Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues (Obama claims he's above the law)
NY Times ^ | 6/15/2011 | Charles Savage

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 ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012electionbias; ayerscoupdetat; barackswar; dnc4alqaeda; dnccoupdetat; dncrico; dncvsamerica; dncvscongress; dncvsconstitution; doublestandard; firingsquad; illegalwar; libya; noaccountability; noamerica; nodocumentation; noflyzone; nojustice; nolaw4dnc; nolaws4dnc; nolaws4holder; nolaws4obama; notapeacemovement; notaxes4dnc; nothingtoseehere; notruth; obama4alqaeda; obamaabovethelaw; obamaforeignpolicy; obamaswar; obamavsamerica; obamavscongress; obamavsconstitution; obamunism; oup; pelosicoupdetat; warpowers; warpowersact; warpowersresolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 next last
To: wideawake

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Constitutional or not, it was passed by Congress and has not yet been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS or repealed by Congress.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Whether it SHOULD be found unconstitutional or repealed is a very worthy argument, but until it IS I expect our POTUS and Congress to abide by it.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.

141 posted on 06/15/2011 4:25:14 PM PDT by HushTX (I make libs rage quit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ted Grant
I suppose if Congress said “Hey we authorized funds specifically for the war effort” that might serve as a de fact declaration of war - but it would be a rather indirect way for them to exercise this sole and supreme power for declaring war that the Constitution gives them.

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.

142 posted on 06/15/2011 4:31:08 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

For this “STUPID” war !@!!!

143 posted on 06/15/2011 4:58:33 PM PDT by Deetes (God Bless the Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

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.

144 posted on 06/15/2011 5:06:59 PM PDT by mrspeelwerneeded (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
meanwhile, headline story from the media is:


145 posted on 06/15/2011 6:11:30 PM PDT by KTM rider ( patriot turned rebel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

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.

146 posted on 06/15/2011 6:13:16 PM PDT by apoliticalone (Honest govt. that operates in the interest of US sovereignty and the people, not global $$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I did NOT have war with that country.....

147 posted on 06/15/2011 7:33:52 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (DEFUND NPR, PBS, THE TSA AND THE U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

All praise King nobama. All praise the king.

148 posted on 06/15/2011 7:35:03 PM PDT by hal ogen (1st amendment or reeducation camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

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

149 posted on 06/15/2011 7:48:45 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

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.

150 posted on 06/15/2011 8:28:46 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Repeal the 16th amendment . Send Islam packing to their homeland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

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.

151 posted on 06/15/2011 8:29:40 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Another great one! :)

152 posted on 06/15/2011 8:54:59 PM PDT by seekthetruth (We The People stand with Israel, even though Obama does not!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
153 posted on 06/15/2011 9:14:27 PM PDT by cruise_missile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

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


154 posted on 06/15/2011 9:46:33 PM PDT by dannyboy72a (the circuit is closing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Not unmanned drones.

And we are really here.

155 posted on 06/15/2011 10:22:49 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1
The House has the power to stop this thing in its tracts, I think.

The House can defund anything it wants. But the House defunded some czars and Obama just blew it off. From TPMDC dated April 18, 2011

White House: Obama's Signing Statements Are Legit -- Unlike Bush's
"The White House is disputing any notion that President Obama broke a campaign promise by using a signing statement to ignore Congress' attempt to defund the positions of four so-called administration czars.

So when you elect a dictator, there is no stopping him by normal means, if you get my drift.
156 posted on 06/15/2011 10:40:24 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals
Greetings no-to-illegals:

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.


157 posted on 06/16/2011 12:31:35 AM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (In God I trust, all others provide citations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg
From Section 4:

(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.

158 posted on 06/16/2011 1:09:23 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wiggen
Greetings wiggen:

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.


159 posted on 06/16/2011 1:23:33 AM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (In God I trust, all others provide citations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
We are NATO. There is a 90 day period for Obama to get authorization to have our troops do anything militarily against another country and he missed the deadline, NATO or not.
There have been many occasions when NATO countries have not enjoined other NATO countries.
160 posted on 06/16/2011 3:50:27 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson