Thoughts on current administration (of the country(s))

[Zackirus]

Well, they want to "perverse" their culture. As most people know, they speech French in Quebec. However, unlike us Loyalists, who are the good people (God Bless the Queen!), they have no love of France. Thus they have remained isolated, creating their own unique culture. Once the Seven Years War (Decided who had control over "Canada") happened, they lost and ever since the English have been trying to get rid of their culture. However, in the 1960's a Prime Minister named Pierre Trudeau created a equal rights bill the made French and English the Federal Languages. Then in the 1970s, another bill passed that that the people of Quebec could keep their Languages and Tradition. The bloc are a group of extremists who think that Quebec would be better off by themselves, which might have been true - 75 years ago.

   

[SmartyPants]

The president himself does not have this power. If he agrees to, along with multiple other countries, it's within his power.

In short, the president has the power to authorize the use by NATO, and by the UN, of US forces, but not to send them by himself.

So the President doesn't have to listen to the Constitution when other countries give him the "okay"?  So if the UN approves arms control and speech limitations, then Obama is allowed to ignore the 1st and 2nd Amendments and bypass congress?  Even with UN approval, the "president does not have the 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."

If you're going to bring up the War Powers Resolution, you may want to know that it says that the president [Obama] must notify Congress within 48 hours, and also must withdraw forces after sixty days if Congress's approval has not been achieved by this time. Neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution forbids his actions at the moment. I believe Candidate Obama, when he said your oft-quoted quote, meant for longer than sixty days. The Iraq "War" lasted significantly longer than sixty days, and troops certainly did not attempt to withdraw by ninety.

A)This conflict in Libya is going to last longer then 60 days, so Obama is required to get congresstional approval
B)There was congresstional approval for the Iraq War unlike our involvement in the war in Libya, so I don't see your point

[Zackirus]

So the President doesn't have to listen to the Constitution when other countries give him the "okay"?  So if the UN approves arms control and speech limitations, then Obama is allowed to ignore the 1st and 2nd Amendments and bypass congress? 

I think the views/laws of the UN supersede those of the American Constitution/Congress, but it is just my opinion. I mean they are trying to making decisions for the betterment of the world, not just the states.

[ArtDrake]

Seconded by Duckling.

[bugfartboy]

I'm agreeing with im2smart4u on this one. It doesn't seem right that a man who is "allegedly" an American gets to simply walk right over the laws he himself is supposed to be governed by simply because another country said "Come on... Your 'laws' don't matter. You can simply follow ours! " in essence. While it may have been "KIND" of him to try to help, it certainly isn't right by the Constitution the States are governed by.

[ArtDrake]

It wasn't another country. It was NATO and the UN. Bit of a difference.

" 'Allegedly' "?
Barack Obama is quite American, born in Hawaii. And he hasn't walked over them yet.

And didn't we just go over this? The Constitution itself doesn't actually forbid it, and in fact encourages the US to form treaties with other countries, our interest in having positive relations with other countries superceding our need to avoid unilaterally decided military attack.

The War Powers Resolution is a non-Constitutional document with, admittedly, similar binding force, but it is no longer a Constitutional issue, and Obama hasn't broken the terms of this agreement as of yet.

[bugfartboy]

I believe the definition of "war" is as follows.

- noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.
aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.
a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8.
Cards .
1. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
2. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9.
Archaic . a battle.
- verb (used without object)
10.
to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11.
to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12.
to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
- adjective
13.
of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.

HERE'S THE LINK

Wow! The definition of war seems to be very very similar, if not exactly like, what Obama started! Wonder why?

[ArtDrake]

If you choose to interpret the War Powers Clause in the Constitution as referring to war, and thus to your list of definitions, that may have been what the Founding Fathers wanted. But in the current interpretation of the text, which does not actually mention war per se, the War Powers Clause does indeed refer to military action.

What I'm trying to say is that despite this, another part of the same document, albeit on a different page, says that you can ignore that bit if you sign on it with another country. In case you're wondering, that's how the Controlled Substance Act works. If treaties couldn't supercede the Constitution, then the federal government would have no way to prevent anyone from smoking marijuana drug, opium drug, or ingesting cocaine drug. Many other matters of intra-state trade control (which the federal gov. is not allowed to do, Constitutionally) are resolved by using treaties.

[SmartyPants]

" 'Allegedly' "?
Barack Obama is quite American, born in Hawaii. And he hasn't walked over them yet.

I find funny that people still think Obama is a secret muslim terrorist who was born in Kenya/Indonesia.

And didn't we just go over this? The Constitution itself doesn't actually forbid it, and in fact encourages the US to form treaties with other countries, our interest in having positive relations with other countries superceding our need to avoid unilaterally decided military attack.

According to the Constitution, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."  This still means that Obama needs congresstional approval to agree to the UN resolution.  Plus, no where in the UN resolution says America or any other country has to commit troops.  That means that every country and thier legislative body have to make the choose to commit armed forces to military action.

I think the views/laws of the UN supersede those of the American Constitution/Congress, but it is just my opinion. I mean they are trying to making decisions for the betterment of the world, not just the states.

I see why you would think that.  It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.

[bugfartboy]

Alright. Let's not get TOO hateful/prejudiced here.

[Zackirus]

I see why you would think that.  It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.

And you think, that Canadians are just sitting around, watching the American's to go Libya? Just to let you know, we are also doing our part in helping the people in Libya (Mind you, not to our fullest potential right now, as we have an election going on).

[MikeW781]

I see why you would think that.  It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.

And you think, that Canadians are just sitting around, watching the American's to go Libya? Just to let you know, we are also doing our part in helping the people in Libya (Mind you, not to our fullest potential right now, as we have an election going on).

You're doing your part, yes, but you can't say other countries should do theirs. I agree with smarty, its up to the country in question to commit forces or not, and how many, and when. Obviously, we needed to help Libya, but it should have been done legally.

[bugfartboy]

Mike stated what I, and I assume Smarty, have been getting at. It's good we helped, but not if it broke the laws of the land.

[ArtDrake]

It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American person[ne]l and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.

I find that remark unfair.

It must be easy for people in America to vote on using American personnel and resources because they personally wouldn't have to spend their own money or risk their own lives (not one of which has been lost in Libya, by the way).

[Zackirus]

Think of it this way, A teacher (Barrack Obama) wants to know if he can do X in his classes. He could go to the principal (U.S Congress) of the school, or he could go to the school board (The UN). I think the school board might have a better knowledge than one single principal...