Free Republic

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval. “Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since...

Several days into a campaign of air and sea strikes against Libya, I agree with many of the arguments from critics of the intervention: President Obama acted imprudently in committing American forces to a conflict with an ill-defined national security justification. It is unclear how, on balance, a third war in a Muslim country helps our foreign policy goals. It is uncertain that the intervention will produce a regime more to our liking than Qaddafi's. It is hard to justify military action in Libya while the United States does not use military force in the face of brutal crackdowns by...

As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great--the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens--that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers....

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post. Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution. The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in...

September 29, 2002 During his recent speech to the United Nations, President Bush asked the assembled delegates, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" A similar question could now be asked about the U.S. House of Representatives: Will the U.S. House Committee on International Relations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? Why not just send an E-mail message to your U.S. representative? Its easy, just click here. Well then, if eMailing your Congress-critter is too daunting of a task, why not fax them hereOh, yes to the...

<p>The U.S. Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, deliberately removing it from the President/ King/Emperor.</p> <p>After September, the Congress, somewhat understandably, but stupidly, gave the the Bush Administration a "blank check" to carry or initiate war any place it "found terrorists" -- read, anywhere it wanted. Every person who desires peace and/or has known war should demand that Congress repeal that "blank check" and return the war power to the people through their elected representatives.</p>