Skip to comments.Letter to President Obama Regarding Libya
Posted on 03/23/2011 4:44:31 PM PDT by Congressman Tom McClintock
March 23, 2011
The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have read your letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011 concerning your order that United States Armed Forces attack the nation of Libya. You cite the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and your "constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."
The Constitution clearly and unmistakably vests Congress with the sole prerogative "to declare war." Your letter fails to explain how a resolution of the United Nations Security Council is necessary to commit this nation to war but that an act of Congress is not.
The United Nations Participation Act expressly withholds authorization for the President to commit United States Armed Forces to combat in pursuit of United Nations directives without specific Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution states that the President's power to engage United States Armed Forces in hostilities "shall not be inferred . . .from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities..."
The War Powers Resolution unambiguously defines three circumstances under which the President as Commander in Chief may order United States Armed Forces into hostile action: "(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." Your letter cites none of these conditions.
Nor can the power to order an act of war be inferred from the President's authority as "Commander in Chief and Chief Executive." The Constitution's Framers were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton draws a sharp distinction between the President's authority as Commander in Chief as "nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces" and the authority of the British king "which extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies ~ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
With all due respect, I can only conclude that your order to United States Armed Forces to attack the nation of Libya on March 19, 2011 is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution and constitutes a usurpation of Constitutional powers clearly and solely vested in the United States Congress and is accordingly unlawful and unconstitutional.
Tom McClintock Member of Congress
WTF do you think you are doing?
A Concerned Citizen.
"Trying to WTF (win the future)".
Stopped right there.
Our lawmakers/keepers are increasingly selective in the laws they are willing to enforce.
Dear Mr Communist Punk!
Finally, today, Pompeo mentioned the war on his web site.
It isn't whether the war was good or bad. It doesn't get that far. The President committed an act of war without the consent and approval of Congress.
So, how will he be accountable?
Based on what we know of his presidential track record, it's doubtful he would read this.
By citing Federalist 69, McClintock has taught me something about the Constitution. I can’t wait to hear the constitutional scholar’s response.
A special THANK YOU to MY OWN Congressman Tom.
Come and see us in Grass Valley more often!
PS Seems to me that President G W Bush was taken to
task for his lack of military experience when he
committed our armed forces to action. Where were
those voices when Clinton did so in the 1990s and
where are they now?
PPS You are the GREATEST!
Thank you very much, sir, for standing up for the constitution and the rule of law.
That is the most important point of a good letter. Either the War Powers Resolution is law, and Constitutional, or it isn't and 0gabe should be forced to answer to it.
Hey Boehner, it's not custom, it is the law.
Pathetically weak. Boehner needs to go next Speaker election in the House.
I just consider this an opening shot. The proof will be in Boehner’s follow up. Or lack thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.