Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
at this time, i don't think there is enough evidence to say he violated the WPA. that said....what part of the constitution did he violate?
War Powers Resolution, did Presidnet Obama follow its requirements re: Libya?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
at this time, i don't think there is enough evidence to say he violated the WPA. that said....what part of the constitution did he violate?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i'm confused...is congress only made up of certain members? did he consult with all of congress? yes or no.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Did he have to consult with all of Congress? Yes or no.
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 21, 2011
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker:
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.
As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope.
Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya.
United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Although Qadhafi’s Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated2in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security.
His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.
Qadhafi’s defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
BARACK OBAMA
Right, because one-time bombing is the same thing as prolonged military engagement.
I would say that would be more like complaining about Bill Clinton bombing aspirin factories after supporting Reagan bombing al-Khadaffi's house in Tripoli. For those of us who remember, Libya had been sending out fighters to engage our planes in the Mediterranean Sea, al-Khaddafi decided to "claim" international waters and swore to "defend" his territory and started sending out fighters to "defend" what he claimed. There is a far more clear path to an actual threat to American interests in that case, although one of the reasons we gave was a supposed bombing of a nightclub in Germany which really has nothing to do with our security or interests.
In that case we actually did hit something that had something to do with al-Khaddafi, while the pill factories never had anything to do with Clinton's supposed target.
The comparisons should be valid, at the least, when determining whether the President has followed the "law". When (some of) the left complained that Bush didn't "consult" enough when he actually got authorization with a vote to invade, and called a far broader coalition "Unilateral", then support this "coalition" without a vote from Congress to authorize force on a target that has nothing to do with an immediate threat to our nation...
That is hypocrisy.
I certainly am not complaining about Obama not "consulting" enough. As I said previously, no President should or would give that kind of power to the Congress, and the SCOTUS has sided with the President every time this kind of thing has been brought before them. I simply point out that many of the left on this very site are suddenly unconcerned with the lives of the "brown people" that we are bombing now, those same people claimed that Bush didn't "consult" enough, and that Kerry really was against it when he voted for military authorization, they claimed that all the action was "unilateral" when there was far more of a "coalition" then than there is now, they claimed that Bush was only bombing them because they were "brown"... They claimed much, and now don't seem to care about any of that.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
After the fact, as required by the War Powers Resolution.
Unfortunately, Obama failed to consult with Congress before he initiated his Libyan adventure.
What to you is the bare minimum required by the President to fulfill his obligation to consult with Congress?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Consulting with Congress. Not a few "leaders" via teleconference.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Sure.
According to his mouthpiece, on March 18, Obama invited members of Congress to a closed meeting at the White House to "consult" on Libya and "to brief them on the limited, discreet and well-defined participation that he envisioned for the United States to help implement the U.N. resolution."
Reportedly in attandance were were John Boehner (R-Oh.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger (D-Md.), Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.).
Out of 535 Congresspeople and Senators.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > 1542
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.
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.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I believe that according to the text "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities" the president is obligated to consult with both Houses of Congress, openly and in session. I'm sure that interpretation is not shared by some.
However, there is also the question of whether Obama should be able to invoke the War Powers Resultion at all in the current situation.
According to TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > 1541
Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(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.
Did any of those requisites exist when Obama launched his Libyan adventure?
However, there is also the question of whether Obama should be able to invoke the War Powers Resultion at all in the current situation.
According to TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > 1541
Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(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.
Did any of those requisites exist when Obama launched his Libyan adventure?
Fair enough. So basically, you are of the view that no president has met the requirements of the War Powers Resolution since its enactment.
I don't really care. If Congress wants to do something about it, it can. But it won't.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Correct on both counts, I fear.
Yet Obama continues to lie.
"The White House rejected criticism of President Barack Obama's decision to attack Libya, saying on Thursday he had briefed Congress and the public extensively before military action began last weekend."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110324/pl_nm/us_libya_usa_whitehouse_1
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
hilarious...you keep trying to pass of a letter as consultation....that does not match the definition of consultation at all.....i say again...meeting with a few to BRIEF them, is not consultation...members of congress has said he has not consulted them....yet you and obama continue to lie and claim he did
anything to protect your messiah
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The letter was sent after the fact.
"Inhofe, the second-ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, says he was never consulted by the White House on the action, and after checking with both Democrats and Republicans on those committees, isn’t sure anyone was consulted."
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/...-on-libya-in-shock-over-lack-of-consultation/
"Inhofe, the second-ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, says he was never consulted by the White House on the action, and after checking with both Democrats and Republicans on those committees, isn’t sure anyone was consulted."
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/...-on-libya-in-shock-over-lack-of-consultation/
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
formal consultation. do i really need to repeat that? secret meetings with a few, does not equal consultation. further, when members of congress state there has not been consultation....that would be my first clue that formal consultation did not take place. no member of congress should claim that consultation did not take place. granted, if someone is claiming it for political points, then ignore them, but you have congressmen from both sides of the aisle stating that obama did not consult with them.
if no member of congress claimed that, i highly doubt we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This is the same thing Bush did, he used the War Powers Act, like I said, they didn't bitch then, but they will bitch now...I am still bitching, but hey, I don't like war actions, I see this one as better than some, but still don't care for war.