Dem senators: Congress may hold vote on Libya next week

posted at 5:47 pm on March 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Not only is it The One’s own party that’s squawking about this, it’s his pal Dick Durbin who appears to be spearheading it. Which means they’ve definitely got the votes in the Senate to pass a resolution blessing the mission and figure that it’ll be a useful wedge to split neocons from libertarian isolationists within the GOP in the House.

Durbin, along with Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) held a conference call with reporters on Wednesday afternoon as part of the White House’s damage control effort following the widespread and bipartisan criticism over of the lack of congressional consultation before the intervention in Libya, and the lack of clarity over the mission’s goals.

“None of us can say with any certainty what will happen when we return, but under the War Powers Act, any senator can ask under privilege of the Senate to call this question, as to whether or not we will support these actions taken by the president,” Durbin said. “I think it’s consistent with our constitutional responsibility to take up that question,” through a vote…

“There may be some people who will try to end the [Libya] effort, if they try they won’t come anywhere near success in the Senate,” Levin said. “The reason I think the president will gain bipartisan support for his action is because he’s proceeded in a way which is cautious, thoughtful. He has put the ducks in a row before deciding to put the United States in the lead for a short period of time.”

Thus it came to be that leaving your Navy unsure of who’ll be in command next week constitutes “cautious, thoughtful” leadership.

Two wrinkles here. One: Durbin et al. may be pushing this now to get out in front of it, knowing that there’ll be criticism of Obama and the mission on the House and Senate floor next week. Rand Paul has already promised to make an issue of it and Boehner put out a statement tonight saying he’s “troubled” by how Obama has handled things. If Democrats start pushing the idea of a vote now, it’ll blunt the GOP’s argument that The One’s trying to wage war on the sly. Two: Remember that the War Powers Resolution requires the president to come back to Congress and get authorization for military action within 60 days after hostilities have begun. The Democrats may have held off on a vote initially in the vain hope that Qaddafi would crumble and the war would be over before that time period elapsed. Now that it looks like that won’t happen, and with the strategy becoming ever more nuanced, they probably (and smartly) figure that they’d better get an AUMF lickety split before things deteriorate and the public sours on the war, which will embolden Republicans to oppose it and make a lot of vulnerable Democrats in the Senate nervous.

As for now, though, the numbers in Congress are in Obama’s favor, which is why I’m still surprised that he didn’t ask for an authorization before the mission began. He probably would have gotten one — the Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning Qaddafi a few weeks ago, remember — which would have given him loads of political cover to proceed. And if they didn’t pass it, that would have given him political cover too. He could have washed his hands of the whole mess and blamed any humanitarian disasters in Libya on John Boehner. It’s mystifying that a guy who likes to hang back and let others take the lead on tough issues would have declined that opportunity in this case, with so much at stake.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

2011 – Year of the Good War.

Bishop on March 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM

am i the only one who thinks it would be the most amazing thing ever if GWB showed up and sat in the galley for this vote with a sign that said “remember me, bitches?”

TruthBeTold2 on March 23, 2011 at 5:51 PM

One can always count on Big Dick Durbin to make things right.

highninside on March 23, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Two: Remember that the War Powers Resolution requires the president to come back to Congress and get authorization for military action within 60 days after hostilities have begun.

He only gets those sixty days without authorization if the country’s security is at risk. As the Washington Post noted, he’s been trying to frame it as if waiting would jeopardize our security — which it wouldn’t have.

amerpundit on March 23, 2011 at 5:51 PM

It’s mystifying that a guy who likes to hang back and let others take the lead on tough issues would have declined that opportunity in this case, with so much at stake.

It’s from Barry’s experience from being Harvard’s Law Review editor Allah, jeez.

Lance Murdock on March 23, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Senate to pass a resolution blessing the mission and figure that it’ll be a useful wedge to split neocons from libertarian isolationists within the GOP in the House.

Just vote present…

There’s only two things I’m really concerned about.
1. If an intervention was going to happen, it should have happened sooner… when Qadaffi was starting to advertise for mercenaries in Sub Saharan Afican.
2. Obama cares more about international bodies than our legislature. A president should have some leeway, but he’s taken it to ridiculous ends.

ninjapirate on March 23, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Looks like Durbin and the rest of the worms are turning.

It couldn’t by hypocrisy, could it?

GarandFan on March 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM

“Thus it came to be that leaving your Navy unsure of who’ll be in command next week constitutes “cautious, thoughtful” leadership.”

I’m glad that’s finally settled…

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Yep, let’s tow that car right out of the ditch and into a war zone. Barry’s next campaign metaphor should be a doozie! Where’s my Slurpee?

ElectricPhase on March 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Did you ever come upon a squirrel in the road, and it stopped, ran back a few steps, then turned in the original direction to run a few steps, and back and forth as your tires approached?

That is the boy king on Libya.

Vashta.Nerada on March 23, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Allah -

You give an 85IQ’er waay too much credit in your last paragraph.

He is an idiot who has never had to make a true decision, hence the result.

Odie1941 on March 23, 2011 at 5:59 PM

“It’s mystifying that a guy who likes to hang back and let others take the lead on tough issues would have declined that opportunity in this case, with so much at stake”

Hillary kicked his a$$. Strong women have always controlled BHO…

d1carter on March 23, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Cart leading the horse?

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:00 PM

This Dick Durbin…?

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Easy vote–No. Or, the GOP could be snarky and vote Present.
1. We don’t have the money.
2. Gaddaffi poses no imminent danger to the US.
3. Obama has given no coherent reason to start another war.
4. Let Europe fight their own wars.
5. We’re holding Obama accountable helping Obama keep his peace prize.

txhsmom on March 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Seems to be a Lefty patternizational element to
their madness,er,thinking!

Vote for the Healthcare Bill..Then,you can read whats in it!

Were gonna Launch a war with Libya,then,will find consensus
and figure out,what to do next!

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM

The Hot Air Blog remote viewing,er,crystal ball,
er,gut hunch,back in 2008,told and fore-warned this
Obama Presidentcy Abomination,

and that NIGHTMARE is now Upon America!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

War Powers Resolution is illegal under the Constitution. But oh well, that’s just supposedly the law of the land…

RightXBrigade on March 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

There are few more partisan and dishonest than Levin and Durbin. Their “convictions” are as strong as “I’m anti war” Howard Dean was as he twisted himself into a pretzel trying to justify Obama’s actions in Libya. Never ever do any of these weasels care about the negative impact their words might have on world opinion about the US, it’s only about them seeking advantage out of any situation. They are treasonous, disgusting, lying hypocrites.

Webrider on March 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

This Dick Durbin…?

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Seven Percent Solution:Excellent recall on Dicky:)

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Somehow, I don’t think the ridiculous sleight-of-hand Nintendo assault on Libya is going to be a wedge issue between the neocons and “extremist” “isolationist” libertarians (to use the popular adjectives for people with the perfectly valid view that there is no conceivable reason for us to be at war with Libya).

That is, unless Obama screws it up even further and gets us enmeshed in a ground war with no affordable objectives or even theoretical national interests. Then it’ll be a wedge issue, all right, but the wedge will be somewhere else.

HitNRun on March 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Maybe this should be looked into as well!
===========================================

Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message
By REUTERS
03/13/2011 22:54
*****************

Abu Yahya al-Libi urges anti-Gaddafi forces not to retreat; reports of mutiny among Gaddafi forces slowing attack on rebel-held Misrata.

A senior member of al Qaida urged Libyan rebels to continue their fight against Muammar Gaddafi and warned of the consequences of defeat, in a videotaped message posted on Jihadi websites, the Qatar-based Gulf News reported on Sunday.

The message from Libya native, Abu Yahya al-Libi, marked the first time a top ranked al Qaida commander had commented on the uprising in Libya. Gaddafi has repeatedly blamed al Qaida for inciting the unrest against him.

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Gaddafi for more than 40 years … He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” Abu Yahya stated.

He warned that “Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”
(more……)

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Hey thar ya lyin’ Jesse dog scummy America hatin’ traitors!

