Skip to comments.War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues (Obama claims he's above the law)
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 laws 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 administrations reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Here is my basic position on the “War Powers Act:”
Constitutional or not, it was passed by Congress and has not yet been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS or repealed by Congress. Until such a time as those two things happen, it must be followed, regardless of political party of the POTUS, who controls the House, etc.
Whether it SHOULD be found unconstitutional or repealed is a very worthy argument, but until it IS I expect our POTUS and Congress to abide by it. Otherwise it sets the precedent that any piece of legislation can be ignored on the grounds that the POTUS “doesn’t think it is constitutional” or “doesn’t think it applies.” If we agree that it is unconstitutional then we should also agree, I feel, that it should be removed in a constitutional manner.
Just my $0.02, as it were.
There would be no SCOTUS precedent until some Congress were lilly livered enough to try it and were then challenged on it.
So far they have always seemed to pass a declaration of war/ authorization for the use of force/ or whatnot directly.
Specificity is not there, but it (IMHO) needs to be explicitly stated, not implicit in continued funding.
For this “STUPID” war !@!!!
Another campaign issue. He thinks he can do whatever he wants and the press follows along, ‘nothing to see here’. The only way he will answer for not abiding laws and his pathological LYING(call it what it is) is for his opponent to make him answer for it. Palin will assuredly do it. I’m looking forward to him having to answer for Palin putting it out there for the public. He’s so blatant and caught up in hypocrisies he went after Bush for and part of a pattern, but beyond that this punk thinks he has to answer to no one.
WAG THE WEINER
We need to learn that the US Constitution is above Party and politics. When any President makes an end run around the Constitution he needs threatened with impeachment regardless of his Party. That is the only way to assure that subsequent Presidents will tow the line and abide by law.
I did NOT have war with that country.....
All praise King nobama. All praise the king.
I have made this argument including the fact that after they did it to Clinton he rose in the polls. It excited the base and made Republicans look bad. All I got was hate mail, which I am still in the process of replying to .. maybe
The WAP is unConstitutional. The question is, why has it never been challenged? The answer is, no one in congress understands the Constitution.
Although, in fairness, some Presidents, since it’s passing, has said it was unConstitutional. Nixon vetoed the damn thing as unConstitutional. But congress overrode his veto, with a 2/3rds majority.
Can someone educate me on this war powers act? I thought since we are part of NATO, which is signed by treaty, and under the constitution we are obligated to abide by said treaty, that would be an override on the war powers act.
Another great one! :)
I think we’re all taking too short-term a view on the purpose of granting himself power to send troops overseas at his discretion without congress to stop him. He has not drawn down troops in any theater, he his now threatening potential actions in Syria, we’re in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Our troops are spread very thin. A few more flare ups, a few more dedications of our troops to overseas activities and a single natural disaster on our shores would give Obama the media cover to claim we “need a civilian force as well trained and well armed as our military” to be available for natural disasters or issues inside our borders.
He wants his own army. If he goes straight for it, the MSM can’t propagandize the public without some seemingly logical argument. Having our troops dispersed around the globe with all resources focused outside the homeland, gives them a plausible ‘need’ to sell to the public.
Congress needs to get involved at this point to stifle this long-term objective. File impeachmenet proceedings based solely on his absence of authority under the War Powers Act. If the act is found unconstitutional or Obama comes for authority from Congress, the proceedings will be dropped. Then immediately, pass legislation in the house to raise the pentagon budget 30-50% of current levels over the next 5 years. If Obama wants to fight these wars then he can sign off on the costs to have a Military of necessary strength to do so (as a personal aside, the legislation should include that military personnel be paid Wisconsin teachers scale).
Do not give Obama an open door to develop an internal police force outside of Military ranks for any reason. This is the point of keeping our troops abroad, fomenting unrest, and avoiding congressional oversight. IMHO
Not unmanned drones.
And we are really here.
The House is not serious or the DE-FUNDing would have already begun.
Two weeks ago Libya was nearly defunded by the House. After the House Whip counted the votes, the bill to defund Libya was tabled and a much weaker bill demanding Pres_ _ent 0bozo explain what's going on in Libya was advanced.
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat...
Reads pretty clear to me.
Why not Kuwait? Syria? Yemen? Why Libya?
Q8:? Perhaps you meant Bahrain?
Syria: We'll find where Saddam's WMD ended up.
Yemen: Being there, doing that. Who's side are we on?
Libya: Q'daffy was caught arming/training Islaminazi Abu Sayef forces in the Phillipine Islands shortly beforehand, IIRC; guess we missed the press release when the PI joined NATO.