If Congress votes No on Syria and Obama orders bombings anyway, Consitutional Crisis?

[OriginalShroom]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“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,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

 

[B. Kidd]

Like Mark Levin says, we live in a post-constitutional era.......so its' a moot point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“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,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

See this article for 'clarification'?!

The War Powers Act Is Pretty Unclear About Whether Congress Gets a Vote On Syria - US News and World Report

 

[Contumacious]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“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,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

"When a black liberal does it, it means is not a crime"

.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“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,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

See this article for 'clarification'?!

The War Powers Act Is Pretty Unclear About Whether Congress Gets a Vote On Syria - US News and World Report

So you are saying that Obama, the "Constituitonal" Scholar and Professor was WRONG when he said that as a Senator and President G.W. Bush was in office?

 

[Katzndogz]

Bush never ordered Iran to be bombed.

The order could be viewed as a criminal act. The Speaker (if he isn't a total pansy) would order the Sgt at Arms of the Senate to restrain the presidunce. A president cannot be arrested until he has been impeached, tried and convicted. He can be restrained. In the event obama starts ordering the indiscriminate bombing of countries that pose us no threat, it is quite likely the secret service would assist. Joe Biden would be sworn in as president until such time as the obama problem reached a conclusion. Whenever the president under goes surgery or sensitive medical procedures, the VP is always sworn in as president. This would be treated the same way.

 

[Black_Label]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

 

[Katzndogz]

The best outcome would be if the Pentagon found some general to run things and perform a military coup until elections can be held.

 

[Katzndogz]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers????? You might want to rethink that.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So you are also saying that Obama was wrong when he said that it did?

 

[Contumacious]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

Exactly.

That's what I read here

.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Bush never ordered Iran to be bombed.

The order could be viewed as a criminal act. The Speaker (if he isn't a total pansy) would order the Sgt at Arms of the Senate to restrain the presidunce. A president cannot be arrested until he has been impeached, tried and convicted. He can be restrained. In the event obama starts ordering the indiscriminate bombing of countries that pose us no threat, it is quite likely the secret service would assist. Joe Biden would be sworn in as president until such time as the obama problem reached a conclusion. Whenever the president under goes surgery or sensitive medical procedures, the VP is always sworn in as president. This would be treated the same way.

You are right, President G.W. Bush never ordered the bombing of Iran, but it was the question at the time.

 

[Black_Label]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So you are also saying that Obama was wrong when he said that it did?

Boots on the ground is an invasion, which needs congressional approval per the constitution. A support role such as bombing a few targeted locations does not.

Read the constitution.

 

[Flopper]

If Congress says no, I think it would be a bad move for Obama to continue with the attack although I don't think it would be a constitutional crisis. However, I don't think that will happen. If Obama delays the attack long enough, he will probably get permission from Congress. In this case, I think delaying the attack would be wise. If he doesn't get permission from Congress, then he has a good reason to call whole thing off.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

Exactly.

That's what I read here

.

So then, using YOUR logic, let me ask you a question. If a Syrian warship were to suddenly appear off our shores and fire a few SA-325s at, say, Virginia Beach, would you consider that a "declaration of war" against the US?

just trying to understand the "logic" here.....

 

[Mertex]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“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,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

You are still underestimating Obama. He's way smarter than that.

 

[Contumacious]

lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

exactly.

That's what i read here

.

so then, using your logic, let me ask you a question. If a syrian warship were to suddenly appear off our shores and fire a few sa-325s at, say, virginia beach, would you consider that a "declaration of war" against the us?

just trying to understand the "logic" here.....

yes.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Congress votes No on Syria and Obama orders bombings anyway, Consitutional Crisis?

No.

The president is still authorized to initiate military action per the WPA.

Those who disagree with this should direct their anger at Congress, who foolishly abdicated their authority to declare war.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“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,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

You are still underestimating Obama. He's way smarter than that.

I wish you would expand upon this.. IMHO, this is a straight forward issue.. Obama made the statement that unless there is an imminent threat, the President needs Congressional authority... Of cours he was a Senator at that time.

If Congress doesn't give him authority, has he violated the Constitution? I don't see any areas of grey here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Like Mark Levin says, we live in a post-constitutional era.......so its' a moot point.

Both of you would be well served to mute your points.