Rangel: Obama Did Not Have Constitutional Authority to Act Unilaterally in Libya Without...

CNSNews ^ | March 31, 2011 | Nicholas Ballasy

[jazusamo]

Complete title: Rangel: Obama Did Not Have Constitutional Authority to Act Unilaterally in Libya Without Congress’ Approval

(CNSNews.com) - Following a closed briefing for members of the House on the U.S. military operation in Libya, Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) told CNSNews.com that President Obama did not have the constitutional authority to use military force in Libya without Congressional approval. Rangel added that he would “like to believe” members of Congress are looking into whether or not the President’s action is an impeachable offense.

VIDEO 4:57 minutes

“The Constitution is clear that when you say that their families back home is going to make this ultimate sacrifice, then you have to have a vote,” Rangel told CNSNews.com after attending a briefing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. “As it is now, it’s very difficult to know except what the president told us as to what authority does he have except other Presidents have done the same thing and I still think other Presidents are wrong for doing it.”

When asked if the President’s action is an impeachable offense, Rangel said that Congress would have to make that decision. However, he added that he would “like to believe” members of Congress will examine the issue.

“Well, you know if the Congress, if the House of Representatives are the ones to determine whether or not it’s an impeachable offense, there’s a vehicle for that set up in the Constitution which is much like a grand jury and if they did find that it was impeachable then of course the trial would be in the Senate and so there is a way before we do anything to try to find out where there’s facts that should be investigated. I don’t think there’s enough there to do that because of the nation’s concern,” he said.

“Once again, that’s something I wasn’t even thinking about until you raised it. It is the Congress that feels the pulse of the nation and I would suggest to you just as in a regular jury that if indeed there were technical violations of the Constitution, it would be the Congress especially the House that’s elected every two years that would be able to vote the way they think what America would want them to vote. So, again, it shows the genius of the founders of the Constitution to have these checks and balances without technically being bound but Presidents don’t have the right to take that broad flexibility from the Congress on their own unilaterally.”

Rangel added, “I’d like to believe that lawyers, constitutionalists and members of Congress are looking at that every day; every time there’s a kid that’s been assigned to a war that has not been declared. I’d like to believe that’s being studied and looked into.”

Rangel also said that Congress has to decide if it wants to “forfeit” its Constitutional right to declare war.

“We should try to clear this thing up. We cannot put this thing in rewind and think that we can make any changes. Commitments have been made and no matter whether the President is right or wrong when our country speaks, it speaks and we have an obligation to have credibility in the international community,” he said.

“But the truth of the matter is, we ought to really have a bipartisan assembly of the Congress to find out, ‘Does it really want to forfeit their constitutional right and obligation to be involved whenever Americans are going to be attacking other countries and involved in what can only be described as war?’”

[jazusamo]

Have to agree with Charlie on this one.

[Marine_Uncle]

The dimwits must smell their blood starting to leak out. This is rare. heheh.

[Outlaw Woman]

Mark Levin adamantly disputes this. He said the President(s) of past have done this several times.

He said nothing the maniac did was unconstitutional.

[US Navy Vet]

Say what you want to about the Modern Charlie Rangel he was a bone fide Korean War hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Rangel
And THIS is the LAST positive thing I will EVER say about Rangel.

[JPG]

Charlie still doesn't understand the power of a Dictator. Charlie, he doesn't need you, congress or anything else to proceed with his plans.

[Mouton]

“He said the President(s) of past have done this several times.”

I think he was referring to lawful presidental action. Since the pretender is not lawful, he could not issue these orders IMO.

[The_Reader_David]

If Obama’s lost Charlie Rangel (who for once is right), he’s got real trouble.

Now maybe Obama thinks the Libyan intervention will be short enough that the War Powers Act saves him from threat of impeachment. If I recall correctly, it allows the POTUS as CIC to order military action, provided he notifies Congress within 48 hours, without need for Congressional authorization so long as the action ends within 60 (or was it 90?) days. (Yes, yes, I know one could argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, but during the WW III, a.k.a. the Cold War, it seemed a good idea, and I can imagine circumstances in WW IV, a.k.a. the War on Terror, where it might be necessary, too.)

