Lecturer says Obama bypassed War Powers Resolution for Libya conflict

[jakeXT]

By JEFF PIERCE | The South End
Updated: 3 hours ago


During an Oct. 12 lecture given to Wayne State students, Temple University law professor Peter Spiro said President Barack Obama violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution when he ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya’s rebel uprising.

...

However, such a breach was not a violation of the Constitution because the resolution itself is unconstitutional, according to Spiro.

...

“The historical practice of past presidents using the armed forces without an official declaration of war by Congress has actually set legal precedent, which turns into an unspoken law,” Spiro said. “The courts are allergic to stepping in on jurisdictional disputes like these between the legislative and executive branches of the government. And we will always have somebody like U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich who will complain about military intervention no matter what.”

...

“President Obama’s actions in Libya were vindicated by the results, and presidents involved in future conflicts will cite Obama’s actions in Libya as legal precedent,” he said.

http://thesouthend.wayne.edu/index.php/article/2011/10/constitution_bypassed_for_war

[tblue]

1. Never forget

iokiodi . It's nauseating really.

[BklnDem75]

11. Not as bad as iobwodi

That's the 4th stage of ODS and it's not pretty.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Subtitled not included in OP..."Breach not unconstitutional, Temple University professor says"

[Mimosa]

3. Will happen.

And eventually some aggrieved party will use the precedent to take revenge.

People who see into the future aren't thrilled there are consequences to today's 'popular' actions. But there are always consequences. :(

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Complain all you want, Gaddafi is still dead

and will forever remain dead. All the whining in the world won't bring him back.

[Kaleva]

5. Libya probably put the nail in the coffin of the War Powers Resolution.

It'll remain on the books but for all intents and purposes, it'll be toothless. Something that can be easily ignored.

[Yupster]

6. And why did he ignore it?

He would have gotten the vote if he asked for it.

[Kaleva]

7. I don't know.

Maybe he thought the didn't need to ask for a vote to approve of an action he believed he had the authority to do on his own. Others argue that he didn't have that authority and thus violated the War Powers Resolution but as nothing was done to enforce it, it's pretty much a dead letter now.

[Yupster]

9. It's still important because

every president before him complied with it. That is no longer true. He created a precedent that will be misused in the future by the other side.

Would Bush have gone to congress if he didn't think he had too?

The next Bush doesn't have to. The Act is dead since President Obama ignored it.

[Amonester]

8. RRRRight, I guess he already noticed the...

'party of NO' was occupying the House...

And since Greedyfi's threat of slaughtering thousands of occupiers in one week-end was imminent... maybe he thought he didn't have enough time to discuss 'compromises' with the 'party of NO'...

[Yupster]

10. The War Powers Act allows the President

to take action on his own initiative. He must get permission from congress to continue after 60 days.

He could have taken care of that weekend of terror without congressional approval, and I believe Congress would have approved him staying there.

Wouldn't have bothered me if they said come home after 60 days either.

Europe could have handled things after the first 60 days if they had to.

Anyway, with the ending of the War Powers Act, the Constitution has been changed.

It used to say that Congress shall declare war. Now it says the President shall declare war.

[Enrique]

12. he didn't completely ignore it

he made a statement which made reference to the law. I don't think he satisfied the requirements of the law, but before he made that statement some people that support the law were concerned he would blow it off entirely, and some were relieved that he at least cited the law.

[Yupster]

13. Is that a defense?

"Your honor. In defense of my client, yes he did break the law. We fully admit that, but let me point out that as he was breaking the law, we did talk about it specifically.

The defense rests. I'll send you my bill."

[FloriTexan]

14. He hasn't gotten much else he's asked for n/t