Is it constitutional to enforce a no-fly zone around Libya without congressional authorization?

[FLAprogressive]

[Unvanguard]

1. Probably. At this point, it's far short of a full-scale war.

More akin to a military operation on fairly short notice, of the sort it is plausible would be assigned to an executive acting as commander-in-chief.

In any case, this rule is so broken that it's pretty pointless to be complaining about it. Quite probably every war the US has fought since World War II is unconstitutional, yet there they are anyway.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. for 60 days it is The War Powers Act gives POTUS the authority

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm^snip^

SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

[NoTimeToulouse]

7. Folks, we habe a winner.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Except for the fact that he is wrong.

[NoTimeToulouse]

16. Proof of your assertion?

I'll go first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. 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 resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.


without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

[Luminous Animal]

17. You missed this part: authorization of Congress or already under attack or serious threat

[NoTimeToulouse]

18. I didn't miss this. Did you?

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action...

[Luminous Animal]

20. Yes, if that military action is prompted by specific criteria. The U.S. is NOT under attack thus

Obama is illegally waging war.

You see, it goes like this:
First U.S. forces or territory are attacked.
SecondThe President authorizes defensive military action
Third The President informs Congress within 48 hours
Fourth If hostilities continue without Congressional authorization, the President must report to Congress at least every 60 days

What is missing in the Libyan military action is the first criteria.

[tekisui]

22. Right. That or it can start with a Declaration of War from Congress.

Arguably, every war since WWII has been unconstitutional. This one included.

[NoTimeToulouse]

23. Do you consider Obama to be a war criminal then?

Will you be asking for his head and that he is impeached?

[cleanhippie]

27. Are you trying to convince yourself or what?

Your argument is worthless, as the above interpretation of the act, coupled with the UN treaty, make this action quite legit.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Actually the War Powers Resolution specifically prohibits Obama taking unitary action in this case.

The Resolution is specific:

SEC. 2. (c)
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.

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. That ship sailed...

...when we ratified the treaty creating the UN.

And in any event, les ouvrieres n'ont pas de patrie. Collective security is baby-steps towards the day when the Internationle becomes the human race.

[Posteritatis]

9. Yep.

People like to pick and choose when that counts here, I've noticed.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. Love your sig...

...Terence always one of my favorites. We read selections from The Brothers in class every few years.

[joshcryer]

15. Yep, the UN needs to be relevant. Iraq rendered it irrelevant, Libya changes that.

[cleanhippie]

4. Yes, especially since its a UN action, not a unilateral US action.

[Luminous Animal]

12. The U.N may saction but Congress must still declare war. Decisions made by the U.N. do not supercede

our laws.

[cleanhippie]

19. No one is asking for formal war. Its a UN action, of which we are bound by treaty to support.

[Luminous Animal]

21. It is not a UN action. It is a UN sactioned action.

[cleanhippie]

26. For operational purposes right now, there is no difference.

Its a multilateral, UN sanctioned action. We are bound to support it. Its not an act of war on the part of the US.

Not really sure what you are arguing here, as that is how this is being played out. I get that you don't like it, but reality is what it is.

[aquart]

5. Oh, good grief.

Congress declares war. This ain't war. Or we'd be fighting Manhattan and the White House. This is an international agreement between nations worked out at the UN.

Still waiting for the declaration of war against Viet Nam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

[tritsofme]

6. The President's actions have been consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

All of the appropriate Congressional notifications have been made.

[HereSince1628]

8. Yes, the question is whether the War Powers Act was a good idea

[Luminous Animal]

13. This military action is outside the bounds of the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution.

[jefferson_dem]

24. Duh.

Of course it is.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Dupe.

Sorry. :)