Liberty
Libertarian Minded
You're a nut.
War Powers Resolution, did Presidnet Obama follow its requirements re: Libya?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You're a nut.
cawacko
Well-known member
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i see....so you have zero proof he consulted "congress", not just a few people...thanks....and now your claim is that consultation with congress does not require him to consult with all congress, rather, just a few folks...his own press secretary admitted he only briefed a few members of congress jarod....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-says-congress-had-plenty-con
nothing in there comes close to consultation....in fact the last so called meeting was only an invitation...that is not consultation, unless you're now claiming consultation with congress only includes a few members....these meetings were closed door....there was no need for that, especially from the most open and transparent president in history....LOL
btw....has obama submitted a report yet?
I watched all 5:32 of that video, nowhere did anyone say that the President did not "consult" congress. The Graphic at on the Fox Screen said it, while the guy was talking, but noone said it. If you are dumb enough to fall for the FOXNEWS trick of putting a graphic up you are a fool.
Kuchenich is upset because there was no vote, just like there was no vote when Reagan sent bombers into Lybia...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Covering the outrage brewing in some quarters on the Hill, Politico quotes an irate Democratic congressman: "They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress."
has this been substantiated?
has this been substantiated?
cawacko
Well-known member
I listened to Kuchenich, I have no idea what the graphs around him said.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
C'mon, r u a dude r not?
I've always thought you were a female. Nothing personal. I'm just curious.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Here you go, Jarod, and they're Florida congressmen, U.S. Reps. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, and Allen West, R-Plantation.
"Obama’s nationally televised speech Monday failed to answer their questions about the U.S. mission in Libya.
The conservative Republicans were joined by liberal U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, who said he fears Libya will join the long-running U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in being plagued by a “lack of a coherent military strategy.”
Rooney’s main criticism was that Obama didn’t consult Congress beforehand.
“The president has limited authority to use military force without authorization from Congress when there is an imminent national security threat, but he made clear that he acted for humanitarian, not national security, reasons. That is a clear violation of the War Powers Act,” Rooney said.
Hastings, too, said Obama should have “been more cautious and conferred with Congress” before approving the military strikes.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution says a president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”
If Congress is not consulted beforehand, the resolution requires a president to submit a justification to House and Senate leaders within 48 hours of the start of military action. Obama did so on March 21."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/s...tor-take-varying-views-of-obamas-1359264.html
christiefan915
Catalyst
On Monday, Mr. Obama sent Congress a two-page letter saying that as commander in chief, he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes, which were undertaken with French, British and other allies. He wrote that the strikes would be limited in scope and duration, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the best interest of American foreign policy and national security goals.
The White House also noted that Mr. Obama had met with Congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation on Friday. On March 1, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Security Council approved such a measure Thursday night.
Critics say the merits of the operation and its legality under international law are matters separate from the domestic legal question of who — the president or Congress — has the authority to decide whether the United States will take part in combat.
“When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress,” wrote Representative Justin Amash, a freshman Republican of Michigan, on his Facebook page. “No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution.”
Most legal scholars agree that the nation’s founders intended to separate the power to decide to initiate a war from the power to carry it out. But ever since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without Congressional authorization.
The divergence between presidential practice for the past 60 years and the text and history of the Constitution makes it hard to say whether such action is lawful, scholars say. “There’s no more dramatic example of the ‘living Constitution’ than in this area,” said David Golove, a New York University law professor.
(Continued)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html
The White House also noted that Mr. Obama had met with Congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation on Friday. On March 1, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Security Council approved such a measure Thursday night.
Critics say the merits of the operation and its legality under international law are matters separate from the domestic legal question of who — the president or Congress — has the authority to decide whether the United States will take part in combat.
“When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress,” wrote Representative Justin Amash, a freshman Republican of Michigan, on his Facebook page. “No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution.”
Most legal scholars agree that the nation’s founders intended to separate the power to decide to initiate a war from the power to carry it out. But ever since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without Congressional authorization.
The divergence between presidential practice for the past 60 years and the text and history of the Constitution makes it hard to say whether such action is lawful, scholars say. “There’s no more dramatic example of the ‘living Constitution’ than in this area,” said David Golove, a New York University law professor.
(Continued)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html
Remember how the Democrats got all bent that Bush didn't "consult" with them on things like GITMO, then later there were records that showed that the Speaker was lying and knew about the stuff because he did consult with them? Does anybody else remember something like that?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I, for one, do not view a private meeting (reportedly a teleconference)..."with Congressional leaders" as compliant with the War Powers Resolution (50 USC S.1541-1548).
1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultations; The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Another relevant section is S.1541(c):
(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only 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.
Although presidents are permitted to authorize military action without Congressional approval in cases of national emergency, Obama's Libyan adventure fails to meet these criteria and is a clear violation of the law.
1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultations; The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Another relevant section is S.1541(c):
(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only 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.
Although presidents are permitted to authorize military action without Congressional approval in cases of national emergency, Obama's Libyan adventure fails to meet these criteria and is a clear violation of the law.
The way it's worded, I don't think it's as clear a violation as you're saying. The wording it not specific enough..."every possible instance?" It leaves too much wiggle room to say that the immediacy made it impossible for a full-scale consultation. It is also unclear as to whether consulting w/ congressional leaders constitutes consulting w/ Congress itself.
I think the intent of the act is clear - the spirit of it, which I do think Obama violated. The idea is to make sure that one man doesn't have enough power to commit forces without at least involving another branch to an extent. But it's not worded with enough specificity, and if it was a court of law, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that he violated anything w/ the way it's worded...
The commentary by the post says it, but no Congressperson has said that President Obama did not confer with the Congress.
YOU GOT LOTS OF INUINUENDO but NOTHING!
There was no immediate danger to the US, therefore consultation was required according to that Act. However, like almost any other President, you don't hand such authority to the Congress. There really is no controlling legal authority over this type of thing. Congress could impeach, but then congress always has that power. The SCOTUS has previously ruled in the favor of the President in such circumstances.
I'm not going to get all up in arms the Obama didn't "consult enough", I will however point out the hypocrisy of the left who complained after Bush consulted far more than this and went in with a far larger "coalition" than this. I see that the lives of the "brown people" become less valuable when there is a D after the name of the man in the White House.
I'm not going to get all up in arms the Obama didn't "consult enough", I will however point out the hypocrisy of the left who complained after Bush consulted far more than this and went in with a far larger "coalition" than this. I see that the lives of the "brown people" become less valuable when there is a D after the name of the man in the White House.
I would add a few things to that. First, you're a little late on the 'hypocrisy of the left' thing; that has been the focus of the board since we committed forces. Second, it would probably be better if you added "some of" before "the left" on that, because I would argue that most of the left - particulary many who were vocal about Iraq - are against Obama on Libya, and against our involvement.
Last, it would be nice if someone would take a sec to point out the hypocrisy of "some" on the right who only now seem concerned about proper conduct & planning when it comes to the use of force...
And Ill point out the hypocracy of those who support Reagans bombing of Lybia under very simular circumstances.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
chirp chirp chirp jarod.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
chirp chirp chirp jarod....