Ball starting to drop on the Libya excursion.

[Direckshun]

Would be really strange if Congress simply didn't act on the issue.

Nobody in Congress seems to be willing to go on record for or against. Congress may just run out the clock.

Bizarre... Damn near irresponsible.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...owers-act.html

Boehner Warns Obama to Act By Sunday or Risk Violating War Powers Act
June 14, 2011 4:12 PM

In a letter that will be released in about 15 minutes, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) tells President Barack Obama that he and his administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless by Sunday he receives authorization from Congress for military operations in Libya -- or ends them.

Says Boehner's office: "With only five days until the 90-day mark for U.S. military operations in Libya, the Speaker is seeking a clear explanation of the legal standing under the War Powers Resolution by which the administration believes it has the authority to continue operations after Sunday, June 19, 2011."

[Direckshun]

Although, it should be noted, that orange has made the argument that Obama could continue this excursion legally under our UN resolution. I'll see if I can locate his post.

[Direckshun]

Go Chiefs.

Originally Posted by orange

It's legal under powers granted by Congress to the President to help enforce U.N. resolutions. Granted back in the 1940's perhaps, but still the law. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242885

As for the War Powers Resolution, no president has ever accepted that it is Constitutional. It would be up to Congress to push the issue by cutting funding or so on. And if you think there is any sentiment for that in the case of Libya, you need to come in out of the rain.

There has in fact been a Senate vote about this: 90-10 against asserting War Powers limitations.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...rs#post7541068

Originally Posted by orange

For Direckshun's benefit, so he doesn't have to search through that long thread (assuming he's actually interested), here is the link you originally posted ... but then disavowed once I pointed out the parts you didn't read ... which completely blows Mr. Woods claims away.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/...pub_detail.asp

And here's a guy with links to the case law:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/i...law-authority/

p.s I know I've seen that tomwoods.com page before. Haven't we already gone over it in some other thread?

[Saul Good]

Is this another case of nothing getting done unless the Republicans spearhead it? Democrats are the party of limited government and policing the world, after all.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Is this another case of nothing getting done unless the Republicans spearhead it? Democrats are the party of limited government and policing the world, after all.

I was talking about the nanny state in the thread you're referencing.

I'm not sure what's causing this particular stall. Hardly anything has been written about it.

[orange]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Is this another case of nothing getting done unless the Republicans spearhead it? Democrats are the party of limited government and policing the world, after all.

No, it obviously isn't - to anyone paying attention, anyway. Boehner is acting on a resolution he offered on June 2 to head off a resolution offered by Kucinich (D - Ohio).

It's all in that thread - you could "pick it up" and read it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=245515

Oh, and the money quote:

Originally Posted by orange

It wouldn't be "doing nothing" - if they were doing that. But they're not doing that - they're doing nothing.

Please show me this mythic "demand to follow the Constitution" in the OP.

My comment, on the other hand, shows that at least someone is doing something - Kucinich. We shall see what the rest of the House does.

[orange]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm not sure what's causing this particular stall. Hardly anything has been written about it.

Support for Boehner's resolution was never really in doubt, as it was developed in large part to provide a less drastic alternative to Kucinich's increasingly popular language. Several members noted that they would vote for both resolutions, and saw them as compatible.

But in putting forward the Boehner resolution, Republicans were forced to acknowledge that they largely support ongoing military action in Libya, despite their complaints about Obama's failure to consult Congress. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) seemed to best describe these competing issues during the debate.

"We must not let our frustration with the president's contempt for Congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that would harm our standing, our credibility and our interests in the region," she said.

Boehner took to the floor early in the debate to argue that the U.S. does in fact have security interests in Libya that are being addressed by a military presence.

"In my view, the gentleman's resolution goes too far," Boehner said of Kucinich's proposal. "We may have differences regarding how we got here, but we cannot turn backs on our troops and our NATO partners who have stuck by us over the last 10 years."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/03-6

House Republican leaders believe that if the resolution being offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio -- requiring the president to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from participation in the NATO mission in Libya within 15 days – had come up yesterday it would have passed.

Instead the Kucinich bill comes up tomorrow. With the Boehner bill an alternative.

According to a House Republican aide, in the House GOP conference this afternoon, Speaker Boehner said: “The Kucinich measure will express our constituents’ angst, but it will also have long-term consequences I believe are unacceptable. If Kucinich passes, it will have an impact on Afghanistan. From a NATO perspective, we're trying to hold the alliance together and advance a common agenda in Afghanistan. We will have turned our backs against our NATO partners who have stuck by us for the last 10 years.”

Boehner then quoted from a Heritage Foundation paper on the possibility of congressional action on Libya: “’Any action by Congress must have due regard for U.S. responsibilities to its allies. It would be completely irresponsible of the U.S. to presumptively withdraw support from allies that are in harm’s way. Many NATO nations stood, fought, and died with American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing should be done to suggest that America would precipitously abandon its allies.’”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-on-libya.html

[orange]

White House to Congress: We Don't Need Your Authorization On Libya

First Posted: 06/15/11 07:08 PM ET Updated: 06/15/11 07:13 PM ET
Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn't need lawmakers' approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we're not at war.

Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn't need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed.

"We are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution," an administration official said on a conference call with reporters. "That doesn't mean that we don't want the full, ongoing consultation with Congress or authorization as we move forward, but that doesn't go to our legal position under the statute itself, and we're confident of that."

