America`s Guy Is Awesome!

Submitted by: Lionhart2 6 years ago in Funny

America, all your problems are solved now. He even knows the Internets!
There are 74 comments:
Female 189
This was made by Jib Jab before he became prez, wasn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 1,595
Guys, it`s all a joke.


Relax.
0
Reply
Male 718
He did all this? where was I when he did this stuff?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Not that I`m against action in Libya[/quote]

I am because we unrealistically overestimated the capabilities of the Libyan rebels. If it`s going to take bombing an entire country to oblivion via guessing just to oust one dictator then our prestige on this planet is doomed in this century.
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Poor America. *sniff*
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cajun: The problem is Obama has tried to skate arounf the war powers act by saying that we aren`t at war and are only upholding NATO treaty obligations. Sorry, but that explanation just doesn`t fly.

Not that I`m against action in Libya, but this half-assed way he`s going about it sucks balls.
0
Reply
Male 546
Yep... BO is a real badass. Striking fear in the hearts of our enemies....

Cartoons are great
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It may be unconstitutional, but so far nobody has challenged it.[/quote]

Except the President has albeit not in the expected manner. So far Congress has time and again unwilling (if not unable) to enforce it.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Cajun247, That is quite long and I`m pretty much done making my point. A cursory read seems to back up what I`ve been saying. Libya is illegal and the War Powers Act is a bad law. Not liking a law does not mean the President should break it. It may be unconstitutional, but so far nobody has challenged it.

As far as the politics of Vietnam, I will be the first to admit that my education is weak on that subject. I grew up at the worst time to learn about Vietnam. I was too young at the time to know anything about politics. It was too new (and probably too controversial) for it to be included in the public school curriculum. My later education focused on military aspects, not political. I could discuss what Sun Tzu probably would have thought of the Tet offensive, but wow that would be way off topic.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
cont...

[quote]American citizens and their property, to enforce treaty obligations and rights, and to deter misconduct by other countries. Even if one concludes that Congress still has a check on large-scale, prolonged commitments of U.S. armed forces into hostilities, it does not follow that the power to declare war permits Congress to usurp the Commander-in-Chief power concerning military deployments that do not even arguably constitute the initiation of "war."[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Here is constitutional problem of the War Powers Resolution in a nutshell:
[quote]Yet another clear observation that can be made about the War Powers Resolution is that several of its key provisions are flagrantly unconstitutional. The Constitution gives to Congress the power "to declare War," which was intended to be a veto or check against an adventurist President who might seek to take the nation from peace to war over some political or economic grievance or from a desire for personal fame and conquest. As an exception to the President`s general grant of the new nation`s "executive Power," the congressional check was to be construed narrowly. The Framers well understood the concept of "force short of war," and throughout our history presidents have deployed U.S. armed forces into harms way to protect[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@NottaSpy

Then I`ll bring up this article as well. Friendly note: ignore the "The Myth that Vietnam was a Mistake" section, the part I find to be full of 5h17.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Cajun247, that wasn`t your point. You`ve been arguing all along that it was legal. That link of yours is opinion as to why The War Powers Act is a bad law. I could give you links to opinion as to why Libya is bad policy. Both are irrelevant as to the legality of the war in Libya.

BTW, I am against all three wars as well as the War Powers Act. I listed the illegal war in Libya as one of the reasons Obama lost my vote. It is really a three part reason:
1) He has shown disregard for the law.
2) We do not need to be inserting ourselves into another countries civil war.
3) We cannot afford another war.
0
Reply
Male 8,302
> DrProfessor
> This is three years old.

Released: 06/19/09
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals

Obviously the `Doctor` and `Professor` don`t refer to a degree in Mathematics. So its 2 years old. At the time of release, it was satirical about future events and mildly funny, whereas now, looking with hindsight at Obama`s actual record, its hilarious. If you think a joke is funny once, you`re missing the point of humor.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
This fiscally conservative article pretty much tells you my point.
0
Reply
Male 511
All politics aside, this video deserves this score because it`s soooooooo ollllllllld
0
Reply
Male 3,894
This is three years old.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]What does matter is that the War in Libya violates the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, commonly referred to as "The War Powers Act".[/quote]


As for Art 1 Sec 8 here`s what your missing:

There are "Armies" which the congress can "raise and support" which the President is the Commander-and-Chief of and can use at any time, then there are "Militias" which the congress can "call forth". The latter the congress is only required to "call forth".
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]Actually he later got congressional approval to do so.[/quote]
Illegal at the time. The President could not know that Congress would approve it in the future. The Constitution gives Congress the power of suspending Habeus Corpus, not the President.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]Study your history, it was approved by an overridden veto. Actually wait we`re using to laws interchangeably. The former (1941) WAS approved by the president but was VERY different in purpose, the latter (1973 called a resolution BTW) the one I believe we`re referring to[/quote]
OK. My mistake, but still a law. Point is that it is the law of the land. Does not matter that he has funding. Does not matter that he hasn`t been impeached. Does not matter that he commands the troops. What does matter is that the War in Libya violates the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, commonly referred to as "The War Powers Act".
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Another example of an illegal act by a President that he got away with.[/quote]


Actually he later got congressional approval to do so.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
"to laws"?


I meant two.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It was passed by Congress, signed by the President[/quote]



Study your history, it was approved by an overridden veto. Actually wait we`re using to laws interchangeably. The former (1941) WAS approved by the president but was VERY different in purpose, the latter (1973 called a resolution BTW) the one I believe we`re referring to
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]If you want an example of a president NOT enforcing the law, look no further than president Lincoln during the Civil War. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus.[/quote]
Good, you`re catching on. Another example of an illegal act by a President that he got away with.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]Wow a contradiction. Part III of the War Powers Act clearly states in such a situation he doesn`t need approval. If that`s the case then essentially gives the potential enemy time to cause damage to our nation. But like I said if congress doesn`t like what the President is doing they can cut funding, ALL OF IT, at any time. They don`t need this law.[/quote]
Did you mean an insurrection here in the U.S.? Then the President has authority to act without waiting for Congress. If you mean an insurrection in Libya, then the President has to wait for Congress. The War Powers Act allows the President to act if our nations security is immediately threatened.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
If you want an example of a president NOT enforcing the law, look no further than president Lincoln during the Civil War. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]Gee isn`t THIS essentially an interpretation of the constitution.[/quote]
No. It was passed by Congress, signed by the President. The Judicial branch can interpret the Constitution and say this violates it. As long as that hasn`t happened, it is not an interpretation but a official, legal definition of terms in the Constitution.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]BINGO![/quote]


Wow a contradiction. Part III of the War Powers Act clearly states in such a situation he doesn`t need approval. If that`s the case then essentially gives the potential enemy time to cause damage to our nation. But like I said if congress doesn`t like what the President is doing they can cut funding, ALL OF IT, at any time. They don`t need this law.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]As this example has already been repeated since the law`s inception. So far congress has not impeached any president who has violated the act (essentially every admin since).[/quote]
Good God this is getting repetitive. Just because he hasn`t been impeached, doesn`t mean it wasn`t illegal. Congress has its reason for not trying to impeach him, but it was still an illegal act. If I rob a bank, it is still illegal even if I haven`t been prosecuted.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
That was entertaining
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization,[/quote]

Gee isn`t THIS essentially an interpretation of the constitution.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]If that is the case then the president essentially has to wait for congress BEFORE he can take action against an insurrection.[/quote]
BINGO!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You claim that the President can interpret a law so as to decide when it applies?[/quote]

As this example has already been repeated since the law`s inception. So far congress has not impeached any president who has violated the act (essentially every admin since).
0
Reply
Male 881
Correct, a declaration of war is "a formal recognition of a state of war between two nations". But you can`t say period.

The War Powers Act states, "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Since the War Powers Act says that a declaration of war allows the President to act, it means that a declaration of war is more than just a formal state of affairs.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The approval for military action does not include Libya (or Pakistan for that matter). [/quote]

If that is the case then the president essentially has to wait for congress BEFORE he can take action against an insurrection.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Wrong, it also authorizes the President to act militarily.[/quote]

No, it is a formal recognition of a state of war between two nations, period.
0
Reply
Male 881
The judicial branch is the only branch that can interpret laws. You claim that the President can interpret a law so as to decide when it applies? You fail government 101. I defy you to show me when it says the President can NOT enforce a law. Read up on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote">want to argue that the President can ignore the Constitution[/quote">

That`s not my point, he can only ignore certain laws passed by the legislature ONLY if he has a constitutionally valid reason to. Indeed almost every law in tabulated in the US Code he is indeed REQUIRED to enforce. The President is ALWAYS bound by the constitution as this case demonstrates.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]already been approved (or perhaps continuously pre-approved)[/quote]
Wrong again. The approval for military action does not include Libya (or Pakistan for that matter). The war in Libya is illegal.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]All a declaration of war will essentially do is declare a nation as an enemy of the state. Meaning ANY person who gives aid and comfort to said foreign nation or soldier thereof can be charged and convicted as a traitor.[/quote]
Wrong, it also authorizes the President to act militarily. No declaration of war means that 1/3rd of the War Powers Act was not satisfied. The other 2 parts weren`t satisfied either, so it is illegal.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
"may indeed call into service every soldier available"


Okay I just did some research and this part of my statement is incorrect. Essentially, there are two distinct parts of the military: the reserve force and active force. Congressional approval is required for the use of the reserve force, but the President may call upon the active force at any time since their use has already been approved (or perhaps continuously pre-approved). Since the `active force` has deployed to three different countries none of them are illegal.

Not that I approve of any of these wars mind you.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]So not only is it unconstitutional (when a federal court decides as such, then essentially the law in question ALWAYS has been) it is completely unneccessary. Art I Sec 7 gives congress the power of the purse. If they don`t like the war in Libya, they can cut funding. [/quote]
Correct, but that doesn`t mean that the war is legal since Congress didn`t cut funding. It also does not mean that Congress authorized it. The funding is authorized through the treaty with NATO. But just because it is funded, does not mean the actions are authorized. Thus, still illegal.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Cajun247, yes it was designed to allow the President to act when there is a threat, but it was also in response to Vietnam. The War Powers Act does a pretty good job of defining when the President can act and it is clear that Libya does not come even close.

Dude, you should never, ever practice law. Read Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Pay attention to that part, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Unless you want to argue that the President can ignore the Constitution. Just because GWB took signing statements to a whole new level, does not mean that the President can pick and choose what laws to enforce. BTW, the Attorney General works for the people of the U.S., not the President. The AG is an officer of the Court and his duty is to the laws that Congress enacts.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
"may indeed call into service every soldier available"



Hmmm...
Then again maybe the reserves haven`t been "called into service" yet.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
All a declaration of war will essentially do is declare a nation as an enemy of the state. Meaning ANY person who gives aid and comfort to said foreign nation or soldier thereof can be charged and convicted as a traitor.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So not only is it unconstitutional (when a federal court decides as such, then essentially the law in question ALWAYS has been) it is completely unneccessary. Art I Sec 7 gives congress the power of the purse. If they don`t like the war in Libya, they can cut funding.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@NottaSpy

The clause is supposed to allow the president to "act with dispatch", for one simple reason. When a decision regarding national security needs to be made immediately, the President may indeed call into service every soldier available. That is something a large body of people are incapable of doing, nor is it clearly DESIGNED to do. After all their sole function IS debate.

[quote]The War Powers Act is a law until then.[/quote]

Unfortunately it is up to the executive branch to decide which laws it shall enforce (hence the word `executive`), granted of course so long as the legislature is willing to force it`s hand. Since Congress isn`t very keen on enforcing it, the law has been practically moot since it`s inception.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Cajun247, what I think you miss is that when the Constitution says, "when called into the actual Service of the United States", it does not say that the President can call them into service. The Congress can call them into service at which time the President commands them.

[quote]Art II Sec 1 USC trumps the War Powers act anyday.[/quote]
Only when a Federal court says that the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, which none have. The War Powers Act is a law until then. Since it is a law, if an act violates that, then that act is illegal by definition. That means that the war in Libya is illegal.

