Boehner gives Obama Friday deadline on Libya
Stepping up a simmering constitutional conflict, House Speaker John A. Boehner warned President Obama on Tuesday that unless he gets authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.
In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification by Friday for committing troops to Libya.
Sunday marks the 90th day since the president notified Congress that U.S. troops had been committed to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, which is designed to protect the rebels fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government.
“The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter.
What the heck, he never liked the Constitution in the first place:
“I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws.”
– Barack Obama on the United States Constitution, (Sept. 2001).
The Chrysler deal, Obamacare, the EPA, choosing which laws he feels like enforcing and which, like DOMA, he doesn’t feel like enforcing, shadow government, mysterious czars all are testimony for Obama’s contempt for the Constitution of the United States. If lawmakers keep bending over and letting Obama stick it in their backsides it won’t be long before we will have a dictator instead of a President. Congress’ approval or disapproval of an action cannot be the reason to disregard the law of the land.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The President’s Constitutional authority in the case of our Libya involvement rests in an existing treaty obligation and in the supremacy clause. The War Powers Act doesn’t apply, owing to a specific provision of the United Nations Participatory Act. This was passed by Congress in 1945 and became part of the U.S. Code.
Here’s the relevant section that appears in the U.S. Code:
There’s a discussion of the point here.
The assertion that Obama has taken unconstitutional action with regard to Libya will certainly rile people up, but it won’t stand up to close inspection. Boehner surely knows this.
1. Has the United States negotiated a “special agreement” with the UN?
2. Has any country negotiated a “special agreement” with the UN?
3. Since 1973 our constitutional process has included the War Powers Act.
4. It is worth noting that Bush 1 and 2 took care to obtain Congressional approval for military action.
Obama is so sure that Congress’ past abdication of it duties means it will also abdicate here and simply allow him to usurp yet more powers than he should have.
It is a major separation of powers crisis.
But congress has allowed Obama to go around them in other areas…..
*With Obama’s ”Cap ‘n Trade” Obama went around both houses of congress and simply had the EPA regulate C&T into policy.
*With union card-check Obama went around both houses of congress and simply packed the NRLB with enough recess appointments to regulate card-check into policy.
*With oil drilling in the Gulf, Obama went around both houses of congress AND the courts! Again he simply dragged his feet through excess regulations so that an oil drilling ban is in effect by that means.
*With ”Net Neutrality” Obama bypassed both houses of congress and the courts to simply use the FCC to police an illegal policy.
@Wm T Sherman, #43:
Yep. The last sentence of Article 42 of the UN Charter quoted above clearly says that final approval for the provision of armed forces, assistance, etc by any signatory state is to be given by the state itself, in accordance with that state’s own constitutional processes.
It was the Congress of the United States itself that enacted legislation stating “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein.” Unless that legislation is itself is determined to have been unconstitutional, Obama has acted in accordance with U.S. constitutional process.
I’m not saying that I like such a loophole. (I tend to dislike it, because I think that the Legislative Branch is the more direct expression of the will of the people.) I’m only saying that it exists, and that it’s there because Congress put it there. The provision, taken with the Constitution’s supremacy clause concerning treaty agreements, puts Obama on highly defensible legal ground.
If Congress doesn’t like this sort of Executive Branch power, Congress’s first step should be to close the loophole that Congress created, and have let stand for 65 years.
@Wm T Sherman, #3:
I believe that’s what has happened each time we’ve gotten involved in the enforcement of a Security Council resolution. That’s how the process works. Each party’s degree of participation is the result of a negotiation process.
The war powers act came after the UN charter 42. Not sure how that squares…
Also, I do not remember this being a UN deal, but a deal between countries in the UN and driven under Nato. Did the security council vote to allow these countries to attack Libya? It would seem like that vote should have to happen before there is an action that would come under the UN Charter quoted? Did I miss something? Bush went to Congress and to the UN and got votes from both. Has Barry gone anywhere except to the women in his cabinet?
As Greg pointed out, the Security Council had a vote on the “no fly” measure before NATO intervention, Greta. Five countries abstained from voting… Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation. Obviously, the US was not one of them.
The Obama defense on the War Powers Resolution is that the US has a “limited role”… yeah right… in the NATO operation. He sent on a 38 pg report, defending US involvement for compliance.
SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY
MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS
The full text of the UN Security Council Resolution is at the bottom.
Too easy. Cut the funding.
@Greg:
Tell me something, Greg. Why did President
Douch-Obama invoke the War Powers Act and not this as justification for another Obama war?@MataHarley: “Days, not weeks.”
Obama is a damned liar and has not been honest one second of his Presidency.
Still delusional for your headline, drj?
Promised path to single payer healthcare… check
Promised he’d get green energy by and climate change policies (and even without Congress via EPA)… check
That takes care of at least “one second of his Presidency”.
When he was running, and even now, I take him at his word. He’s quite overt as to who he is, what he believes, and how he intends to accomplish that. If you think he’s a “damned liar”, its because you ain’t listening to what he says, and watch what he does. He’s going down the path he’s promised from day one on the campaign trail.
Welcome to reality… even if late.
so, is the UN IN CHARGE OF WAR DECISIONS, ON TOP OF THE NATO COUNTRYS?
And what they decide on who’s leader will be killed or help is a new trend, having 1/3 of
MIDDLE EAST VOTERS IN THE UN,
EVEN IF ONLY A FEW NATO countrys approval against other disapproval doesn’t make any change in their descisions to go ahead with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGREEMENT TO APPROVE THE GO
FROM DAY ONE, only on his will alone, not making sure he has the back up first from the CONGRESS REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE ENTITY CAPABLE OF DECISIONS ON THE WAR POWERS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY AMERICA’S S ONLY SUPERIORITY ON IT’S MILITARY’S MOVEMENTS IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY AS BEING THE STATES WHO HAVE A MANDATE TO PROTECT IT’S CITIZENS INCLUDING THE WELLBEING AND SECURITY OF IT’S CITIZENS IN THE ARMS FORCES IN THIS REPUBLIC WITH SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL WHICH IS INTO IT’S DOMAINE;
A SOVEREIGNTY WHICH POSESS THE SUPREME POWERS OF DECISION OVER ANY EXTERIOR POWER,
WHICH EVER NAME IS CLAIMING TO CHALLENGE IT
Your incessant insults demean you, Mata. I don’t know why you feel you always have to deride people instead of just disagreeing, but it is a really problem with you. It appears as though you are not a nice person at all.
He said “limited involvement.” He said “days, not weeks.” He said “War Powers Act” and then said something else. He said “no hostilities.” He said “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” and then went and did it anyway. And he said “Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power” but he is attempting to force change right now.
Yes, he is a damned liar. He also has done as you wrote but he is a damned liar.
GREG, on your number 5, the first 4 lines;
which STATE IS THE ONE LAST ACCORD TO THE DEPLOYEMENT OF MILITARY,
THE ARTICAL MENTION A STATE NOT THE PRESIDENT
Obama is a true believer in ”nanny gov’t.”
He has also coined a new word:
“Teenagehood.”
He said:
video
Also found here at Politico
Going back to my ”usurp” or ”abdicate” points about Obama and Congress, it looks like Obama’s 30-page brief is saying the UN, NOT the President, has the power to take US troops to war.
And further that the UN’s decision to involve US troops over-rides any congressional viewpoint to the contrary.
Well, Obama is probably about to see how much of his 30-pages of spaghetti stick to the wall.
I’m keeping an eye on Congress on this one.
It is a real big decision.
It boils down to:
Is the USA a sovereign nation or a vassal state UNDER authority of the UN?
Nan G, WOW, we are just beginning what BILL mentionned we would,
I hope he’s reading this, keep us inform,
bye
@Nan G:
That’s because he was one, Nan.
Greg– You liberals are such warmongers.
Nan I like that video.I bet alot of dads with teenage daughters wouldn’t mind having guys with guns protecting them LOL
Dr J As a teenager Barry Obama attended the best High School in Hawaii,played basketball,got decent grades and stayed out of any serious trouble.Pretty much a regular kid with regular friends.
I don’t often post here, but I have an honest question for the liberals:
Can you tell me that it is a good thing that the United States is bombing an oil-rich nation that did not attack us on 9/11?