The call came hours before the White House submitted a detailed, 32-page report to Congress that maps out the administration's legal justification for Obama continuing to call the shots on Libya without congressional approval.

See below for a copy of the report and Obama's accompanying letter to Congress. Lawmakers will be poring over it for details primarily on two things: 1) the costs of U.S. military operations, which the report puts at $715.9 million, from mid-March through June 3, and 2) the goals of U.S. involvement. The report gives a general sense of military goals as being "to protect civilians and enforce the terms of the resolution," while political goals are to work with the international community "to bring stability to Libya and allow the Libyan people to reclaim their future."

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said a quick read of the report raises a number of questions about "the creative arguments" being made by the White House.

"The Commander-in-Chief has a responsibility to articulate how U.S. military action is vital to our national security and consistent with American policy goals," Buck said. "With Libya, the president has fallen short on this obligation. We will review the information that was provided today, but hope and expect that this will serve as the beginning, not the end, of the president’s explanation for continued American operations in Libya.”

Lawmakers in both parties have grown frustrated with Obama for not consulting Congress on the U.S. role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya, which began in March when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi began threatening violence against potentially thousands of his citizens as they protested his regime. The White House has maintained all along that a massacre was averted because the U.S. took quick action and joined with NATO to stop Gaddafi's forces.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of Obama's most vocal critics on Libya, led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in filing a lawsuit against Obama earlier Wednesday over the constitutionality of launching military operations without congressional approval. He later issued a statement in response to the White House report.

“The White House claim that the war is not war is not a legal argument. It is a political argument," Kucinich said in a statement. "The legal argument will hopefully be addressed by the courts. Today, I, along with 9 of my colleagues, filed suit in federal court challenging the rationale that has brought our nation to an Orwellian war that is not war."

Boehner also warned Obama Tuesday that he may be in violation of the War Powers Act by Sunday if he doesn't seek congressional authorization by then. Sunday marks 90 days of U.S. operations in Libya; per the War Powers resolution, a president is required to obtain congressional approval for continued action by this date.

But the White House is sending a clear signal that they don't believe they need that authorization. During the conference call, the administration official ticked off numerous reasons why U.S. involvement in Libya doesn't constitute a violation of the War Powers resolution.

"We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute," said the official. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting. There's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don't have troops on the ground. We don't risk casualties to those troops. None of the factors … has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power."

Instead, the U.S. is only providing intelligence and refueling capabilities, said the official. And while that role brings "a set of unique capabilities" to the international effort, it is a far cry from the responsibility that NATO has for enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians militarily.

"The bottom line is that lives have been saved," said a second administration official. "The president was very clear at the front end of this effort that the U.S. contribution would be limited in scope and duration; that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. And that, of course, is a commitment that the president has kept and will continue to keep."

You can read the White House report here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81815761...ities-In-Libya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_877736.html

[HonestChieffan]

This is one case where Obots cant point to Bush. He got permission.......

Amazing is the change in Obama's positions over time. He is like a shape shifter

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried-and-failed policy, opposed by generals and experts, opposed by Democrats and Republicans, opposed by Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America’s effort on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jan. 19, 2007

And some in Washington are even more determined:

(Fox News) — A group of lawmakers plans to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration, questioning the constitutional and legal justifications for military action in Libya, Fox News has confirmed.

The bipartisan group is being led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C., and includes GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.

Kucinich and Jones will lead a news conference at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to outline the claims. But according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News, the group is seeking “injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from a stated policy of defendant Barack Obama, president of the United States, whereby a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without the declaration of war from Congress required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”

The suit says the lawmakers are also seeking a judge to rule that the president may not commit the U.S. to war under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or under the authority of the United Nations, or in violation of the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force.

It also calls for a ruling that the president may not use “funds, previously appropriated by Congress, for unconstitutional and unauthorized wars in Libya or other countries.”

The White House has argued for months that NATO is not leading the way in Libya and so the president doesn’t need permission from Congress to keep American forces fighting in the battle to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi’s regime.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

This is one case where Obots cant point to Bush. He got permission.......

On Afghanistan. Not quite the whole truth on Iraq. As I recall, Bush didn't feel he needed Congress either eventhough they, at least, crafted something. Then his Congress flat-out violated the Constitution by transferring their own congressional powers to the president allowing him to decide when to use force. Not okay!!!

The Rs, once again, fail to see through the subterfuge.

[Bo's Pelini]

Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

[petegz28]

Right or wrong, Obama needs to take this to the Congress. He can play this game where we pretend we aren't dropping real bombs on real targets and real people, etc., etc. but it's BS.

WTF do we really even gain by this action in Libya anyway? Nevertheless, he needs to go to Congress and get approval.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

Actually he isn't. Bush went to Congress and got approval for Iraq. The hidden history Democrats love to keep tucked away in the closet.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

On Afghanistan. Not quite the whole truth on Iraq. As I recall, Bush didn't feel he needed Congress either eventhough they, at least, crafted something. Then his Congress flat-out violated the Constitution by transferring their own congressional powers to the president allowing him to decide when to use force. Not okay!!!

The Rs, once again, fail to see through the subterfuge.

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. I believe the USSC even upheld that to say it was tantamount to a declaration of war.

[orange]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Why weren't Dickershun & Orange Bush fans again? The guy now is the same as the last president.

Prove we're in a war in Libya. Have any Americans died? Have we bombed anyone lately?

I'll bet we're doing more in Yemen.

p.s. U.S deaths in Iraq - 4462