Posted on 06/15/2011 12:44:58 PM PDT by tobyhill
The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.
In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.
On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.
“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Then we need to TAKE THE SENATE BACK!
And we can if we reduce their ability to fraud and steal.
PHOTO IDs.. already required in some states.
I would prefer there was photographing of each voter also and use face recognition for any double voting at the time of voting and a swift path to jail right then. Sheesh, we have the technology!
LOTS OF JOBS FOLKS! I’ll pay my share for their salary.
A panel in each voting area chosen by citizens to follow up on identifying anyone who falsifies ID info. With prosecution.
LOTS OF JOBS FOLKS! I’ll pay my share for their salary.
If they went after voter fraud as much as they do Sarah Palins emails, there would no chance for fraud.
And let us not forget that these military hostilities were initiated and are being conducted on the insistence of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and senior White House advisers Valarie Jarrett, and Samantha Power, and against the advice of senior US military officials.
The War Powers Act ensures that any military action has the consent of the President and Congress.
It ensures that the President ask Congress for authorization prior to any action except in cases where the US is attacked and an immediate response is required.
Libya required the President to ask Congress for authorization first.
In fact, at least Obama could have consulted with Congress prior to hostilities in an effort. He made no such effort and has not reported to Congress since the start of hostitilies.
This is a dangerous precedent being set.
Of course he is above the law, he proves it daily, and the best we get from congress is a little orchestrated whining.
On another note Issa, is said to be really, really, really mad now.
In 2007, Obama said his own illegal War in Lybia was illegal:
Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who opposed the Iraq war, told the Globe in a candidate Q&A that was published Dec. 20, 2007, that the president has no such authority unless there is “an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Question: 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?)
Obama: 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.
OH WAIT....
THAT ONLY APPLIES IF A REPUBLICAN IS PRESIDENT, RIGHT?
Funny stuff, Obama basically making the Impeachment Defense Argument: This doesn’t rise to the level of that.
That is a common view, but it is not common sense. It's common nonsense and leftist nonsense at that. No conservative, in fact no rational person, should be making such a statement.
The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. Obama is entitled to conclude that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as have all of his predecessors since it was passed. He is free to conclude that the Resolution doesn't apply to circumstances in Libya. The only remedy if he reaches the wrong conclusion is for Congress to stick up for itself, either by impeaching him or by cutting off funds for his misbegotten Libyan adventure. Congress hasn't done either and it won't. On this matter, then Obama gets the final word. That's how separation of powers works.
The executive power of the United States is vested in the President. The Constitution says so in so many words. It doesn't say, or even hint, that the President has to consult the courts to determine what his executive responsibilities require him to do and the idea that he should is absurd. Obama’s legal interpretations are always flawed and frequently ridiculous, but he's President and he's the one with the power to make them. Elections have consequences.
The law suit seeking to enforce the WPR in court is going nowhere. The courts won't, and shouldn't, touch this. It will be dismissed as a political question, probably summarily by the District Court. It's a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch which is none of the judiciary’s business. Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope. This is one of them.
There is more than enough to throw at Obama without trying to resurrect the WPR from its constitutional grave and deploy it against him. The WPR was an artifact of the post-Watergate leftist ascendancy. It was a bad, unconstitutional, left wing idea which deliberately sought to subvert separation of powers and shackle America's military might. It's been dead for decades and good riddance. I'm all for beating up on Obama but not just any stick will do.
It's a shame that Obama’s President, but he is. He gets to exercise all the powers of the office. We can't redefine the office so that it's small enough to fit him without risking permanent damage to the constitutional order.
Further, Clinton was impeached and we see it didn’t affect him one iota. Neither would Obama be threatened by it...to him just another hurdle to get around. He's set once he's out of office no matter how the people or courts determine on anything against him.
So in order to conduct unrestrained military operations without the consent of Congress, one simply needs to “outsource” the conflict? Same troops, same munitions, different command structure? Methinks that would get laughed out of court (except maybe in the 9th Circus). Didn’t the _resident rail against that “o” word when it came to military operations?
This is a great graphic. BMFL.
No Bush didn't “abide” by the WPR and neither did any other President of either party. Presidents often act “in accord” with the WPR but they never act “pursuant” to it. They avoid picking a fight with Congress whenever there is no reason to, but no President has ever accepted the WPR as constitutional and authoritative. And no President ever will. No Congress has ever tried to enforce the WPR through impeachment and trial or through the power of the purse. This Congress isn't about to break with that precedent. It's dead Jim, and conservatives should be the last people trying to revive it.
The act is of dubious constitutionality. Congress should just defund the project and/or impeach Obama. It is amazing how many of their duties and powers the Congress abdicated during the 19th century. This Century should bring a return to the Constitution, but it ain't happenin’.
Congress needs to shut this down. Just cut off the funding and they will have to cease and desist. This Libya misadventure is a bridge too far.
bookmark
Wrong, and a pretty self-contradictory position for an advocate of the Constitution.
If the House passed a law stating that all executive power was transferred from the President to a Congressional Committee of Public Safety, would the President be obliged to go along with it until the Supreme Court decided to review it?
Hardly.
If the House passed a law stating that all firearms were contraband and needed to be immediately handed over to agents of the newly-created Congressional Personal Dearmamaent Task Force, would you comply and then wait for the judiciary to rule on it?
I for one wouldn't.
But Andy, what exactly is “defensive” about the Libyan excursion? Answer: NOTHING.
ofiringsquadula PING
Wrong. Congress authorized him to act under the UN Charter and under the NATO treaty complex.
He is exercising the deployment authorization that Congress, through those treaties, gave him.
If they didn't want him to use the treaties, they shouldn't have passed them. If they don't want him to use the forces, they should defund the DOD.
Until then, they are just engaging in an unconstitutional power grab.
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.