[Outlaw Woman]

I don’t believe that was his point Mouton. Levin has never indicated that he thinks Obama is unlawfully in office (if I understand that term correctly) In fact he goes bananas when someone mentions the BC or Impeachment or anything else.

According to Levin: Obama is destroying our country
According to Levin: There is NOTHING we can do about it

[jazusamo]

I didn’t hear Levin remark on this but I don’t agree. Even if a president or two did this in the past it doesn’t make Obama’s act legal.

[Mouton]

Just editorial sarcasm on my part about Levin.

[jazusamo]

The way I understand it is for a president to take unilateral action it has to be because we or Americans somewhere in the world were attacked or our vital interests are at stake.

None of this was true in Libya, he went along with the UN to supposedly save Libyan lives in a civil war.

[Outlaw Woman]

He cites the ‘War Powers act’ of the 70s IIRC.

His program is downloaded on his website: marklevinshow.com

Even if it’s not legal, according to Levin, the is absolutely NOTHING, no hope, no way, no how to do anything about it. Oh except to vote in 2012, that is if we have a country left by then.

[jazusamo]

I absolutely agree there’s nothing we can do about it. Even if the House came up with enough votes to impeach him there’s no way the Senate would convict him.

[Himyar]

Does anyone know if he formally notified congress within the 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act ?

[Defiant]

He noted that in our long history, we have declared war something like 5 times. There were a few recent ones where Congress authorized it in advance, but the executive continues to argue that Congress cannot limit its powers as commander in chief.

Actions without Congress include Grenada, Cuba, Iran hostage rescue, Vietnam prior to Tonkin Gulf resolution, Korea, Pancho Villa, Indian wars, attack on Russia in 1919, Iran 1954, Nicaragua in the 80s, El Salvador in the 80s, Cuba Bay of Pigs, Afghanistan 1980s, Libya attack 1980s, and on and on. He argues, convincingly that while Congress has the power to declare war, thus forcing the President to prosecute a war, the President has power to use the military as commander in chief. Congress has the ultimate power to deny such actions through the power of the purse, and used it in Vietnam.

I understand his position, and it is legally and historically supported. He is showing his intellectual honesty by taking this position. Those who disagree with his position should at least review what he has written, and then address it. Most of what I have seen posted here is pretty juvenile and does not provide a counter argument.

[Outlaw Woman]

The man has committed crimes in office. He has subverted the Constitution. He has extorted monies from companies and on and on. The president of the United States is above the law?

It’s not that anything ‘can’t be done’; it is the fact no one has the desire to dig in and find a way to do something.

Just review Nachum’s “List” from the beginning. Documented evidence of law breaking and yet....*crickets*

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Does anyone know if he formally notified congress within the 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act ?"

Yes, he did. But I submit to you that parts of the War powers act (like this one) is unconstitutional. The congress from 1973 cannot bind future Congress's in regards to something that goes against the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has the power to Declare War. If a military action is to take place, at minimum there needs to be a joint resolution from Congress. If it was something like the military evacuating American citizens, I don't believe that constitutes a military action, but when we are dropping bombs on people, that to me defines a military action.

[Outlaw Woman]

There is no need to take a swipe at me or anyone for stating opinion. What exactly are you referring to with that remark?

Yes Levin is intellectually honest. And I do read his articles sir (or ma’am). There is no disputing that Obama has proceeded based on historical actions by former presidents. However, in this particular ‘action’ the US Military is being used to AID the ENEMY.

[mass55th]

No surprise in Charlie’s not supporting Obama. Afterall, Obama told CBS news that it was time for Rangel to end his career “with dignity” when asked questions about the ethics scandals surrounding the Congressman. Payback’s a beyotch!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"He noted that in our long history, we have declared war something like 5 times."

That is not correct. We have made a formal declaration of war five times. Big difference. That is a noun (person, place or thing), the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the power to declare war (verb, i.e. action). The Constitution does not say how to do that action. That action IMO can be done by a formal declaration of war, a joint resolution etc.. The important thing is that it has to be initiated by Congress.