Does "international permission" trump Congressional approval when sending U.S. troops to war?

by Walt Posted 2012/03/08 06:46:01

Related Topics: Obama, Constitution, Senate, Joint Chiefs, Leon Panetta, War, Military, United States, Troops, U.s. Troops, U.s. Military, Video, Trump, Syria, Hearing

Read More

37 votes
Read all 31 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	International approval is more important than the Constitution.	2 votes	5%
	The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.	35 votes	95%
	This is too complicated an issue for me.	0 votes	0%

Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution
requires, the 0bama administration says that "international approval"
meets the official legal requirements to send our armed forces to war.

And That Is How the President Relegates Congressional Approval to the Dumpster:
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/and-that-is-how-the-president...
Excerpt:

"Under
question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that “international permission,”
rather than Congressional approval, provided a ‘legal basis’ for
military action by the United States..."

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84

Obama: “International permission” over Congressional approval for military action in Syria:
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/and-that-is-how-the-president...
Exerpt:

"The
Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey also
testified before the committee, making the same assertions that the
U.S. military would consider an international “invitation” for military
action before making any reference whatsoever to the constitutional
aspects of the use of military force..."

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LRmOnahXY

In your opinion, does "international permission" outrank the United States Constitutional requirements?

+13

Add a comment above

golem48 2012/03/08 08:43:16

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+8
The UN and all globalists in the US should be cast out and banned from ever returning.
>> See Replies

More polls by Walt

☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/03/10 02:19:16

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+1
At least I use to think so!

reply
lindasue 2012/03/09 06:40:52

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+1
Our Constitution is constantly being eroded. BO and his thugs act as if there is no Constitution. Where's our checks and balances.??

reply
Charles R. Anderson 2012/03/09 01:47:53

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+2
It is a fool's joke to think international decisions should decide what constitutes a national or group threat to the people of the U. S. The US government has one job only and that is to protect the individual rights of Americans.

reply
MkB 2012/03/08 21:34:09

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+4
The U.S. Constitution is the U. S. Constitution, as any U.S. Constitutional Law professor ought to know it. Especially if learned at an Ivy League School.

Like Columbia and Harvard, for example.

reply
gregaj7 2012/03/08 21:08:53

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+2
We've got many "Treaties" that argue with certain clauses of the Constitution.

reply
Kalayaan 001 2012/03/08 20:57:51 (edited)

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+2
The U.S. Constitution

It exists for a reason.

reply
jr 2012/03/08 18:51:10

International approval is more important than the Constitution.

+3
We are a part of NWO and do not even realize it

reply
lindasue to jr 2012/03/09 06:14:01

+2
I'm afraid you're right jr.

reply
The Truth 2012/03/08 18:35:57

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+3
Our government appears to be divided from within. There seems to be a number who know their duty to the constitution, and an even more powerful faction that wishes to destroy it, to create this one world totalitarian dictatorship we find ourselves barreling toward at this moment! (All according to plan.)

reply
Flamingolady 2012/03/08 14:12:10

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+4
BO is trying to undermine the Constitution any chance he gets. No big surprise here. After all, he has a Social Security Number that doesn't exist in the Social Security Index. And more than 1 alias. Listen to the audio tape of an ex-BO voter who is a skip tracer and stumbled upon all this info:

reply
lindasue to Flaming... 2012/03/09 06:42:50

+1
Thanks for this info. I wonder what he's going to do next?

reply
Richard Hungwell AKA Relent... 2012/03/08 12:52:36

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+3
To hell with international law. we have the declaration of independence for a reason. We are independent!

reply
cutter's falls 2012/03/08 12:46:02
Rusty Bubbles 2012/03/08 10:52:33

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+5
Any true american understands this

reply
teigan 2012/03/08 10:39:32

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+6
We need to start charging people who violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States with treason. Enough is enough.

reply
ed 2012/03/08 10:17:02
Andrew 2012/03/08 08:47:04

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+5
They can protest all they want, but let them try to stop us from defending our interests and liberties and THEY become the TARGET!

reply
golem48 2012/03/08 08:43:16

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+8
The UN and all globalists in the US should be cast out and banned from ever returning.

reply
ed to golem48 2012/03/08 10:18:36

+2
we need to put the pressure on our politicans to do just that.

reply
ray to ed 2012/03/08 14:17:02

+4
Our politicians are the first ones we need to cast out , Top down in 2012 .

reply
ed to ray 2012/03/08 23:59:04

+3
agreed

reply
Steve Russel 2012/03/08 07:50:30

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+7
Screw the UN.

reply
NoBama Man 2012/03/08 07:43:10

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+5
This is just another step by the progressives Billary and the boy blunder to grant power to the international government. The ultimate goal to usurp power, only then to be RULED by the boy blunder when he is elected to President of the U.N., aka President of the World.., free to dictate the rules HE imposed on the ONLY free society standing in their way. We must elect our next President who will disassociate the U.S. from the U.N. and then kick them out...restoring this countries sovereignty and independence before we become slaves to the world government being built in our own country, with OUR tax dollars since the U.S. taxpayer funds the majority of the U.N.

reply
Balladeer-PWCM-POTL 2012/03/08 07:18:09

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+6
good bye to the democratic republic of the united States of America...may God have mercy on us all for our collective stupidity and apathy in electing a socialist to power and letting him destroy us..because we feared ONE word..'racist'

reply
SoCalEx-Dem 2012/03/08 07:04:44

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+6
Only congress can declare war. This is another end run around the Constitution by this arrogant administration.

reply
Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/03/08 07:04:43

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+7
This is traitorous and should all be tried as a result.

What is the penalty for not upholding the oath to the Constitution they vowed to?

reply
teigan to Hula gi... 2012/03/08 10:42:19

+4
Evidently there isn't a penalty and oaths mean squat diddily sh*t anymore.

reply
ray to Hula gi... 2012/03/08 14:18:45

+3
Impeachment if you can find any in government who wouldn't sell out the country to protect their own position .

reply
Bozette 2012/03/08 07:01:04

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+7
For all practical purposes, the Constitution has been nullified by those in Washington over many years. They are just becoming more blatant about it.

reply
Dagon 2012/03/08 06:56:03
goatman112003 2012/03/08 06:54:08

The Constitution defines this clearly, in no uncertain terms.

+8
Look Obama is operating as if there is no constitution and for practical purposes a dictator.

reply