I suppose you missed (not maliciously ignored ) my previous post. Here is an article written by a Harvard Law School professor who does not agree with you. I guess it is not as simple as you think it is: That practice confirms that the president, under his commander-in-chief and other executive powers, has very broad discretion to use U.S. military force in the absence of congressional authorization. Presidents have done this, in military actions large and small, over 100 times, since the beginning of the republic. the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization. Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...wer.single.html
If I beat you to a bloody pulp every day for 10 years, and no one stops me, does that mean I have the legal authority to do so?
You began this whole thing with suggesting that this matter was something to leave up to lawyers. I said the Supreme Court. Of course lawyers have different opinions on all legal matters, it's the Supreme Court that has the final word in settling constitutional matters...according to the Constitution, no less. I thought it was quite obvious, especially for someone claiming to be a strict constitutionalist. I am unable to understand the meaning of this sentence fragment. Obviously. It was written by a Harvard Law School professor You're explaining how it has been done, not that it has been done Constitutionally. No me. It was written by a Harvard Law School professor. But what does he know about the constitution compared to you and rew (who claims to actually have read it once). Oh, then enlighten me...what is the mechanism that allows an individual un elected citizen to begin impeachment proceedings. Convince your elected representative. Better yet, find a lawyer and take the matter to court. If you lose - appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Duh! You prefer the dictator? Well, I guess that tells me all I need to know about you. Oh please, get off that high horse. Yes, given the choice between a secular dictator and religious fundamentalist dictatorship I tend to go with the lesser evil. I take that as the best compliment of the day. It was not but perhaps others insulted and ridiculed you even worse today. Suit yourself.
And has the SCOTUS ruled on Libya? Are they even going to? No, they won't. It is part and parcel to our broken system. that seems to work for Israel but not for America. Is he on the supreme court? Also, if you are going to quote someone, it is usually customary to include the entire quote. The answer is nothing. As you said, it is a matter from the SCOTUS, or did you just forget? Under what authority? Duh... So let me get this straight, you don't care about freedom and democracy...you just want Israel to be happy. I'm convinced, you are not American and are an Israeli shill. I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt but all doubt has been removed. In fact, do you know someone who goes by the handle Jake Jones? you wouldn't be one of his alter egos now would you? Of course I will suit myself...why the hell would I want to join the bad guys? Israel is an oppressive regime that holds Palestinians in apartheid like conditions. Israel is a terrorist state, and I am not terrorist nor am I an oppressor. You would have thought the Zionists would have learned from the Holocaust that treating other human beings in that manner is wrong but I guess the Zionists are not terribly bright. As much as I weep for that historical injustice perpetrated against the Jews decades ago, and the millions of your people that were slaughtered like pigs, your speech, and the actions of Israeli government, make those tears dry up like the Negev. Your arrogance is astounding but there is one immutable truth in this universe...arrogance is swiftly repaid. There is another spiritual truth at play here...what you send out, you get back times three. Look what's happening around Israel, Egypt is no longer friendly. Libya has gone from secular to Sharia. Your enemies are closing in on you and America will not be there to bail you out...because we won't be able to afford it. If you are dumb enough to attack Iran you will have China and Russia on top of you. You'll have to fight your own battle. Hope your abstention from the nuclear non proliferation treaty has given you a stockpile of nukes because you're gonna need them all. Good luck.
You are making less and less sense with every post. SCOTUS did not rule on Libya, the professor is not on the supreme court. As I said earlier in the thread, the actions of the government, the constitution and the politics are never black and white. There is an opinion that some of Obama's actions were not constitutional, there is an equally qualified opinion that they were fully constitutional, moreover that he has not done anything that his predecessors had done 100 times before him. You know what that all means, that Obama according to the constitution is innocent until proven guilty. And the fact that people who oppose him don't even attempt to impeach or sue him shows that they have no case and you have no leg to stand on.
Just because something has been done over and over again does not mean it is legal. Were Hitler's actions legal when he ordered the extermination of the jews? You have to be charged with a crime for that to even apply. There is no real opposition anymore, it is pretend opposition...like the WWE. We have one party in America, the banker/corporate/military industrial complex party. That's it. This party will not attack itself.
According to the Harvard School Law Professor in some cases (possibly including the one we are discussing) it does. This is a minor point anyway, more importantly it's up to the SCOTUS to decide what is and what is not constitutional. It's not up to me, you or even Ron Paul. And people are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, aren't they? Nonsense, anyone can sue anyone else for constitutional violations. According to the article I posted the attempts have been made but all of them were thrown out. Why can't Ron Paul start impeachment procedures? That would at least demonstrate that he is as convinced and as principled as he claims he is. Funny I don't really disagree with you that we have one party in America. I just happen to believe that Ron Paul is not the solution, he is a naive self-aggrandizing extremist blinded by his own 'purity'. He would be a giant step backward for the entire world, not just for the US.