ad hominem much?

Invictus, actually it's you that sound like an idiot. What exactly are you arguing about - that Obama overstepped his authority about Lybia? After being literally begged by Nato, the UN and the Lybian resistance and getting funding approval from Congress?

It's all relative I guess, so what are your benchmarks... Iraq? :)

Btw, last time I checked the US and Lybia were not at war. Even the Ghadafi government doesn't claim this. But, I guess, you know better.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declaration+of+war

Not the most scholarly of sources but I hope this suffices. From what it's worth it claims to be from:

"A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856."

So I hope this works for ya. On to the show:

"DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
2. This power is vested in congress by the constitution, art. 1, s. 8. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act. A manifesto, stating the causes of the war, is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes effect. It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction. Potter, Antiquities of Greece, b. 3, c. 7; Dig. 49, 15, 24. But that is not the practice of modern times. In some countries, as England, the, power of declaring war is vested in the king, but he has no power to raise men or money to carry it on, which renders the right almost nugatory.
4. The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, which is named, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy, is also called a declaration of war."

So essentially a declaration of war is an authorization for acts of war. This authorization, as noted in the Constitution, is only able to be granted by Congress. Thus the only Constitutional authorization for acts of war is that which is granted by Congress.

Now, it should be noted that defense of the country is allowed without Congressional approval. The President as Commander in Chief is tasked with defense of the country from imminent attack and does not need authorization to execute that responsibility. (I don't have the specific clause handy but I recall the President explicitly being given this authority; hence the change from "make" to "declare.") However, for anything beyond the scope of an imminent attack from a country posing a direct threat to the US, the authorization must come from Congress. In the case of Libya it never did and likely never will.

So I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the idea that the President can authorize use of military force wherever and whenever he desires.

@Ivo: The Obama administration's rationale for not being at war is, I shit you not, that we're not engaged with hostilities against Libya because Libya isn't capable of causing American casualties. Basically, we're so much better and more ass-kicking than Libya that they can't hurt us, and because they can't hurt us it's not a war.

Which is funny logic, really, because that basically means we could carpet bomb the shit out of most of the world without it being a war.

I can't speak for Gaddafi's rationale -- I'm sure he'd rather call it an assassination attempt than a war -- but the US's rationale is as pathetically justified as it is scary in terms of future implications.

You can ignore two hundred years of American history anytime you want Eden. You can also ignore the sun coming up in the east and setting in the west. You can also ignore the fact that such stances destroy credibility with individuals who use their intellect.

What you can't ignore is the fact that the founding fathers gave Congress complete control over the use of American military force at anytime and any place.
Congress controls the purse strings.
Congress can cut off funding to any action anytime it has the political will to do so.
The founding fathers were very aware of this because the English Parliament did just that to King Charles I when the Scots Presbyterians invaded England when the Book of Prayer was reformed. Parliament refused to fund English military action to repel the invasion until Charles recognized constitutional restraints on his authority. He dissolved Parliament and the English Civil War-Purtian Revolution was on.
The founding fathers knew their English history and incorporated effective checks on executive military authority to cover all uses of military action independent of a declaration of war that applied only to formal hostilities between formal states.

Sorry, Tettleton, I didn't realize that "We violated the Constitution before and no one complained, therefore it's okay to violate it again" is justification. Feel free to tell the student of history he's ignoring history whenever you like, and also feel free to ignore the Constitution -- I'm sure both of those will get you somewhere. ;)

"The President as Commander in Chief is tasked with defense of the country from imminent attack and does not need authorization to execute that responsibility. (I don't have the specific clause handy but I recall the President explicitly being given this authority; hence the change from "make" to "declare.") "

Actually, that is from the 1948 War Powers Act and is not part of the Constitution. Don't people actually *read* the Constitution before attributing things to it any more?

"DECLARATION OF WAR. An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation."

Perfect! It says clearly in it that this is an act of legislature declaring a state of war to exist. It does not prohibit hostility, even premptively or in defense of an ally or innocents. It just says it isn't actually a war until Congress declares it such. Hence, Korea was a police action. What's so hard about that?

It goes on to say...

"It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction. Potter, Antiquities of Greece, b. 3, c. 7; Dig. 49, 15, 24. But that is not the practice of modern times."

So clearly, a declaration of war, by that definition, is not required to begin hostilities. This bnacks me so much, and yet it is an argument to the counter? Not!

"Actually, that is from the 1948 War Powers Act and is not part of the Constitution. Don't people actually *read* the Constitution before attributing things to it any more?"

I didn't attribute that part to the Constitution, did I?

"Perfect! It says clearly in it that this is an act of legislature declaring a state of war to exist. It does not prohibit hostility, even premptively or in defense of an ally or innocents. It just says it isn't actually a war until Congress declares it such. Hence, Korea was a police action. What's so hard about that?"

Where is the Constitutional authority for a police action?

"So clearly, a declaration of war, by that definition, is not required to begin hostilities. This bnacks me so much, and yet it is an argument to the counter? Not!"

In what way did you read "Declarations of war precede hostilities" to mean "Declarations of war are not required to begin hostilities"? I don't mean that as a putdown, I'm honestly not sure where that came from. ;>_>

"(I don't have the specific clause handy but I recall the President explicitly being given this authority"

That use of the phrase "clause"? Yeah, it implies you meant the Constitution. Sorry. But you said it.

Clause is a pretty broad term. Though I should have specified that the reason I didn't have it handy was because I couldn't find it in the Constitution. I was in fact thinking of the War Powers Act, which you identified, so thank you for picking that up for me.

As far as Police Action. Ther is none in the Constitution. Nor is there a Air Defense or Missile Defense clause in the constitution. I stated before the founders could not have foreseen the extent and might of the US Military (or even some smaller countries' militaries like Israel or Iran (trying to be balanced and list ally and not-so-ally both).

And it doesn't just say "Declarations of war precede hostilities." It says "Formerly, declaration of war preceded hostilities but *that is not the practice of modern times*." You. yourself, stated this was written in 1856, before the US Civil War and before WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The first Gulf War, the more recent Iraqi war, the war in Afghanistan, and Libya. So, since 1856, it has not been a requirement *according to your choice of definition* that a declaration of war precede hostilities.

@President Eden - what do you want the Obama administration to say? Of course they will say Lybia is no threat to the US. You don't really expect the to follow the same path as for Iraq, claiming WMD and AlQueda links, right?

You have agreements and commitments to the UN and NATO (all signed by the Congress) - and this was a UN sanctioned action, implemented by NATO. US involvement was more-or-less automatic and expected by all. Noone outside of the US is even questioning whether this is a war - and keep in mind it's not only US planes. Do you think the French consider themselves at war with Lybia?

Finally, having in mind the speed at which Congress takes decisions... it's only natural for the executive branch to go ahead and act while waiting for formal go-ahead. Congress can cut funding, pass a resolution to stop the military action, etc. - and only then, if Obama doesn't follow suit, move for an impeachment or anything of the kind. Pointing the finger at the Administration is simply wrong - they haven't done anything that was not properly sanctioned and funded, nor have they gone against any Congress decision.

You're blaming the wrong people.

Any and all action relies on funding from Congress.
Marines in Okinawa.
Drones in Pakistan.
Combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Air strikes against Libya.

The Supreme Court would laugh with a unanimous verdict at any counsel representing Congress who claimed that Congress hadn't approved military action.

Can you imagine the grin on Scalia's face when he would ask "then why did Congress vote the money to pay for it all?"

Even if it were legal (or if it is, whatever)
we are still bombing the shit out of a people that did nothing for us.
I believe the only aid they actually asked for was... ironically, anti-air weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3yxKPi1Tdg&feature=player_embedded

go to 8:34

Congress is appropriating all the money for the bombing too.
Where is the war powers act Congress?
Invoke it. Make fools of yourselves when the Supreme Court shoves separation of powers down your throat.
Congress voted two days ago to keep paying for the Libyan bombing.
Write your member of Congress.
If you haven't you are as big a hypocrite as Congress is by posting on here, but not writing you members of Congress.

.....
As if writing your congress ever has, does, or ever will actually do anything?

Those who don't try to change things within the system are as much a part of the problem as the system themselves. If you don't write your congressperson and let your feelings be known, then you have no reason to complain for their not acting on it. Just like those who choose not to vote at all, have no reason to complain when they don't like the person in power. If you want change, *act*!

The right to vote with no one to vote for in an election? Two party system, republicrats, is a false choice. The hawkish pro corporate party, or the hawkish pro corporate party.

also writing your congress is more like *begging than *acting.

Tangent.

Swat team raids wrong house, shoots it up narrowly missing parents and six kids.
Swat team then all gets
FUCKING MEDALS

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=35779

BTW, american troops are in somalia now (creeping over from yemen)