0
Reply
Male 881
@Cajun247, lol, that is the best you got?

Article 1, section 8 gives only Congress the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President to declare war.

The United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 defines "act of war". By this definition the President has ordered the U.S. to commit acts of war without authorization from Congress.

The War Powers Act section 2c states: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities...

So you are right, the Article 2 section 1 says the President is Commander in Chief. But the War Powers Act, which was signed into law by a President, defines when he gets to use that power. The conditions for that use of power have not been met. War was not declared, there was no statutory authorization, and Libya was not a national emergency.

It is an illegal war.
0
Reply
Male 1,737
It`s all part of our quest to ... rid you of your money!
0
Reply
Male 15,510
This is like two years old now
0
Reply
Male 67
... fcuk you jib jab
0
Reply
Male 768
Wait, is this for or against Obama?
0
Reply
Male 976
"America`s Guy"?
0
Reply
Male 3,060
lame.
0
Reply
Female 3,696
Dig it- Really well done.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
...the f uck did i just watch?

and do we really have to argue about it? oh wait, internet. my bad. continue.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh "Art 1 Sec 7" is also part of the power of the purse.
0
Reply
Male 206
Whether or not you think the conflict in Libya is justified, it`s so adorable to see rightwingers get all righteous about illegal wars.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Art II Sec 1[/quote]

Did I write that?
I meant Art II Sec 2 Clause 1.
It reads something like this:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@5Cats

Art II Sec 1 USC trumps the War Powers act anyday. ALL PRESIDENTS since the inception of the latter have invoked this argument, and it is completely valid. If congress does not like this war it can cut defense funding via "power of the purse" (Art 1 Sec 8 USC). BTW I don`t agree with every decision Obama has made, I`ve had doubts about Obamacare for since it`s conception and I believe this war in Libya was a horrific miscalculation.
0
Reply
Male 68
yep, this sucked...but of course now I`m a racist for saying that.

0
Reply
Male 40,401
@Cajun - According to who`s constitution? NATO`s? The USA requires Congressional approval of military action within 30 days OR it MUST END within 90. Otherwise it is, in fact, unconstitutional. But don`t let facts stand in the way of you defending Obama...
0
Reply
Male 315
This is I-A-B so i`m sure this will have been said... but... this is sooooooo old.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]illegally started a new war[/quote]


A constitutionally BS statement there.

Nonetheless I don`t agree with that `new war` anyway.
0
Reply
Male 1,249
@NottaSpy - exactly. Just sucks we are playing the "which one is least worst" game.
0
Reply
Male 881
Failed to investigate crimes of the Bush administration regardless of their being sufficient evidence. Indefinite detention. No single payer or public option while medical insures still have legal monopolies. Expanded wars and illegally started a new war when we can`t even afford to educate our children. Extending the Patriot Act. Extending the Bush tax cuts.

Obama lost any chance at my vote a long time ago. Unfortunately it looks like my only other choice would be a right wing nut job that is so crazy that it would make me think the Bush years weren`t all that bad.
0
Reply
Male 1,685
well he didnt really do ANY of that. didd-ee.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
As much as i love(d) JibJab, this is extremely old...

The "In 2007" is my favourite. Also, they had Obama ride on a unicorn, saying "i`ll talk about change `til your deaf in the ears" i think was the best Obama satire :-)

0
Reply
Male 1,122
Most people don`t know that he fights pirates. That makes him a ninja.

Although this debt ceiling thing I actually think the republicans are going to put the states into default just to get him out of office.
0
Reply
Male 266
Is this video pro-obama or anti?
0
Reply
Male 416
"Punch a robot in the face!"

That`s my favorite part. JibJab does some good stuff. I`m looking forward to seeing their set during the next presidential campaigns.

0
Reply
Male 2,672
Wow! We are just so lucky!
0
Reply
Male 8,302
Link: America`s Guy Is Awesome! [Rate Link] - America, all your problems are solved now. He even knows the Internets!
0
Reply