Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 6:55:04 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1579241

Under Obama's constitution, Arab League outvotes Congress ................................................................................................ Washington Examiner ^ \| 9/9/2013 \| Conn Carroll President Obama famously sold himself to the American people as a scholar of the U.S. Constitution, but he also conveniently left out the fact that under his interpretation of the founding document, the Arab League has more rights than you do. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Sept. 5, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, asked Secretary of State John Kerry: “President Obama did not come to Congress seeking a resolution on the use of force in Libya. What's the difference between Libya and Syria when it comes to seeking congressional authorization?” Kerry responded, “The difference is that in the case of Libya, you had already passed a U.N. Security Council resolution and an Arab League resolution and a Gulf States Cooperation resolution, and you had a man who we knew was prone to follow through on his word promising that he was going to kill like dogs all the people in Benghazi. … So I think under those circumstances, the president felt the urgency, the emergency of protecting life and a capacity that had already been granted through the international community.” In other words, if the Arab League gives its permission first, then Obama thinks that gives him the constitutional authority to launch a seven-month war against Libya. Congress need not be consulted at all. But if the Arab League is silent, then Obama can seek approval from Congress for a limited strike. And even then, if he does not get it, he can completely ignore Congress if he so chooses. Is Obama’s view of the president’s war powers consistent with the Constitution? Nope. Not even close. Article I of the United States Constitution unequivocally grants Congress, not the president, the power “to declare war.” This does not mean that Congress must officially declare war every time the president uses military force (Congress has only declared war five times in the history of the country). But it does mean that the president must seek approval from Congress for the use of force at the earliest possible date. This is what President Bush did when he secured an “Authorization for the Use of Force” before he invaded Iraq in 2003. And Article II of the U.S. Constitution identifies the president as “the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This, the Supreme Court has held, empowers the president to use force if the U.S. has been attacked or faces imminent attack. But that is not what happened in Libya. Neither Kerry, nor Obama has ever claimed that the United States was attacked, or faced imminent attack, from Libya. What Obama has argued is that some penumbra of constitutional authority emanated from the nexus between foreign civilians being in danger and the blessing of the international community, thereby justifying Obama’s use of the United States military without constitutional approval. But the Constitution does not say the president can attack another country just because “the international community” says it is OK. There is no “Arab League” clause in the Constitution empowering it to authorize the president to use military force. The Constitution allows the president to use military force in just three situations: 1) with congressional approval; 2) after the U.S. has been attacked; 3) when the U.S. faces imminent attack. By attacking Libya without consulting Congress, Obama violated his oath of office. His nakedly political decision to seek congressional approval for his unpopular plan to bomb Syria only highlights this hypocrisy.

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 6:55:26 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1579241

By attacking Libya without consulting Congress, Obama violated his oath of office.

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 10:48:21 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1579241

Small Businesses Not Adding Workers Like They Used to

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 10:48:53 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1579241

Let’s face it: The US job market is dead in the water and not getting better

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 10:51:19 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1579241

Right-to-Work States Attracting More Citizens, Wealth

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 10:51:34 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1579241

CNN poll: Public Against Syria Strike Resolution

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 10:59:29 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579241

Maureen Dowd on the very 'exhausted' Obama ............................................................................................................ American Thinker ^ \| 09/09/2013 \| Silvio Canto Jr. You know that President Obama is swimming up stream when Maureen Dowd writes this: "The president looked exhausted as he met the press in St. Petersburg on Friday. The man elected because of his magical powers of persuasion had failed to persuade other world leaders at dinner the night before about a strike on Syria. He said he had told his fellow leaders, "I was elected to end wars and not start them." But in life, and especially in Washington, people sometimes end up becoming what they start out scorning." Isn't that the truth? How did we get here? How did we go from the "dreamy" Obama of the campaign to the exhausted man of today? In 2007-08, candidate Obama was given a free pass on issue after issue by people like Maureen Dowd. They were so eager to replace Bush that they hitched their wagon to the biggest anti-Bush of all. (Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ..

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 11:00:40 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579241

Americans Being Forced to Pay for Al Jazeera (If you have Verizon, Comcast, Dish Network or DirecTV)

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 11:02:56 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1579241

Fed’s Predicament: Labor Participation And Mortgage Purchase Apps Going In Wrong Direction

To: tejek who wrote (738031)	9/9/2013 11:08:52 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1579241

Obama's Syrian "maskirova": a perfect sleight-of-hand; notice what we are NOT talking about