this is starting to have the smell of inevitability ...

[Phil E]

Trump ...He's leading the race for the nomination isn't he?

- sarah palin - Don't forget she was a VP candidate herself --

Probably says more about the voters than the candidates.

 

[OB..]

Thanks for letting me get these last 2 posts, before The Pravda is closed

В «Пра́вде» нет изве́стий,а в«Изве́стиях»нет пра́вды.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Do you really think any remotely credible sane politician would welcome the endorsement of Sarah Palin? She who no doubt can see Agrabah (HT Dickie E) from her backyard. The fiscally conservative sponsor of the bridge to nowhere. Etc etc.

I think John Cleese once described Sarah Palin as a "good looking parrot", the best description of her that I have heard.

Palin's endorsement of Trump was bizarre to say the least....

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/sarah-palin-donald-trump-endorsement-speech-quotes

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

В «Пра́вде» нет изве́стий,а в«Изве́стиях»нет пра́вды.

but there is comedy in both.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

And that same party now calls Obama "cowardly and narcissistic". I do, I have not heard a Republican use those words. "Feckless" is their term




Remind me who has the constitutional power to declare war on behalf of the US? 90 days, The President has 90 days to seek congressional approval after troops are sent to hostilities, So yes congress is final approving authority for war. I think the window is given for immediate action when needed.

Off hand I do not Article # or Chap, or title, but he can act alone without Congress. He certainly is proud to act alone on executive orders.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Probably says more about the voters than the candidates.

Given that nobody's actually cast a vote yet, nor will they for another ten days, it says most about the pollsters' sampling methods.

 

[SimonSmith]

Off hand I do not Article # or Chap, or title, but he can act alone without Congress. He certainly is proud to act alone on executive orders.

Oh, me sir, me sir. 227 of them. Lower than St Ronnie and Village. What was your point again?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Oh, me sir, me sir. 227 of them. Lower than St Ronnie and Village. What was your point again?

I think you would agree that the quality of executive orders is more important than total.

My point was and is that the President can act without congress for 90 days militarily. My pt with executive orders is that POTUS is proud to do so when unable to achieve through congress. "I have a pen and I have a phone" is the quote that comes to mind.

Why would Syria be any different after he drew a red line? Is it just that the common man doesn't know exactly what red line he meant?

 

[RobLev]

I think you would agree that the quality of executive orders is more important than total.

My point was and is that the President can act without congress for 90 days militarily. My pt with executive orders is that POTUS is proud to do so when unable to achieve through congress. "I have a pen and I have a phone" is the quote that comes to mind.

Why would Syria be any different after he drew a red line? Is it just that the common man doesn't know exactly what red line he meant?

Not according to the War Powers Act. In the absence of a declaration of war (which only Congress can do) or specific statutory authorisation (ditto), he can only:

[LAWS]...introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances...[/LAWS]

in the event of:

[LAWS]a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces[/LAWS]

Even then, he must consult Congress:

[LAWS]...before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances...[/LAWS]

and report to Congress:

[LAWS]...in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;[/LAWS]

within 48 hours.

Within 60 days of giving (or being required by law to give, whichever is earlier), he must withdraw those forces; he can only keep them there for another 30 days if required for their safety while withdrawing.

[LAWS]Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.[/LAWS]

Congress can, however, require immediate withdrawal if it so wishes:

[LAWS]Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.[/LAWS]

So he has to consult with Congress before beefing up local assets sufficient to commence attacks on Syria. Since there's no declaration of war or statutory authorisation, he can only do that in the event of attacks on the US, its colonies or armed forces; a difficult argument to run in the circumstances. He has to tell them he's done that within 48 hours. Congress can then tell him to stop immediately - before the first shot is fired/plane takes off.

So no, the POTUS doesn't have carte blanche for 90 days.

 

[SimonSmith]

Roblev in '20!

 

[RobLev]

Roblev in '20!

Thanks, but the birthers would have a field day...

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Yep, Congress should know about troop involvement. He cannot act secretly.[/COLOR]

Congress can then tell him to stop immediately - before the first shot is fired/plane takes off. Yes, but remember, just like any legislation passed houses of congress, the POTUS can veto. He then forces a 2/3 majority to override. Ironically. The War powers Resolution was passed after Nixon veto. Same but in name War Powers Act was approved by Senate
Just read that 2nd part

So no, the POTUS doesn't have carte blanche for 90 days. Tru dat, but OBama has veto authority and enough Dems to prevent override

Not let me work on an argument for circumstances that allow him to act. The first few paragraph of your post. I'll have to research

I know OBama used the War Powers Act in Libya or avoided WPA with some explanation. I think that was his only opportunity to have it apply.

Certainly other Presidents have abused it or ignored it, but since 1973 revision I do not know.

Odd, however GW Bush adhered to it in regard to Iraq. Any idea how that vote went for an unjust war? I remember his old man started deployment before asking approval from congress for gulf war.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

On paper, the War Powers Resolution seems clear-cut. But in practice, Congress and the White House have skirmished repeatedly over it.

While the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) assigns the right to declare war to Congress, the last time that actually happened was at the beginning of World War II, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. Since then, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander-in-chief without an official declaration of war to support their actions. In some cases, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has complied with a presidential request for specific approval, short of a formal declaration of war.


Only Part of my original post was presented the above is from an article on libya


this is article on Libya, this is military action by OBama that avoided WPA

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/are-us-actions-libya-subject-war-powers-
resolution/


Perhaps Assad knew OBama couldn't act in Syria without violating WPA, more reason for OBama not to make statement about a red line not to crossed.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

This dude thinks Obama had authority to act, from Wiki (propaganda for sure)


President Obama seeks Congressional approval for intervention[edit]
Following the publication on 30 August of the U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013, President Obama gave a speech in the White House rose garden on 31 August in which he announced that he would seek authorization from Congress before using American military forces to intervene in the Syrian civil war.[33] In the speech, he announced that he was "prepared to give that order," referring to ordering a strike on Syria.[33] Obama argued that it was necessary to intervene because the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria "risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemicals weapons" and that it put U.S. regional allies that share a border with Syria in danger.[34] In his speech, Obama also said that, "while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective."[34] Introduction of S.J. Res. 21 in the Senate soon followed.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Here is another beauty, perhaps OBama does speak for the world as he states below, also from the Pravda


The "red line"[edit]
On August 20, 2012, President Barack Obama used the phrase "red line"[27] in reference to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, saying, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."[28][29] The phrase became a source of contention when political opponent John McCain said the red line was "apparently written in disappearing ink," due to the perception the red line had been crossed with no action.[30][29] On the one year anniversary of Obama's red line speech the Ghouta chemical attacks occurred. Obama then clarified "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war," a reference to the Chemical Weapons Convention.[31][32]

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Errm, no. That's not what happened. The party of No said No.

Same Wiki has voting #'s and stats for the "no" bill. Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons. The bill never went to vote.

Although slanted no by Republican it is not as one sided as one may think.