Oil Price's Could Fall, Thank Obama?

[rb336]

Good question. Which treaty supersedes the Constitution. What are the exact words in that treaty?

Why can't you get it? NO treaty supersedes the constitution. However, If Congress confirms a treaty that includes various military aspects and/or actions, then congress HAS APPROVED SUCH MILITARY ASPECTS AND ACTIONS. It does not supercede the constitution, it operates within the constitution.

This is the part of the NATO treaties to which I refer:
"to stand ready, case-by-case and by consensus, in conformity with Article 7 of the Washington Treaty, to contribute to effective conflict prevention and to engage actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations."

[[article 7 refers to following UNSC guidelines)

Congress agreed to the treaty, ergo, it agreed to all actions related to that treaty.

[mjs]

Oil finished up 2.5%. Gold finished up 2.5%. Expected Bernanke announcement later this week to devalue the dollar in a desperate attempt to bail out Geithner and Obama trumps all the other noise. Its like guessing what going to happen in an episode of Gilligan's Island or Three's Company.

[firstandten]

That logic doesn't make sense. I believe that no unconstitutional war is justified. The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not see how much he can get away with. Its an argument that Congress has the power to get us involved in war rather than the President.

I could very well be lead to believe the war was justified so Congress should have allowed it. While the farthest from Constitutional, it certainly was the most justified of the three we were involved in. But, it was a question for CONGRESS.

Don't you see that what he did now makes it easier for a future President you far more oppose to get involved in a war that you feel is far less justified. The founding fathers gave that power to Congress because they wanted going to war to be a thought out process where a wide variety of leaders representing a wide variety of interests get a say and have to take on its responsibility, not just some dictatorial power grab. Every act of tyranny begins as an act in the name of the greater good. The means of achieveing that good are critical to long term character.

e

The bottom line to this is there hasn't been a war fought since WW II that is a constitutional war. Congress ceeded some of its war making powers to the executive branch for good reason.

Again we get into the argument between .. the way you would like it to be[[idea) vs the way it is[[reality)

And until one can get those 5 right wing strict constructionist SCOTUS folk to tell " the way it is" people that they are wrong I don't think you can take the position that Obama is constitutionally wrong. If he is some other kind of wrong then you can make that case.

What Obama did in Libya was lightweight compared to whats gone down since WW II, so don't make it seem like it began with him.

[firstandten]

That's my whole point. You keep arguing the justification for a small war in a small period of time when I'm arguing about the balance of power in the lifetime of a nation.

But the balance is there. The President operates within the narrow scope of what Congress allows as far as war making, then there's the most powerful branch of government, the Supreme Court ready to put the executive branch in its place if need be.

[lit joe]

The E.P.A is the one doing damage lowering 75 ppb to 60ppb. Thats going to be 1 dollar a gallon. Thanks Obummer

[mjs]

We can agree on everything in post 28.

[Zacha341]

Yep, the blame game only goes so far - for so long when you are continuing the process, and even going beyond the 'inheritance'.

Mr. President, if you want to do something about the "Bush wars" you "inherited" and the "Bush tax cuts" you "inherited" and the debt issues it caused you to "inherit", quit fucking expanding them...

[ejames01]

I love how the Rush Limbow morons think the EPA is out to Destroy America

[oladub]

You're getting into semantics with me. Maybe rb 336 misspoke, I know I do. The point of his argument is that the president can wage limited warfare thru executive mandate.

Oladub and I went back and forth on this and it seems that over time congress ceeded certain powers to the executive branch. Well one of those powers was to wage war. Granted it is on a limited basis but it is there, presidents have been doing it for years and Obama was no exception.

If you read the articles if we avoided a Rwanda type situation where approx 1 million people were killed stabilized the region, without a single American life lost then you should take that into account as well.

The President cannot constitutionally wage war through executive mandate. Point out the where the Constitution says anything of the sort. Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. Where is rb? He was going to show the part of some treaty that overrode the Constitution. The President does have the power with the advise and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators concur but two-thirds of the Senate did not concur.Two additional requirements didn't happen. The Senate never consented to enter into a treaty to bomb Libya and Congress never declared war.

Congress cannot constitutionally cede it's powers any more than the Supreme Court can cede it's powers to the executive branch to decide cases.

It is too bad that Congress couldn't have asserted control or even that Obama couldn't have mended his ways and reversed course. Now we are left with a President who has willfully violated his oath of office and will be probably emboldened to continue acting like a dictator. In fact, he has been using executive orders to legislate and even override congress on at lest three occasions since using an executive order to bomb Libya. What the heck, i might as well start a list.
1. Bombs Libya without even the consent of Congress using an executive order.
2. Congress had voted to stop Mexican trucks from transversing the US. Obama ignored that act of Congress and overrode Congress with an executive order to allow Mexican truckers to displace Teamsters.
3. President Obama issued an executive order telling the Justice Department to stop repatriating illegal aliens except those who commit crimes. He ordered the Justice Department to ignore the law and granted de facto amnesty. Remember when the Justice Department told Arizona that it was the job of the Federal government to enforce the law? Obama just stopped enforcing the law.
4. The Justice Department just ruled that affirmative action policies be put into place. That was a decision for Congress to make, not President Obama's so-called Justice Department.

President Obama is acting more and more like a dictator and Congress is allowing him to get away with it. Hitler at least had to ask for an enabling act to make decisions without the Reichstag which the Reichstag gave him. Our spineless, useless, cuckolded Congress simply allows President Obama to strip away Congressional powers as he ignores them. The solution is to vote Obama out of office and anyone who provides him with cover. The problem is that Rick Perry promises to be as bad or worse then Obama.

[Goose]

No BLOOD for OIL

NO Blood FOR Oil


I hear the libs chanting at the rallies already..... poof, just a dream.....

[firstandten]

The President cannot constitutionally wage war through executive mandate. Point out the where the Constitution says anything of the sort. Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. Where is rb? He was going to show the part of some treaty that overrode the Constitution. The President does have the power with the advise and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators concur but two-thirds of the Senate did not concur.Two additional requirements didn't happen. The Senate never consented to enter into a treaty to bomb Libya and Congress never declared war.

Congress cannot constitutionally cede it's powers any more than the Supreme Court can cede it's powers to the executive branch to decide cases.

It is too bad that Congress couldn't have asserted control or even that Obama couldn't have mended his ways and reversed course. Now we are left with a President who has willfully violated his oath of office and will be probably emboldened to continue acting like a dictator. In fact, he has been using executive orders to legislate and even override congress on at lest three occasions since using an executive order to bomb Libya. What the heck, i might as well start a list.
1. Bombs Libya without even the consent of Congress using an executive order.
2. Congress had voted to stop Mexican trucks from transversing the US. Obama ignored that act of Congress and overrode Congress with an executive order to allow Mexican truckers to displace Teamsters.
3. President Obama issued an executive order telling the Justice Department to stop repatriating illegal aliens except those who commit crimes. He ordered the Justice Department to ignore the law and granted de facto amnesty. Remember when the Justice Department told Arizona that it was the job of the Federal government to enforce the law? Obama just stopped enforcing the law.
4. The Justice Department just ruled that affirmative action policies be put into place. That was a decision for Congress to make, not President Obama's so-called Justice Department.

President Obama is acting more and more like a dictator and Congress is allowing him to get away with it. Hitler at least had to ask for an enabling act to make decisions without the Reichstag which the Reichstag gave him. Our spineless, useless, cuckolded Congress simply allows President Obama to strip away Congressional powers as he ignores them. The solution is to vote Obama out of office and anyone who provides him with cover. The problem is that Rick Perry promises to be as bad or worse then Obama.

You have no argument from me as to the intent of the constitution or who is allowed to declare war.
What I have been referring to is the realities that we face. This is the reality

1) There have only been 5 declared wars in our nations history
2) There has not been a declared war since WW II
3) There must be some way Presidents from Truman thru Obama have been able to wage war.
4) The Presidents actions while you may think aren't in either the spirit or intent of the constitution are not unconstitutional until he is told by the Supreme Court that they are unconstitiional
5) Whether Congress ceeded power or not is only important to the extent that they have not manned up when the War Powers Act is concerned. Presidents have done what they wanted to do. Obama is no different than any other president.

You make it seem like Obama is this warmongering guy. Well guess what they all are !

He simply used the tools at his disposal to get the results that he wanted in Libya

Where was all this outrage when Bush fought unfunded [[ he knew he wouldn't get congressional approval) wars, or Reagans miltary adventures

Those guys didn't become dictators and neither will Obama

[oladub]

You have no argument from me as to the intent of the constitution or who is allowed to declare war.
What I have been referring to is the realities that we face. This is the reality

1) There have only been 5 declared wars in our nations history
2) There has not been a declared war since WW II
3) There must be some way Presidents from Truman thru Obama have been able to wage war.
4) The Presidents actions while you may think aren't in either the spirit or intent of the constitution are not unconstitutional until he is told by the Supreme Court that they are unconstitiional
5) Whether Congress ceeded power or not is only important to the extent that they have not manned up when the War Powers Act is concerned. Presidents have done what they wanted to do. Obama is no different than any other president.

You make it seem like Obama is this warmongering guy. Well guess what they all are !

He simply used the tools at his disposal to get the results that he wanted in Libya

Where was all this outrage when Bush fought unfunded [[ he knew he wouldn't get congressional approval) wars, or Reagans miltary adventures

Those guys didn't become dictators and neither will Obama

Two wrongs, or even fifty wrongs, don't make a right if that is your argument. Central Americans would agree that a lot of meddling has been done by force by the US military. Arabs must be reaching the same conclusion. Imagine if we didn't have Ollie North/Reagan contra war, Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam, or Bush/Obama's mideast wars. Maybe we wouldn't be raising the debt ceiling or fighting to save Social Security now. Obama just took unconstitutional wars to a new level by not even seeking the consent of Congress. He has turned into a dictator in this matter and a few others I mentioned. When a president overturns the will of Congress and assumes Congressional powers, he is, to the extent he does so, a dictator. Congress and the courts should be on his case.

#3 There is a way for presidents to wage war; by doing so after Congress declares a war.
#4 The Constitution is straight forward regarding who declares wars. Whether or not Congress or the courts do their jobs is, as you suggest, a different matter. Kucinich, to his credit, pointed out that the President's war on Libya was impeachable.
5. Obama is worse than most. I'm still not buying the arguments that two wrongs make a right or that president are exempt from following the law.

"He simply used the tools at his disposal to get the results that he wanted in Libya." So does every other criminal.

[rb336]

The President cannot constitutionally wage war through executive mandate. Point out the where the Constitution says anything of the sort. Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. Where is rb?

It also says that thing about treaties...congress approves ALL NATO treaties. By doing so, they explicitly authorize the president to act within the confines of that treaty. That includes use of the military in that context. What don't you understand about that? It is a priori consent.

He was going to show the part of some treaty that overrode the Constitution. The President does have the power with the advise and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators concur but two-thirds of the Senate did not concur.Two additional requirements didn't happen. The Senate never consented to enter into a treaty to bomb Libya and Congress never declared war.

Yes, they did, by agreeing to the NATO treaties. See above. There was no need to declare war.

Congress cannot constitutionally cede it's powers any more than the Supreme Court can cede it's powers to the executive branch to decide cases.

They didn't. they exercised them by approving a treaty.

President Obama is acting more and more like a dictator and Congress is allowing him to get away with it. Hitler at least had to ask for an enabling act to make decisions without the Reichstag which the Reichstag gave him. Our spineless, useless, cuckolded Congress simply allows President Obama to strip away Congressional powers as he ignores them. The solution is to vote Obama out of office and anyone who provides him with cover. The problem is that Rick Perry promises to be as bad or worse then Obama.

Ahhh -- and there we have it. the ultimate admission of someone who knows his arguments fail -- Reductio ad Hitlerum

[Detroitej72]

Above and beyond the cost of President Obama's Libyan adventure, President Obama should be impeached for violating his oath of office by declaring war on Libya by executive order without even seeking the consent of Congress.

According to Republicans McCain and Graham the U.S. played little or no role in the NATO strikes on Libya. They feel Obama should have sent ground troops and not pulled back and let other countries do the majority of combat. This goes directly against your argument that Obama sent our troops to lead the charge.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...A_sStwnOPcloxA

[firstandten]

Two wrongs, or even fifty wrongs, don't make a right if that is your argument. .

No that is not my argument, because if I am in the presidents position I'm not wrong until the Supreme court tells me what I'm doing is unconstitutional... at that point then I'm wrong.

And you talk about the will of Congress, we don't even know if Congress has a will or a backbone for that matter.

When it comes to the part of our goverment that wages war Repubs don't want to "starve the beast" they want to "feed the beast" And thats the hypocritical aspect of their positions regarding war and government.

The president should be impeached because he didn't go before Congress to get permission to wage war ? Please ! If you did it to the other presidents then Obama is fair game, No fair telling us that we didn't realize what those other presidents were doing is unconstitutional, so we will stop it all here with Obama.

That line of reasoning just doesn't wash with me.

[oladub]

Why can't you get it? NO treaty supersedes the constitution. However, If Congress confirms a treaty that includes various military aspects and/or actions, then congress HAS APPROVED SUCH MILITARY ASPECTS AND ACTIONS. It does not supercede the constitution, it operates within the constitution.

This is the part of the NATO treaties to which I refer:
"to stand ready, case-by-case and by consensus, in conformity with Article 7 of the Washington Treaty, to contribute to effective conflict prevention and to engage actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations."

[[article 7 refers to following UNSC guidelines)

Congress agreed to the treaty, ergo, it agreed to all actions related to that treaty.

rb, Here is a link to the Washington Treaty.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

Article 1speaks of how international disputes are to be handled. Articles 5 and 6 are about when NATO is authorized to use military force.
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations.

NATO can use military force when it's member nations were attacked as spelled out in articles 5 and 6. None were attacked. Obama's attack on Libya violated articles 1, 5, and 6 of the NATO treaty you are suggesting was the reason for his war. Also, only Congress can declare war and it didn't. Dropping bombs on Tripoli is an act of war. Congress wasn't even consulted. The War Powers Act was violated. No treaty can circumvent the Constitution which still gives Congress the power to declare war. Ollie North wasn't supposed to running a war out of the White House basement and President Obama isn't supposed to be circumventing the Constitution with executive orders or by citing treaties he is violating. You are "interpreting" the Washington Agreement as loosely as you do the Constitution.

IMPEACH OBAMA or at least vote him out of office and every Democrat and Republican who supports him. When he can't have his way with Congress he, more and more often, writes an executive order or mentions a treaty, even incorrectly, to circumvent the representatives of the people. He has been making a habit of this. I guess this is what we can expect from someone who has never worked a day in his life and was gifted with a $300,000+ private education. No one has ever said 'no' to him. It is time to do so. He has violated his oath of office and has consequently lost his right to lead this country.

[old guy]

Oladub, I see your point. I think Joe Biden would make a pretty good president too.

[rb336]

rb, Here is a link to the Washington Treaty.
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations.[/COLOR]

from the statement on libya:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_75177.htm

"Today, we the Defence Ministers of Allies and operational partners in the NATO-led operation Unified Protector met to take stock of the situation in Libya and to reaffirm our commitment to support the enforcement of UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973. These provide a clear mandate to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack, and to enforce the no-fly zone and arms embargo. "

NATO can use military force when it's member nations were attacked as spelled out in articles 5 and 6. .

There is that pesky bit about refraining from the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. That is provided in the statement on Libya.

QED

[lit joe]

I love how the Rush Limbow morons think the EPA is out to Destroy America

No George Soros and his sidekick Barry is out to destroy America.

[oladub]

from the statement on libya:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_75177.htm

"Today, we the Defence Ministers of Allies and operational partners in the NATO-led operation Unified Protector met to take stock of the situation in Libya and to reaffirm our commitment to support the enforcement of UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973. These provide a clear mandate to protect
civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack, and to enforce the no-fly zone and arms embargo. "

There is that pesky bit about refraining from the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. That is provided in the statement on Libya.
QED

The President is supposed to be the President of the US not the UN’s errand boy. His oath was to uphold the Constitution not to interpret a forty year old UN resolution.

The dusted off 1973 UN resolution “ Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 [[2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi."

Just because the UN authorized something does not mean the US has to participate. Russia, India, China, and Japan did not participate for instance.

If the US participated, only Congress can declare war. Obama failed to even meet the slacker terms required by the War Powers Act.

NATO countries are forbidden to use military force unless one of them was attacked according to the Washington Treaty you brought up.

The 1973 UN Resolution requires member states to act in cooperation with the Secretary General who, as far as I know, never authorized the bombing of Tripoli. Any idea where to find his consent form?

How many people did NATO kill and how many did it save? The Libyan government claimed that 1,300 died and 5,000 were wounded in just Sunday’s fighting. This is what happens when cities are bombed and arms are provided in a civil war. I’m supportive of NATO as a mutual defense organization but not when it is expropriated to represent colonialist, imperialistic, or corporatist interests.

[rb336]

Just because the UN authorized something does not mean the US has to participate. Russia, India, China, and Japan did not participate for instance.

If the US participated, only Congress can declare war. Obama failed to even meet the slacker terms required by the War Powers Act..

no, we didn't HAVE to participate, and the war powers act is not in play as acts of congress do not override treaties.

The 1973 UN Resolution requires member states to act in cooperation with the Secretary General who, as far as I know, never authorized the bombing of Tripoli. Any idea where to find his consent form?

S/RES/1973
"4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General,

acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in
cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures,
notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 [[2011), to protect civilians and
civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any
part of Libyan territory, and

requests the Member States concerned to inform the
Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the
authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to

the Security Council"

Once again, QED

[oladub]

rb, When did the Secretary General of the United Nations consent to the bombing of Libya? That, according to this 1973[[2011) resolution is required. When Russia signed on to this, as Russia explains it, Russia did so to prevent violence because previous UN resolutions had supported outright violence. Russia and some other countries were somewhat surprised and upset that NATO had defined "all necessary measures" to rationalize a bombing campaign.

I continue to disagree with your contention that a treaty overrides the constitutional requirement that Congress Declare War. Presidents still have to notify Congress within a time frame when they unilaterally begin hostilities. There is no exception for when he chooses to be the UN errand boy. Treaties are not valid if they contradict the Constitution because the Constitution rather than interpreted treaties or President Obama's executive orders are the law of the land. NATO's Washington Treaty, I keep mentioning, only authorizes the use of NATO military force when a NATO county is attacked. President Obama has demonstrated his contempt for Congress and the Constitution and has acted like a petulant and arrogant dictator in this matter. Breaking his oath of office is good reason to impeach him or to vote him out of office. He should have just stuck to things he is good at like economically destroying our nation.

How is the saving civilians thing going by the way? How many civilians do you think Gaddafi would have killed since March vs. how many were killed with by NATO bombing and weapons provided by NATO to wage a civil war and the expanded civil war which ensued? Do you really see the possibility of Gaddafi being replaced by anything other than the Army or Islamists? Why dod you support Obama when he operates like Ollie North?

[Papasito]

Well, either way Michelle Bachman is probably still putting together a multi-point strike plan on all of OPEC in order to fulfill her hollow promise to the American people of cheap gas.

They will say anything to get elected.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8830

You have to remember that when Ms. Pelosi and the gang were running for reelection in 2006 they promised that if the people would give them a majority, they'd take care of gas prices. Standing in front of a gas station with posted prices in the $3 range, she and the others implied it was as simple as that. They had a "common sense plan", remember?

http://www.speaker.gov/News/Document...cumentID=89447

They will say anything to get elected.

Yep. They All Will.

[rb336]

rb, When did the Secretary General of the United Nations consent to the bombing of Libya?

did you read the report on Libya I provided? It requires that "take all necessary measures,
notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 [[2011), to protect civilians and
civilian populated areas under threat of attack " and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the
authorization conferred by this paragraph."

all these were complied with

I continue to disagree with your contention that a treaty overrides the constitutional requirement that Congress Declare War.

Where did I EVER say that it "overrides the constitutional requirement"? I said the treaty created an a priori approval for actions, including military actions, taken under the terms of the treaty

[quote[Presidents still have to notify Congress within a time frame when they unilaterally begin hostilities.[/quote]

there you go - the actions were not taken unilaterally but in the context of NATO

Treaties are not valid if they contradict the Constitution because the Constitution rather than interpreted treaties or President Obama's executive orders are the law of the land. NATO's Washington Treaty, I keep mentioning, only authorizes the use of NATO military force when a NATO county is attacked. President Obama has demonstrated his contempt for Congress and the Constitution and has acted like a petulant and arrogant dictator in this matter. Breaking his oath of office is good reason to impeach him or to vote him out of office. He should have just stuck to things he is good at like economically destroying our nation.

1) the treaty DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE CONSTITUITION
2) the Washington treaty to which you refer is actually NOT the Washington treaty, it is the North Atlantic Treaty. The Washington Treaty is among numerous other treaties which came later. THAT is the treaty which includes the text of the article 7 to which I refered

How is the saving civilians thing going by the way? How many civilians do you think Gaddafi would have killed since March vs. how many were killed with by NATO bombing and weapons provided by NATO to wage a civil war and the expanded civil war which ensued? Do you really see the possibility of Gaddafi being replaced by anything other than the Army or Islamists? Why dod you support Obama when he operates like Ollie North?

Do you even have any idea where NATO bombs hit? no, didn't think so. How many military installations did NATO hit? most NATO strikes were very surgical. Libya is one of the least oppresive of the Islamic societies in Africa. Women go sleeveless there. What makes you think they will want to exchange one form of oppression for the other?

How is Obama acting like Ollie North? he's funneling weapons through a terrorist organization to the Iranian government?

like I said, your argument was lost when you went the reductio ad hiltlerum route. now you are going the reductio ad oilierum route.

[stipes]

Oil prices have already fallen. $80 a barrel should mean what... $1.50 a gallon of gas?

And price per barrel should already include demand requests from China, etc, so what is going on?

Yes my friend...The math just isnt jiving out....When it went up to almost 100 a gal the price is still the same here . 3.70 a gal... We are getting screwed.....