Violating War Powers Act In Libya

     
  2. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
  3. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #3
    Can you even sue POTUS??

    If so, Republicans could keep him tied up in the courts for years.
     
  4. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #4
    Now that the full 90 days has expired and our forces are still in Libya, they have a gripe with Obama and he is in violation of the War Powers Act. Now I can't say this lawsuit is justified because Congress never took up the issue( at least to my knowledge). They never voted yes or no or anything. I put more blame on Congress not taking up a vote for a resolution than Obama not withdrawing our forces within the 30 day period after the first 60 expired.

    I know this isn't the greatest analogy( and I am sure I will be attacked on it), but it would be like if Congress back in 1941 delaying a Declaration of War after Japan attacked us. You would be tying FDR's hands because either way he is screwed. Public wise, he loses because he isn't retaliating. If he does attack Japan, he could be impeached by Congress. Similar thing here. Obama did something he felt was justified and the public did initially support it. The ball was in Congress's court and they dropped it 100% by not doing anything. They didn't approve or vote down a resolution. The system is broken. This is why I won't be in a hurry to say Obama is doing something wrong because of our broken system.
     
  5. pvmacguy macrumors 65816

    pvmacguy

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Location:
    Jax
    #5
    Couldn't suing the POTUS be considered almost treason and be an arrestable offense? Pretty sure Obama has the power to put them in their place real quick. I know if I were POTUS half these senators would have been a long time ago.
     
  6. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #6
    I would think that he has the equivalent protection to a U.N. diplomat in N.Y.C.

    They can get away with anything, even murder, and can't be charged, due to their diplomatic immunity.
     
  7. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #7
    I'd agree, except that the White House's approach has been that "It's not a full-on conflict, so we don't need any stinking Congressional approval." Which is one hell of a reach. We can thank a legitimately bipartisan Congress back in the 70s for overriding Nixon's veto to pass the Act so that this is actually an issue :)

    pvmacguy: Out of curiosity, are you an Obama supporter? Regardless, I'd love to hear your explanation of how suing the President is "almost treason" or "an arrestable offense". Hate to say it, but your statement kind of stinks with blind support for the guy.
     
  8. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #8
    Not hardly. It's very difficult to convict a President for diddly squat (see Nixon, R. and Clinton, W), but they're perfectly convict-able, in theory.
     
  9. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    Like I said, I agree he is in violation now that after 90 days our forces haven't withdrawn. But, I put more blame on Congress. That is why I am not calling for Obama's head. Congress didn't vote on the issue due to partisan crap. In this the system is broken. How can a president do anything if Congress never votes on the issue? If Congress voted on it and voted down the measure, then I would jump in and say Obama needs to remove our forces ASAP. But, I can't say that because of a broken system.
     
  10. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #10
    I see your point, and agree with the basic premise--but Obama's position that he doesn't need Congressional approval smacks of arrogance and a lack of concern for the law.
     
  11. pvmacguy macrumors 65816

    pvmacguy

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Location:
    Jax
    #11
    No I am in no way an Obama supporter, my reasoning is that the POTUS is in charge of leading this nation, he is allowed to make executive decisions and obviously he felt the need was dire to intervene in Libya. Therefore who are those senators to disregard his decision and question it, he is over their head and you are supposed to respect your superior. And AFAIK we are not at "war" with Libya we are providing humanitarian aid to the civilians under attack by their "government" as I don't believe we have ground soldiers deployed there either, so I wouldn't really classify this as a war but more of self-defense while trying to lend aid in a crisis.
     
  12. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #12
    The president is the commander in chief of our military, but he does need authorization in order to use military force from Congress. That is the check and balance created by the constitution.
     
  13. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #13
    Yes and no. You CAN sue a POTUS for actions unrelated to their duties as President (that's why Jones was able to sue Clinton in the 1990s), but you CAN'T sue them for consequences that stem from the execution of their duties.

    However, that doesn't mean that someone can't seek an injunction against the President to actively stop the President from carrying out an action or to cease carrying out an action. That's what's going on here. The word "sue" is too vague to mean anything when dealing with the Constitution.

    They are doing their jobs. The power to declare war, raise an army, and hire mercenaries are all vested in Congress. A standing army (and Air Force) is a 20th Century phenomenon that the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee. That's why bills establishing the military expire every two years, as a limitation in the Constitution.

    So Congress is really who should be deciding whether or not military forces go somewhere.

    The President is not superior to any senator or any member of the House of Reps. They are from different branches. They have different powers and can both check each other in different ways.

    The War Powers Act only addresses the actual sending of military forces, not what they do there. It's not self-defense because we are not in any actual direct danger if the dictator stays in power.

    But, we are technically there through NATO, which we have an obligation to through a prior treaty. The WPA doesn't consider this to be a problem since Congress technically already assented to it via the treaty making process.
     
  14. pvmacguy macrumors 65816

    pvmacguy

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Location:
    Jax
    #14
    Thanks for the info.

    Just annoys the crap out of me these senators pissing and moaning about every single thing. It's quite tiring and I don't see how anyone could have faith in them to get real important stuff done that would actually help our country and economy.

    How much time are these guys taking out of the work they should be doing and are getting paid to do to sue the POTUS is the question people should be asking. :cool:

    But w/e they don't listen to the citizens they have their own agenda's so who are we to say anything.
     

Share This Page