Then-Senator Joe Biden: "If a president wages war without congressional approval, they must be impea - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/joe-bidens-case-that-waging-war-without-congress-is-an-impeachable-offense/279160/[/url] [quote]President Obama has been criticized [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/a-brief-argument-against-war-in-syria/279078/"]by me[/URL] and others for proceeding as if he has the legal authority to authorize acts of war against Syria, even though he [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/"]declared in writing[/URL] as a U.S. senator, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." It turns out that his Democratic primary opponent and eventual running mate, then-Senator Joe Biden, had [URL="http://www.policymic.com/articles/61321/joe-biden-wanted-bush-impeached-for-the-very-thing-obama-is-about-to-do"]even stronger views[/URL] about presidents attacking other nations without Congress's permission:[quote] [B]Chris Matthews:[/B] You said that if the United States had launched at attack on Iran without Congressional approval, that would've been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? [B]Joe Biden: [/B]Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris. you've known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that -- and I don't say it lightly, I don't say it lightly. [/quote] This is a striking statement. It isn't that Biden hadn't thought very carefully about this issue before entering the executive branch, and then discovered in the vice-presidential residence that, upon reflection, the president really should have the unilateral authority to take America to war absent an actual or imminent threat. Rather, he reflected deeply on the law for almost two decades, through numerous presidencies, [I]as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee;[/I] consulted a whole group of constitutional scholars; taught constitutional law classes on the separation of powers; and went on national TV while running for president to declare unilateral executive-branch war-making a high crime! [/quote]

-snip-

There is a massive turd cocked and aimed at the fan, and it's name is "Intervention".

But haven't other presidents done just that?

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;42016106]Wow, seems a bit strange to see Biden say something so aggressive towards Obama.[/QUOTE] He didn't. He said it in like '07.

[QUOTE=Dippeggs;42016113]But haven't other presidents done just that?[/QUOTE] Yeah, he's not targeting obama afaik but it's still dumb because presidents have done it in the past( including Bush )

[QUOTE=Nestophales;42016132]He didn't. He said it in like '07.[/QUOTE] Well then.

Who's this Biden guy? Oh, he's the Vice President? I had forgotten he even existed.

Politicians lying and never sticking to their "principles"? what a shock

[QUOTE=Del91;42016171]Who's this Biden guy? Oh, he's the Vice President? I had forgotten he even existed.[/QUOTE] I think it's this guy IIRC [img]http://imgkk.com/i/metx.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42016109]There is a massive turd cocked and aimed at the fan, and it's name is "Intervention".[/QUOTE] Nice concept for a political cartoon.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;42016161]Well then.[/QUOTE] Yea the article doesn't make that clear. The video has been all over the major news networks for a few days, he made the statement during Bush's final term(probably to make himself look good for a potential Presidental run in '08 or someshit.) Kinda funny how he says that under a Rep. administration but has stayed quiet under a Dem. administration.

[QUOTE=Dippeggs;42016113]But haven't other presidents done just that?[/QUOTE] kinda but also not really [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Declarations_of_war[/url]

You wouldn't believe the hilarity found within American history of Presidents working between the constitutional lines and pretty much informally fighting wars without any sort of consent because they weren't officially wars.

The view is different from the top. When legislative political gridlock keeps things from getting done, it is more likely that the executive will take action themselves.

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;42016246]You wouldn't believe the hilarity found within American history of Presidents working between the constitutional lines and pretty much informally fighting wars without any sort of consent because they weren't officially wars.[/QUOTE] Vietnam never had a declaration of war.

Can't we wait to see if we actually go to war first before we start criticizing him about it?

[QUOTE=person11;42016616]The view is different from the top. When legislative political gridlock keeps things from getting done, it is more likely that the executive will take action themselves.[/QUOTE] That's a fast tract to dictatorship if I ever saw one. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Map in a box;42016153]Yeah, he's not targeting obama afaik but it's still dumb because presidents have done it in the past( including Bush )[/QUOTE] Having a precedence to do wrong doesn't give the right to continue to do wrong.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;42016795]Vietnam never had a declaration of war.[/QUOTE] Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42018689]Gulf of Tonkin Resolution[/QUOTE] Was not a declaration of war. Congress has to vote on "we declare war on country x".

There's an easy way around this. Just don't call it a war.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42016109]There is a massive turd cocked and aimed at the fan, and it's name is "Intervention".[/QUOTE] how the fuck do you cock a turd think of the mechanics of this

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42018667]That's a fast tract to dictatorship if I ever saw one. [/QUOTE] Never said I supported it. It is just political fact that political gridlock can lead to breaking rules and executive privileges. And yeah, that does usually lead to some sort of dictatorship. Either the executive takes total control, or he gets unpopular enough for somebody even worse to attempt a coup. A stable democracy needs a functioning legislative system, a limited but still important president, respect for the rules laid out by the government (and the ability to pay the political price for breaking them), and a functional economy. Right now, the United States gets by with an economy that you could describe as functional, with utilities and government services that are functional. The USA is also fortunate to have a civilian run military that is extremely unlikely to ever attempt a coup (though the military industrial complex is extremely powerful). Nothing else lends to the stability of the country.

It's just something he said before the election to appeal to voters who disliked Bush going into Iraq/Afghanistan without Congressional approval. He doesn't give 2 shits, he just needed votes at the time.

but the president has the ability to wage war without congressional approval and the war powers resolution act has always been on shaky foundations as it is technically a great overreach of congressional authority in that they can't really tel the commander in chief how to use the military. the need for a declaration of war is really only to fund a war. so there oisnt really any way you could impeach the president based on him starting a war as long as he is able to fund it within the existing budget. also biden's only sole responsibilities are to cast the tiebreaking vote in the senate and to protect the time space continum and I think anyone would agree having the vice president(next in line) oversee the impeachment of his boss as a big conflict of interest. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] I know that it was a dredged up comment of his but I'm just looking at how it would happen today

[quote] President Obama has been criticized by me and others for proceeding as if he has the legal authority to authorize acts of war against Syria, even though he declared in writing as a U.S. senator, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."[/quote] but the potus does have that power lmao. war powers resolution.