How ya likes yur stinkin new Regime changin Budget bustin Military operation?

Cousin Cooter says y’all up PooPoo creek with outs a paddle!

Y’all n-joys it hear!

PappyD61 on March 23, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Cooter love to y’all Democrats in that preeve-us post.

PappyD61 on March 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM

The House should pass an AUMF with the funding source being $300B in spending cuts. Then send it on to the Senate for McConnell to get passed.

I’ll be happy with that.

Dusty on March 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Harry Reid should make a speech before the vote…

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I don’t want to hear “may” hold a vote. I want to hear “will invetigate the invasion of Libya”.

This is what the zero was doing all week while “conducting command and control” of our young men and women Try very hard, not to puke or freak out. Especially the last photo; the man is obviously inebriated.

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Mark Levin explained last night why what Obama did was in fact Constitutional.

The War Powers Act itself is probably, very likely, Unconstitutional infringing on the CinC’s constitional rights.

Again, Thomas jefferson and James Madison both went to war in Tripoli(Lybia) against Jihadist and their state sponsors and NEITHER got Congressional approval to Use Force.

The exercised their enumerated powers as the Executive

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

So, do we want to Politicize the Constitution and not respect it as all like Rand Paul or will the GOP honor the Original Intent of the Constitution to hurt Obama and further dumb down the American public’s understanding of the Constitution.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

The exercised their enumerated powers as the Executive

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Welcome, WH monitor. Enjoy your thrashing.

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

So, do we want to Politicize the Constitution and not respect it as all like Rand Paul or will the GOP honor the Original Intent of the Constitution to hurt Obama and further dumb down the American public’s understanding of the Constitution.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Heh. Politico’s talking point for tomorrow’s edition. Powered by GE.

/puke

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Hey, if it comes down to a vote in support of military action under some nebulous “coalition committee control” that takes leadership out of the hands of US military leaders — not to mention Congress — I don’t think the GOPers in Congress lose a damn thing voting ‘no.’ I think this is much more dangerous for Barry and the dems. The GOP can make a pretty strong case that he’s renting out our soldiers, sailors, and pilots to a hostile UN in support of a wacky policy that we have never signed on to — “Responsibility to Protect.” The president has no more authority to commit us to that policy than I do, and the interests he is serving in doing so are not American interests.

Rational Thought on March 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

War Powers Resolution is illegal under the Constitution. But oh well, that’s just supposedly the law of the land…

RightXBrigade on March 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Correct, although until SCOTUS overturns it, its the law of the land.

In cases such as Lybia, just like Jefferson and Madison, Obama has the Enumerated Constitutional Power to bomb Lybia or send the Marines into Tripoli as Jefferson and Madison did without Congressional approval to use Force.

Congress, in cases such as this one, has the Enumerated Power to Defund the bombing of Lybia if it wanted to..and could do so at anytime.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Welcome, WH monitor. Enjoy your thrashing.

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I’m a Palin fan, and have studied this issue and Constitutional law closely.

Obama, as the Founders originally intended it, does not need Congress approval to exercise his Constitutional role as CinC, period.

The Founders debated and did not want Congress involved in these matters and only gave them the string of the purse. the “Declare War” clause was reserved for all out major war, against first world nations.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Oops!

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

The Founders did not debate amongst themselves and claim the First and Second Barbary Wars in Lybia were “Unconstitutional”

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Maybe Al Gore can give his $0.02 regarding Obowma’s actions…

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Prediction-Chairman Barky’s great Libyan adventure will win overwhelming BIPARTISAN support, with McCain, Rove, Mush McConnell, Sauerkraut, ALL of them agreeing that Barky should pursue Q-Daffy to the ends of the Earth–because that is what they would do.

There won’t be even 10 GOP votes against.

james23 on March 23, 2011 at 6:41 PM

There will be no vote on Libya. Democrats will close ranks around Obama putting all blame on Qaddafi and endorsing UN resolution.

albill on March 23, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Harry Reid should make a speech before the vote…

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Seven Percent Solution:Yup,at this point,TURN THE LIBS
OWN WORDS AGAINST THEM!!:)

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:43 PM

War Powers Act was just a getback at Nixon by pissy Dem leadership during the Vietnam era.

The Presidents weakness on this is putting US troops under UN command (which Obama dearly loves of course).

PappyD61 on March 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Correct, although until SCOTUS overturns it, its the law of the land.

In cases such as Lybia, just like Jefferson and Madison, Obama has the Enumerated Constitutional Power to bomb Lybia or send the Marines into Tripoli as Jefferson and Madison did without Congressional approval to use Force.

Congress, in cases such as this one, has the Enumerated Power to Defund the bombing of Lybia if it wanted to..and could do so at anytime.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Hopefully SCOTUS will get it right as they had to fix Dred Scott too. Weirdly both Madison and Jefferson owned slaves.

These actions are unconstitutional just as slavery was.

Again- you cannot make a law making something constitutional
without going through the amendment process. The court failed with slavery and this.

One of these days when a President messes with the wrong tiger you will be crying about how it is unconstitutional.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:17 PM
==========

Oops!

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Seven Percent Solution:Yup,meanwhile……the British are
running out of Tomahawks,according
to Pakistan Military forum!:)
=====================================================

British Navy running short of Tomahawk missiles

Started by Cheetah786, Yesterday 11:30 PM

http://www.defence.pk/forums/search.php?searchid=228727

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

JP define all out war.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

JP while you are at it. Tell me -how does an all out war start? You suppose it starts with the launch of hundreds of missiles by chance?

OH and why the WPA ? You just said the founders said the power was with the President regardless.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:55 PM

British Navy running short of Tomahawk missiles

Started by Cheetah786, Yesterday 11:30 PM

http://www.defence.pk/forums/search.php?searchid=228727

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

I saw that. I am sure the left will cry that this action is making us less safe and spread too thin./

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I saw that. I am sure the left will cry that this action is making us less safe and spread too thin./

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:56 PM

How can the invasion of Libya be justified when you have the same issues arising in Yemen and Syria?

Where is the justification? Why did he do this in this particular African nation vs. not implementing or proposing to implement NFZ’s in all other areas of the Middle East?

Something is seriously wrong here.

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 7:01 PM

“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

So if the President starts a war without consent would not any reasonable realize that we can quickly get to a point of no return? One in which Congress would have no choice but to go along?

The thinking that the President should not have the consent of Congress is very dangerous. Sorry for my reasons stated the idea that they can simply cut funding is a terrible rationalization.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Above quote is from James Madison.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 7:06 PM

How can the invasion of Libya be justified when you have the same issues arising in Yemen and Syria?

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 7:01 PM

I guess there is nothing wrong with going after them too. Maybe he will and according to some it will be Constitutional. So according to some here the President can get us into a friggin World War without Congress’ consent.

Why did we even bother obtaining a Dec. of War against Japan in WW2? If any war was justified without it that was the war.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Alvin Greene wants all of you to know that Jim DeMint caused the Libya.

The Chewbacca Defense on March 23, 2011 at 7:14 PM

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM
==============================
I saw that. I am sure the left will cry that this action is making us less safe and spread too thin./

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:56 PM

CWforFreedom:True dat,interesting site tho!

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 7:16 PM

How can the invasion of Libya be justified when you have the same issues arising in Yemen and Syria?

Where is the justification? Why did he do this in this particular African nation vs. not implementing or proposing to implement NFZ’s in all other areas of the Middle East?

Something is seriously wrong here.

Key West Reader on March 23, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Key West Reader:
=================

I heard this tidbit,a few days ago about a Libya intervention that was similar to Rawanda!!
——————————————-

The Libyan intervention
**************************
**************************

Whilst it is not like Iraq, I would suggest that Western justification for becoming involved in such a crises like Libya, stems from the pressure to act and the responsibility to protect, following the ignorance of the international community surrounding Rwanda. 800,000 people were killed during the Rwandan genocide and the U.N did nothing. Pro-peace Hutus and Tutsis virtually wiped out, tortured and murdered, sanctioned by top level officials in the Rwandan government. Even as UN peacekeepers and hundreds of children were trapped, scared and crying, in Dom Bosco Technical School, the UN did nothing. The US refused to label what was about to happen, as genocide. Everyone in the Dom Bosco Technical School school was massacred by Hutu militants. The UN and the international community were useless. The Rwandan genocide is a skeleton in the UN’s closet. The very existence of the UN is to prevent such atrocities. We can argue US interventionism all day long, and probably come to some sort of consensus (if by “we” I exclude hard core right winged Americans) that American imperialism is a very real evil. But this, like Rwanda, is not about American imperialism.

Following Rwanda, the African Union argued that the international community, including the UN, had an obligation to intervene in situations where Governments were abusing their own citizens. In 2005, the World Summit Outcome Document included this African Union suggestion within it. It states:
———————-

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

This was cemented in U.N Resolution 1674 of 2006.
The conflict in Libya, I believe warrants international action rather than mere condemnation and sanctions. The UN should have acted in a similar capacity toward Rwanda, it didn’t. Libya cannot be allowed to become another Rwanda.

http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-libyan-intervention/

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 7:25 PM

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM

check out yesterdays Mark Levin show, a Constitional Lawyer who worked for Reagan and has actually studied the Founders, what they meant, did and debated.

Madison did not, and there was no outrage and debate over it, go to Congress for “Authorization to Use Force” when he launched War in Lybia. As was the Original Intent.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 7:34 PM

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

fast fwd to around 38-39 min mark were Mark briefly touches on the fact that Obama does in fact have Constitutional Authority to bomb Lybia, that whole Article 2 Commander in Chief Clause. and he briefly talks about what the founders debated and intended on the subject.

More detailed answers can be read at the Federalist Society.

To instead be entertained rather than educated, see a Ron Paul site for a completely unhistorical account.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 7:37 PM

split neocons [fascists] from libertarian [and conservative] isolationists non-interventionists

FTFY.

Camp Lejeune Marines To Libya

Mission creep on steroids. It’s how O Duce rolls.

American Dictatorship

Rae on March 23, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Note to GOP’rs…. I hear the weather in Illinois is fine and that they have a great resort to stay in while making up their minds.

kringeesmom on March 23, 2011 at 7:49 PM

JP you never did define all out war. Also tell me how does a war start?

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 8:04 PM

JP the whole control over the purse strings(appropriations) thing is lame. So again we can be brought into a war that we never wanted simply by the actions of the President. We could easily have no choice but to authorize additional funding.

Hmmm Levin thinks the WPA is unconstitutional. I don’t think you agree with that do you?

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 8:10 PM

NO votes until after budget for THIS FY is passed…

Khun Joe on March 23, 2011 at 8:11 PM

http://patterico.com/2011/03/21/this-illegal-war/

A Worthing Atty at Law

———————————

‎The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Obama…also an attorney

—————-

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262547/unwise-and-illegitimate-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

Note that both situations warranting departure from the formal declaration of war involve actual danger to the United States (or, worse, completed attacks against the United States). That is common sense.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Looks like Durbin and the rest of the worms are turning.

It couldn’t by hypocrisy, could it?

GarandFan on March 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM

By comparing ‘my’ senior senator to a worm you have insulted worms everywhere.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM

which is why I’m still surprised that he didn’t ask for an authorization before the mission began.

How much have we heard in the media about Obamacare now that we are discussing Libya?

The idiot independents have a short memory, and this is exactly the type of political maneuvering Obama uses to keep them hypnotized. IE….ALL discussions on Obamacare are exclusively centered around repeal, ignoring the despicable way Obama and the demrats passed it. We MUST hammer every single instance of dishonesty before and during the 2012 election season.

csdeven on March 24, 2011 at 2:01 AM

the “Declare War” clause was reserved for all out major war, against first world nations.

jp on March 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

The Constitution does not qualify war declarations for either all out major war (what does this even mean?) or against first world nations (a meaningless term at the time, as by modern standards the whole world was less than “first world”).

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you on the substance of your argument, but the embellishments were unnecessary and they take away from your argument.

runawayyyy on March 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM