Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Jun '11 04:20
    As most know, about 10 or so Congressment from both parties are in the process of suing President Obama for allegedly being in Libya illegally.

    What say you? Is this mere political positioning or the real deal?
  2. 16 Jun '11 12:15
    Originally posted by whodey
    As most know, about 10 or so Congressment from both parties are in the process of suing President Obama for allegedly being in Libya illegally.

    What say you? Is this mere political positioning or the real deal?
    I believe that it is an important point to bring up. Certainly a valid debate. So to your question, yes, a real deal.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    16 Jun '11 12:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    As most know, about 10 or so Congressment from both parties are in the process of suing President Obama for allegedly being in Libya illegally.

    What say you? Is this mere political positioning or the real deal?
    This happens every time a President goes to war since the 70s. The case will probably be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
  4. 16 Jun '11 20:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    This happens every time a President goes to war since the 70s. The case will probably be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
    Agreed. It's just smoke and mirrors to make it look as if there remains checks and balances.
  5. 17 Jun '11 04:03
    Hey, if they can overturn the War Powers Act, more power to them.

    Good luck with that though.
  6. 17 Jun '11 04:09
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Hey, if they can overturn the War Powers Act, more power to them.

    Good luck with that though.
    The accusation is that he is in violation of it.
  7. 17 Jun '11 04:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    The accusation is that he is in violation of it.
    Nah. It's pretty broadly written. That's the problem.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Jun '11 14:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    This happens every time a President goes to war since the 70s. The case will probably be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
    Which one(s)?

    On the merits, the case looks pretty solid to me; the administration argument that we aren't really engaged in hostilities as defined by the WPA is patently absurd.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Jun '11 15:56
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Which one(s)?

    On the merits, the case looks pretty solid to me; the administration argument that we aren't really engaged in hostilities as defined by the WPA is patently absurd.
    Conyers v. Reagan comes to mind first.

    http://openjurist.org/765/f2d/1124/conyers-v-reagan

    There are others, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Jun '11 20:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Conyers v. Reagan comes to mind first.

    http://openjurist.org/765/f2d/1124/conyers-v-reagan

    There are others, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.
    You should get over your laziness if you want to make a persuasive argument; that case was dismissed as moot. It can hardly be argued that in the present situation, with ongoing hostilities, a suit challenging the President's authority under the WPA to commit forces to the Libyan conflict is "moot".
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jun '11 23:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You should get over your laziness if you want to make a persuasive argument; that case was dismissed as moot. It can hardly be argued that in the present situation, with ongoing hostilities, a suit challenging the President's authority under the WPA to commit forces to the Libyan conflict is "moot".
    Okay, how about...

    Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3rd 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

    In sum, there are no standards to determine either the statutory or constitutional questions raised in this case, and the question of whether the President has intruded on the war-declaring authority of Congress fits squarely within the political question doctrine. We therefore have another basis for our affirming the district court's dismissal of appellants' case.


    emphasis added

    http://www.lawofwar.org/Campbell_v_Clinton.htm
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '11 12:19 / 1 edit
    ...or these

    Dellums v. Bush, 752 F.Supp. 1141 (1990)

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16581780212178521116&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr


    Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/031266.html


    Crockett v. Reagan, 720 F.2d 1355 (1983)

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12725576697146205602&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr


    etc.