When Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, did he violate the War Powers Act?

by **rushford79** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:23 pm

If so, why wasn't he impeached?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_grenada

"The invasion was criticized by the United Kingdom, Canada and the United Nations General Assembly, which condemned it as "a flagrant violation of international law". It enjoyed broad public support in the United States."

by **tate8** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:35 pm

He had an -R- behind his name...

He also violated the constitution a 100 ways from Sunday with the illegal Iran Contra scandal.. but again R behind his name...

It truly is MAGIC.. although I have yet to experience any of it's magical effects personally.

by **jarl** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:36 pm

He had an -R- behind his name...

He also violated the constitution a 100 ways from Sunday with the illegal Iran Contra scandal.. but again R behind his name...

It truly is MAGIC.. although I have yet to experience any of it's magical effects personally.

It was an act of gross imperialism and clearly broke international law.

Not the first time the US has thrown its weight about in the Caribbean, Central and South America. They have committed crimes against humanity, run scientific trials on indigenous people, murdered and tortured and intervened in other sovereign states, and used acts of terrorism against those they disagreed with. Generally these actions have been supported by an ignorant and suppine public at home. Rarely have these actions proved to be in the lon term interests of the US itself, and has left it with a legact of hatred and ditrust on its own doorstep.

He wasn't impeached because there was no significant opposition.

by **seme22** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:50 pm

No. Besides, the War Powers Act is an act by one branch trying to limit the powers of another branch. Doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that, but since it doesn't really do anything, none of the Presidents since it passed have chosen to challenge it. It's far easier to just ignore it.

by **sherborne16** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:04 pm

No. Besides, the War Powers Act is an act by one branch trying to limit the powers of another branch. Doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that, but since it doesn't really do anything, none of the Presidents since it passed have chosen to challenge it. It's far easier to just ignore it.

No.

The War Powers Act would require him to submit authorization afterwards, but its Constitutionality is shaky. If a President wanted to, they could probably challenge the law and have it overturned.

by **blaisdell** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:08 pm

No, we had American students hostage there.

Also, we were were stopping the Cuban/Communist invasion of Grenada.

by **motega** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:15 pm

As the law is written Reagan didn't violate it. However, the law needs to be changed to prevent things like that.

by **cumhea** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:21 pm

He sure did.
We attacked, invaded, occupied and overthrew a country that posed no threat to us or its neighbors.

by **roche** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:24 pm

No because he was a Republicans, and Republicans motto: "Do as I say, not as I do". And please don't insult their Republican Messiah, you'll thumbed down.

by **adaya** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:26 pm

He was just trying to get his Beirut bombing screw up off of the front page.

Advertisments:

Sponsor Links: