GOP playing politics with War Powers Resolution?

Spread the love

Loading

Congressional Republicans should not try to outdo Mr. Obama in a game of unprincipled one-upmanship. But that’s precisely what key GOP leaders have done. Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to the White House accusing Mr. Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution. “The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” he wrote, quoting the president’s responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution. “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’s claim ignores the Constitution’s fundamental nature as supreme law. As Chief Justice John Marshall declared in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is “a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means,” and any act of Congress “contrary to the constitution is not law.” If the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to use force abroad, Congress cannot take it away. Surely Mr. Boehner agreed with this proposition before the current president took office. He, for instance, never claimed that President George W. Bush’s exercise of broad executive powers in the war on terror violated the Constitution. Nor does he appear to have thought that legislative authorization of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was constitutionally necessary in 2001 and 2002.

Not to be outdone, House Republicans Roscoe Bartlett, Dan Burton, Howard Coble, John Duncan, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones and Ron Paul joined with Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats this week and filed suit in a D.C. federal court seeking to halt U.S. military operations in Libya. They may see themselves as purists, but they are not demonstrating fidelity to the Constitution by launching a legal effort that they know to be utterly futile.

In 1999, then-Congressman Tom Campbell brought suit in the very same court against President Bill Clinton for launching the Kosovo air war without a declaration of war or authorization from Congress. The court dismissed the case because individual congressmen do not have standing to sue the president when the legislature as a whole has failed to act. Judge Laurence Silberman wrote separately that the exercise of war powers was a “political question” for the president and Congress, not the courts. The Supreme Court has consistently turned away every case disputing the president’s decision to start wars abroad, and there is no reason to think it will change its ways now.

Lawsuits only distract attention from the real weapons that Congress has to get its way and hold a wayward president accountable. If House Republicans are truly interested in ending the Libyan war, they can cut off all funds for military operations. They can withhold money for other military programs or other spending proposals dear to the administration. They can also refuse to lift the debt ceiling until Mr. Obama orders the end of the conflict or gains congressional support.

Finally, if House Republicans are serious about ending U.S. military operations in Libya, they can begin the process of impeachment, one of the real tools intended by the Framers to counter executive adventurism. But holding hands with isolationist Democrats out of political convenience is no way to defend the Constitution.

Read from the beginning.

Also, previously:

Antiwar Senator, War-Powers President

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to use force abroad, Congress cannot take it away.

The Constitution does NOT give the President executive authority to use force abroad. Only Congress can authorize the use of force, excepting of course when the threat of imminent attack is present, and then the President not only has the authority, but a duty, to authorize military action against the threat.

And, what’s more, Congress, while having the power to declare war, cannot delegate this power to any other body, including an international one such as NATO.

Do people even read the Constitution anymore?

johngalt, you sure know what you are talking about, and they should read you on all concerning the law of the land,
thank you for your constance to correct those who try to pull a fast one on the people

@Wordsmith

What constitution are you reading? JohnGalt and Boehener have it right. NEWSFLASH: The War Powers Act does not overrule the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the authority to declare law. The fact that the SCOTUS does not take up a case, should never be interpreted that they have made a decision for or against either side in the case, nor does it mean that they agree with a lower court’s decision. C’mon Wordsmith, you surely know better than that.

@Wordsmith:

And that can be a valid point, however, I took that highlighted portion to mean that he believes the Constitution gives the President the authority to initiate military action abroad.

Further, there is a distinct difference between how Bush conducted himself, regarding both Iraq and Afghanistan, and how Obama is doing regarding Libya. I don’t believe that Boehner, or any other person who is criticizing Obama on the one hand, and being silent about Bush’s actions on the other, is being hypocritical. Remember, Bush specifically appealed to congress regarding military action in Iraq, and the action in Afghanistan could be construed as an immediate reaction to an impending threat of attack.

And that, Word, is really the main issue I had with the article. The author misleads the reader into thinking that Obama’s and Bush’s actions, concerning their particular actions leading up to military action in Libya(Obama) and Iraq(Bush) are similar enough to be exactly the same. If that was, in fact, the case, then I could agree with any premise of hypocrisy on the part of those criticizing Obama while defending Bush. It is not, so I cannot agree with it.

johngalt, and BUSH HAD TO DEAL WITH THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS, COMPARE TO
LIBYA’S WAR, WITHOUT AN ATTACK OF THE US, but LIBYA being itself attack and trying to repel the rebels,
and It’s been found in the newspaper of FRANCE BY AN EXPERT, who has gone there and interview the both sides that the NATO ARE SUPPORTING ALQUADAS WICH MAKE A GOOD PORTION OF THE REBELS,AND SUPPLIYING HELP FROM OUTSIDE THEY MENTIONNED ARE SUPPORTED BY OBAMA AND HIS GOVERNMENT, TEAMING WITH THE UN ORGANISATION,
EVEN THE ARABS LEAGUE ARE SAYING IT.

@Wordsmith

Not sure what makes you assume I agree with the piece (Most Wanted, from my understanding, is to link to articles/news items we find interesting but don’t have time to blog about).

To be honest, I was unaware that the “Most Wanted” section was comprised of reprinted articles. A more clear reference mentioning the source either prior to BLOCKQUOTE’ing the article, or following as a proper footnote, would have made this clear to myself and any other readers who might also not have understood. It is considered common courtesy to credit a source and it also avoids confusion as to who authored the quoted material.

Example (for the above article):
From John Yoo – The Wall Street Journal

Knowing now the source, consider my reply to refer not to Wordsmith but to the actual author . Who clearly is incapable of reading and understanding the Constitution.

Additional note: I just noticed a typo in my original post I meant to say: “Only Congress has the authority to declare war.”

Majority of left wing Dems wanted “W” to fail.Majority of right wing Repubs. wish BHO to fail.
There is something VERY WRONG with this picture.
Semper Fi “Ask not what your country can do for you.Ask what you can do for your country.”JFK
Patvann How’s your Marine?