Obama Claims The United Nations Can Usurp U.S. Congressional War Authority

[FrankRep]

Obama Claims The United Nations Can Usurp Congressional War Authority


Big Government
June 17, 2011


U.S. Constitution > Article One, Section Eight:

The Congress shall have Power…. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…​

Obama's response:

U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.​

A major problem with that argument is that the Constitution’s provisions regarding the United States use of military force mentions Congress, but it doesn’t mention the United Nations as having the right to legitimize the use of American forces.
....


Related News:

United Nations Trumps Constitution, Congress, in President's Undeclared War on Libya

21 March 2011 | With the exception of Ron Paul, very few in Congress are calling President Obama to task for getting his war-making authority from the United Nations rather than from the U.S Constitution and Congress.​

 

[TheDriver]

Sadly he's not alone, see John McCain and the rest of GOP (with only a few exceptions).

 

[FrankRep]

Support H.R. 1146, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This proposal terminates the United States' participation in the United Nations.

The United States is currently engaged in another unconstitutional and undeclared war in the Middle East. President Barack Obama explicitly cited a United Nations resolution as his source of authority to wage war in Libya. This acquiescence to the United Nations is and has been for many decades the excuse the U.S. government uses when it wishes to involve itself in regime changes or changes in the form of government in many countries around the world.

H.R. 1146 would terminate all U.S. participation in the UN, repeal the UN Headquarters Agreement (which would leave the UN no offices along the East River in New York), stop all appropriations of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the organization, and most importantly, end the United States’ participation in any agreements or conventions with any UN organ, body, or agency or commission. H.R. 1146 is the best vehicle to Get US out! of the United Nations.​

Email Congress!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=24587&APP=GAC​

 

[Travlyr]

Sadly he's not alone, see John McCain and the rest of GOP (with only a few exceptions).

Like Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Hartmann, Schultz, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Texas Governor Rick Perry.

 

[FrankRep]

George Bush was busted for putting the United Nations Above the U.S. Constitution as well.


George Bush's Agenda Behind Disarming Iraq

The New American
Dec 2, 2002

"Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
- George Bush, September 12, 2002

"I went to the United Nations a while ago because I want the United Nations to be effective..."
- George Bush, October 31, 2002​

 

[Dr.3D]

George Bush was busted for putting the United Nations Above the U.S. Constitution as well.


George Bush's Agenda Behind Disarming Iraq

The New American
Dec 2, 2002

"Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
- George Bush, September 12, 2002

"I went to the United Nations a while ago because I want the United Nations to be effective..."
- George Bush, October 31, 2002​

Well, since the U.N. is a front for those with a globalist agenda, I would hope it will become irrelevant as well as ineffective.

 

[FrankRep]

Well, since the U.N. is a front for those with a globalist agenda, I would hope it will become irrelevant as well as ineffective.

Ron Paul has the right idea: Get US out! of the United Nations!

 

[Dr.3D]

Ron Paul has the right idea: Get US out! of the United Nations!

And tear down the building it is housed in.

 

[sailingaway]

That's pretty dangerous. Will the Supreme Court let someone have standing to get it heard?

 

[Dr.3D]

That's pretty dangerous. Will the Supreme Court let someone have standing to get it heard?

Somehow, I get the feeling, the Supreme Court is owned by the White House.

 

[sailingaway]

Somehow, I get the feeling, the Supreme Court is owned by the White House.

Yeah, but which white house? Bush wouldn't have gone for this, he resisted this sort of thing. At least, he complied with the War Powers Act.

 

[AuH20]

Yeah, but which white house? Bush wouldn't have gone for this, he resisted this sort of thing. At least, he complied with the War Powers Act.

Agreed. This isn't Bush's speed.

 

[Philhelm]

I'm not worried, since the U.S. Constitution shall descend from the heavens to the trumpet of angels and restore our liberties. /s

 

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, but which white house? Bush wouldn't have gone for this, he resisted this sort of thing. At least, he complied with the War Powers Act.

To me, it's not which white house, but rather both white houses control the Supreme Court. Yes, Bush wouldn't have gone for this and thus the Supreme Court wouldn't have been involved. If there is ever a problem with something being done at the White House, it seems the Supreme Court will side with them regardless of the party.

 

[sailingaway]

To me, it's not which white house, but rather both white houses control the Supreme Court. Yes, Bush wouldn't have gone for this and thus the Supreme Court wouldn't have been involved. If there is ever a problem with something being done at the White House, it seems the Supreme Court will side with them regardless of the party.

Maybe. They have in the past supported the Unitary Presidency far too much, but not over Gitmo, and not over all of the Patriot Act, and not over the line item veto. There are 6 votes on the bench that may opine against this assuming it ever gets to them within their terms. The problem is, they will still probably erode the Constitution in their opinion, but I'm cautiously optimistic that with its CURRENT makeup the Supreme Court would not go along with this. To my mind which president APPOINTED the justices does matter.

 

[Dr.3D]

Maybe. They have in the past supported the Unitary Presidency far too much, but not over Gitmo, and not over all of the Patriot Act, and not over the line item veto. There are 6 votes on the bench that may opine against this assuming it ever gets to them within their terms. The problem is, they will still probably erode the Constitution in their opinion, but I'm cautiously optimistic that with its CURRENT makeup the Supreme Court would not go along with this. To my mind which president APPOINTED the justices does matter.

That's the problem. It seems most of the time, the decision is the erode the Constitution. To me, it looks like incremental-ism at it's finest.