Because I remember that being one heck of a problem for the left not too long ago…
Troika37 Bombing a genocidal maniac in support of those in country who would depose him.No boots on the ground..NO AMERICAN CASUALTIES—NO PROBLEM
rich wheeler, I ‘m sure there must be special unit on the ground
what make you so sure of the contrary
So there was no faction in Iraq who wanted Saddam gone? Saddam hadn’t performed acts of genocide on the Kurds? Halabja ring any bells?
No boots on the ground??? Who on earth do you think is lasing the targets for our aircraft?
Are you implying that any President can attack any country for any reason as long as no Americans are killed? That’s a pretty big window – one I don’t think you’d be comfortable with a Republican President having.
Troika37, hi,
because they call it a no fly zone. and not a war, that tell me,
if they kill GADAFI which they disarmed already,
that will be call a murder. for sure no matter how they do it or have it done by the rebels
It certainly would be called murder. Also, if it’s a no-fly zone, why are we hitting their armor and artillery assets?
This would NEVER be permitted under a Republican – which is the point I’m trying to drive home.
Troika37, absolutly
bye
Troika37 I believe there was a good reason ,discussed previously,for the bombing.Each situation is different.Many Repubs said we waited too long to commence the bombing.It’s the CIC’S call hopefully with good advice and support.
Those folks on the ground,well trained and easily extracted if need be.
I would have supported the Kurds if called on.
Why make this about politics? I don’t care if it was BHO or Mac who made this call. i think it was right.
#31 Call them “boots” if you will.I’d call them a very quiet soft shoe. Semper Fi
Rich – It’s interesting that you went from “it’s ok because there are no boots on the ground,” to “it’s ok because we can get our boots on the ground out quickly and they’re well-trained.” Most people call that ‘moving the goalposts.’
If most Republicans support the bombing, why on earth does Obama refuse to abide by the current laws and go through the motions of getting their support? After all, he only has to ask, and Congress will approve it, right? So what is gained by Obama’s refusal to stay within the confines of the Constitution?
Posted this on another thread. Anyone care to comment?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/17/nyt-obama-overruled-top-pentagon-doj-lawyers-on-libya-war-powers/
@rich wheeler:
Rich, I don’t wish to debate the differences between Iraq and Libya. The differences between the two are substantial, though, so no relation to one another can really exist.
What I do wish to point out, though, is the thought process you started above, in #24 to Troika, is hardly an acceptable reason to engage in warlike actions against another sovereign nation. To be consistent in such action, which Obama is not and has not been, is to invite criticism of being that which one is against. We cannot simultaneously wish to be considered a peace-loving nation, and then attack every country with a crazed megalomaniac leading them. As to Obama, Libya seems to be a bigger deal than just ousting Ghaddafi, otherwise, where is the action against Syria? Or Iran? Or numerous other countries with tyrants at the helm that have killed their own citizens?
Whether or not a Libya without Ghaddafi, and a world without a Ghaddafi-led Libya, would be a good thing is completely beside the point. And although I agree that Libya without him is better than with him leading it, I hesitate to cheer on any involvement by our own forces simply because of the double standard that is applied to our relationships with those other countries led by murderous tyrants. Either we become the world’s police force, by stated acceptance of the label, and action, and commence in ousting all of the world’s leaders we dislike, in which case a Constitutional amendment is required to allow offensive military action wherever we wish, or we follow the Constitution, and such Acts and laws that have been passed, and only engage in defense of our own country and direct interests throughout the world. Anything else becomes an inconsistency in relations with other sovereigns, to which they justifiably can, and should, isolate themselves from our influence.
ON GREG comment,
NO FLY ZONE MEANS TO ME NO PLANES ALLOWED OUT, UNLESS IT’S OUR OWN
MEANING THE PARTICIPANT COUNTRYS CONDUCTED BY THE UN ORGANISATION FOR THE WORLD POWER,
NOW, AUTHORYSING ALL [YOU HEAR] ALL,[ YOU READ ] ALL NECESSARY MEASURES,
AGAIN MEASURES,
AINT THAT A COVER NAME FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR?
WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO FOOL, US? THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE AND THE PEOPLE OF BRTAIN, AND IF ITALY IS STILL IN THOSE PEOPLE ALSO.
IF THEY WANT TO PROTECT THE CIVILIENS THEY MUST ENABLE THE WEAPONS OF THE REBELS ALSO SONOBODY CAN HURT THE CIVILENS
THEREFOR THE INTENT IS CLEAR TO DESTROY GADAFI,