Star Trek

No, I am not talking about running in the primamies for the 2012 election. Still there are other ways to for a fellow Democrat to oppose Obama:

AMY GOODMAN: Why have you sued President Obama?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Because his actions taking the United States into war against Libya were in violation of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which makes it very clear, right from the foundation of this country, that Congress has the power to declare war. And the President did not go to Congress for this action against Libya. We are attempting to correct an imbalance that has occurred, not only during this administration, but over the years, where executives have appropriated for themselves the war power without checking with Congress. And, of course, in our lawsuit we also address the War Powers Act, which the President is in violation of. And we also state that neither the approval of NATO nor the U.N. Security Council supersedes the Constitution of the United States. And finally, Amy, where’s this money coming from? Who’s paying for this? There’s been no appropriation for Libya. We need to get some answers on that, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: And who has sued? Can you talk about this bipartisan group, Congressmember Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, yes. I mean, this is a nonpartisan issue that relates to the imperative of our Constitution to be able to withstand the buffeting that happens from both directions, left and right. This coalition, made up of members—Walter Jones, who is a Republican from North Carolina, who started off in favor of the war in Iraq and has become a very strong supporter not only of withdrawing our troops from these areas, but also a strong supporter of the constitutional imperative to have Congress involved in this decision making; Ron Paul is very involved in this; Dan Burton; John Conyers, who’s the former chair of the Judiciary Committee and a Democrat from Michigan. We have a coalition that includes Mike Capuano from—a Democrat from Massachusetts. It’s a coalition that’s as broad as this country, and it’s a coalition that is quite diverse politically.

And I think that needs to be said, because it points to the fact that there’s growing opposition in this country not simply to the war in Libya, but there’s growing opposition to the United States inserting itself, alone or with NATO, as kind of a global cop, while our priorities here at home are getting ignored. And that’s something that needs to be said right now. With 14 million Americans out of work, with 50 million Americans still without decent healthcare, with so many Americans losing their jobs and their retirement security, with people not being able to send their children to the schools they envisioned they’d be able to send them to, with our environment deteriorating, we are still prosecuting wars and trying to play global cop.

I mean, there’s other issues here, but I’m—in the court, though, we’re focusing very sharply on this issue of what Article I, Section 8, really means. And I’m hopeful that if we get standing, we’ll be able to create a classic resetting of the pointer, as far as rebalancing the power relationships in this country that have gone askew since executives have been appropriating the war power.

...

the War Powers Act, if you...recognize the War Powers Act, then at the outermost marker, they’re in violation by the end of this week. If they don’t recognize the War Powers Act, then that’s the reason why we’re in court, to see if the War Powers Act is viable at all anymore. That is a ... legal question. But beyond the statutory questions here, there’s a constitutional question. And I would just like to say ... that there is nowhere in the Constitution where it says that our treaty obligations trump bedrock constitutional principles, which are enshrined in Article I, Section 8, with respect to the role of the Congress, established in Article I, first among equals, to declare war. We do not give up our congressional right, as determined by the Founders, who wrote that in there, that the Congress shall have the power to declare war. We don’t give that right up simply because we have assumed obligations under Chapter 7. The U.N. Security Council and our obligations under NATO do not trump the Constitution of the United States. And that’s the point we’re trying to make in going in with this lawsuit, ... because you may see that if we are able to get standing, that this suit will have the potential for being able to reset the imbalance which has occurred on this question of the war power.

caltrek: For the entire interview, including a perspective from an opposing view point, check out this link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/16/is_us_attack_on_libya_legal

Maybe I should have put a subtitle in explaining that the dispute is over Constitutional issues. Where are all the defenders of the Constitution now? Why aren't they al least offering an opinion as to the issues at hand?

What surprises me here is that even Kucinich is complaining (even though the issue is obvious.)

At least there is one Democrat with a shred of principle.

This thread made more sense before some of the posts were deleted. Oh well.

Perhaps those suprised by the position taken by Kucinich will start to understand the difference between a true progressive like Kucinich and a compromised centrist like Obama.

Kucinich does have the luxury of only catering to the voters in his district, not the entire nation.  

 Kucinich always stands by his extreme leftist principals. Obama will stand where ever the wind of winning an election will take him.

How come when a libertarian or a conservative stand by the Constitution that is treated as comendable, but when a liberal like Kucinich does the same he is labeled as an "extreme leftist"?

  I am very well aware of Mr. Kucinich.  Having lived in north west Ohio I know for sure he is an extreme leftist. Always has been and will always remain so. My post was at least a compliment of Mr. Kucinich and the fact that he stands by his beliefs.