Senate letter seeks Obama compliance with War Powers Act

washington examiner ^ | 5/18/11 | Conn Carroll

[Nachum]

Six Republican Senators will sign a letter this afternoon asking President Obama if he intends to comply with War Powers Act regarding Libya. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Tenn., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, all signed the letter which identifies this Friday, May 20th, as “the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution.” In testimony before the Senate last week, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg promised Obama would comply with the War Powers Act on Libya.

The letter claims Obama “introduced the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Libya … without regard to, or compliance with, the requirement of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution.” Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act says that the United States Armed Forces can only be introduced into hostilities 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. None of those three requirements have been met so far. The senators also note that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has reported that operations in Libya have cost the Pentagon at least $750 million so far.

[Amadeo]

So Rand Paul is now a Republican from Tennessee?

Shucks! Didn’t know.

[mylife]

Glad to see someone is staying on top of this charlatan.
He has two days to begin a draw down.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[Brett11]

0 will continue to ignore the Constitution like he always does.

[reefdiver]

rinos will ignore zer0 as they always do

[newzjunkey]

You mean someone in Congress remembered the itty bitty War Powers Act? Amazing!

[Prokopton]

He has two days to begin a draw down.

What do you mean?

[Mr. Wright]

Noticeably absent on this signature list are “D”’s. Are not they they ones who were always ready to defund a conflict when an “R” was in the Oval Office. As usual, a bunch of hypocrites.

[hal ogen]

I suppose nobama, the great, all-seeing leader, could stand down for a 24 period and restart another 60 days under the act.

and remember...

nobama hates you, hates your family, hates Free America, hates Americans, hates the Constitution and hates the Bill of Rights. nobama is a hate crime foisted upon America. nobama is the Destroyer.

[mylife]

Under the war powers act he has 60 days to begin withdrawal or get congressional approval.
Should he do the former he has 30 days from friday to completely end US involvement.

[Venturer]

Posts 5 & 6 are right on the money. Look for technicalities to be found and stalling and obsfuscation.

[Grey Eagle]

Nah, Obama thinks he is King and does not answer to Congress. Grey Eagle

[SuperLuminal]

"... Obama thinks he is King and does not answer to Congress."

Incorrect!

... Obama thinks he is King and does not answer to Congress.

[Prokopton]

Under the war powers act he has 60 days to begin withdrawal or get congressional approval. Should he do the former he has 30 days from friday to completely end US involvement.

The time limits you quote, contained in the War Powers Act, only apply when there is a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." There has never been any contention that this requirement was met in the U.S. attack on Libya. The justification was that the attack was for "humanitarian" reasons. Therefore Obama never had authority to get the U.S. involved in the war in Libya, not for 60 days, not for 30 days, not for one minute.

The time limits for withdrawal are meaningless because Obama never had the authority to go into Libya from the start.

[Hoodat]

In the original letter that Obama sent to the House Speaker and Pres Pro Temore of the Senate, Obama voiced the belief that the War Powers Act did apply. Thus by his ‘reasoning’, the 60-day deadline does indeed apply. But then this is Obama we’re talking about here, so I fully expect him to ignore it.

[Prokopton]

In the original letter that Obama sent to the House Speaker and Pres Pro Temore of the Senate, Obama voiced the belief that the War Powers Act did apply

Then he would have to have claimed that he committed U.S. troops to combat because there was a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." He did not, and could not, make such a claim. There is no such thing as a 60 day time period for committing U.S. troops to combat for "humanitarian" reasons, the time period only applies if we are attacked.

[tenger]

I guess the next obvious question we ask is, “or else what?” What are these 6 Pubbies prepared to do about it if he doesn’t comply? I’d like to think they’ve thought that through but I don’t trust DC politicians to think so clearly.

[Cheerio]

Nothing will be done - the Lame Stream Press, so adament they were that GWB conducted illegal wars even after he secured the AUMF from Congress, will say noting about Pharaoh Obozo's hypocrisy.

(hypocrisy link) 2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

[allmendream]

ABOUT TIME!

Can you say “Illegal war for oil”????

I knew you could little liberal boys and girls - it is almost a reflex by now isn’t it?

Strangely silent from the “Illegal war for oil!!!!” contingent.

I would say “I wonder why?” - but that would be a lie.