Since 9/11 Bush had been digging a bigger hole for the United States every year since then. When Obama took over he said he was going to make change, but really what change has he made? It’s ironic how Obama has all this power but doesn’t seem to use it right. We question if Obama broke the law when he ordered U.S. planes to bomb Moammar Kadafi's forces in Libya. Some critics think so. Some say he took the responds to emergencies and act on it as soon as he could, but without any approval from congress. Many people are upset that Obama sent so many troops when he said he was going bring troops home. Most people are upset that he got involved with a country that had nothing to do with us.
To determine if Obama was exceeded his authority was the two documents that are key: The Constitution, which describes the president as commander in chief (while giving Congress the power to declare war) which the letter law was passed over the veto of President Nixon, which is both similar what Obama did. However it also states that the president can undertake such in operation only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. But yet none of the 3 meets the standers in the operation in Libya.
After sending troops to Libya Obama sent a message of his theory on why he made his decision; U.S. involvement was necessary because "the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.” It is hard to determine if Obama broke the law or not but Obama is taking his authority as commander in chief in doing what he can. Just like previous presidents have said, he was acting "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution, not "pursuant to" it.
To determine if Obama was exceeded his authority was the two documents that are key: The Constitution, which describes the president as commander in chief (while giving Congress the power to declare war) which the letter law was passed over the veto of President Nixon, which is both similar what Obama did. However it also states that the president can undertake such in operation only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. But yet none of the 3 meets the standers in the operation in Libya.
After sending troops to Libya Obama sent a message of his theory on why he made his decision; U.S. involvement was necessary because "the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.” It is hard to determine if Obama broke the law or not but Obama is taking his authority as commander in chief in doing what he can. Just like previous presidents have said, he was acting "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution, not "pursuant to" it.
No comments:
Post a Comment