Has Anyone in the Obama Admin. Actually Used the "UN trumps the US Constitution" Argument?

[Junkdrawer]

I'd love to see the link.

Now, it would probably be child's play to get Congress to pass a war resolution on Libya, but that would require Obama to acknowledge the legitimacy of the War Powers Resolution, something presidents are loathe to do.

The War Powers Resolution gives the president 48 hours in the event of an emergency before he notifies Congress and 60 days without a congressional vote. Let's see if Obama notifies Congress.

[RB TexLa]

1. Treaties do trump federal law. And any RW member of the military who says they aren't taking

orders from United Nations commanders because their oath was to the constitution of the United States deserves twenty years. Their oath was to the US which is a charter member of the United Nations, so yes they do obey orders from the United Nations!

[laconicsax]

3. Technically, treaties ARE Federal law.

[TomClash]

8. Not true

No treaty "trumps" federal law and if a treaty violates the Constitution it is unlawful.

But any treaty that applies can be reconciled by going to Congress for authority.

[SlimJimmy]

19. Absolutely correct. (nt)

[VermeerLives]

38. You are correct

The Constitution is the law of the land.

[TomClash]

2. There was no imminent danger to the US

Under Art. I Section 8 he had to seek Congressional authority before going to war.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadBadger]

5. Your use of the race card is idiotic and does nothing for the side you represent

One which I just might share

[xchrom]

14. +1

[razorman]

15. Declaring a no-fly zone in Libya may not be an act of war. But shooting down their planes

or bombing their airfields is absolutely an act of war. That would then make our forces a legitimate target for Libyan attack. However, none of us will ever live long enough to see congress officially declare war. Won't happen. Congress doesn't have the balls.

[MadBadger]

20. Hmmm, I'm not sure how else you enforce said no fly zone

[razorman]

21. Exactly. Once you start to enforce it, you are at war. Congressional approval

is irrelevant at that point.

[Paradoxical]

63. The issue is that we aren't declaring war. Libya is.

Big difference.

The international community makes a rule. Libya violates that rule and is thus committing an act of aggression. That's where it starts.

[razorman]

78. That's just what the freepers said about Iraq. 17 UN resolutions.

It still did not justify the invasion.

[EFerrari]

17. Bombing the residence of a head of state, act of war by any measure. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

48. a no fly zone IS an act of war

Sorry, but bombing a country is an act of war any way you slice it, and a no fly zone requires said bombing.

Most liberals didn't give Clinton a hard time because of the no fly zone concerning Iraq because (just like here) most people don't know that it even involves bombing. The average person had no problem with the no fly zone because the average person didn't really know what it consisted of and assumed it was just a declaration that Saddam wasn't allowed to fly his war planes in his air space or anywhere else and that if he tried we'd shoot them down or something. But ask the average liberal what they thought of the bombing and most weren't happy about that yet they had no idea that said bombing was part and parcel of establishing a no fly zone.

And frankly, having already gone through a recent war with Saddam and knowing what a shit he was a hell of a lot of people just wouldn't have cared one iota if we bombed the hell out of the place... quite a number of people wouldn't have cared if we dropped a nuke on Iraq or Iran blew them off the map.

In this country, sadly, it's more than common that the average person doesn't give a crap what the hell we do to another country concerning acts of war as long as it's short and only a relative few of our soldiers are involved... including liberals.

[Paradoxical]

65. A no fly zone resolution is, by definition under US code, not an act of war.

Sorry, you can say it's ethically an act of war. But it not legally an act of war.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331

Section 4 (ABC)

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin


----------------

Military intervention was an act of war. But that does not make the no fly-zone resolution an act of war.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scuba]

7. Sounds like an invitation to every far-right wackjob.

[Junkdrawer]

9. Which is why I don't think anyone in the admin. would say that....

Sounds like a hasty "talking point to silence liberals" to me.

[emulatorloo]

28. Will be interesting if it shows up on Rush and the usual suspects

tomorrow.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Now that we've violated the UN Resolution, too, what's the point? Paper. Stuff and nonsense.

The sheer cynical opportunism of this is disgusting.

The resolution authorizes efforts to protect civilian lives, not to kill Qaddafi, oust him from power, take sides in a civil war or attack (as the French did as their first move) armored vehicles engaged in fighting armed combatants.

This is just the further cheapening of the law and justifications needed to stomp on people we don't like. Continuing down this road makes us nothing less than bullies, regardless how deserving the rotters are in our cross-hairs.

[stevenleser]

41. Can you find anyone who is an expert on international law who agrees with you?

Because I think your interpretation is incorrect.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. The Resolution proclaims its aims as protecting civilians, not protecting a rebel army

By a cynically broad interpretation, I guess one can say that anything that hampers Qaddafi or his cohorts is protecting civilians, but it's an ugly stretch.

No, I don't happen to have a proper expert at hand, but the fast-and-loose use of permission to protect civilians then being used to influence an armed conflict is not authorized by the resolution.

[stevenleser]

57. The fact is, no one who is versed in international law is raising an objection.

That is the problem with your contention.

[PurityOfEssence]

59. John Conyers and Mike Honda are; they're Democratic Members of the House of Representatives

Yes, they're experts on international law. They're also sitting members of Congress.

Here are excerpts from the War Powers Act of 1973 (oddly ironic due to UN Resolution 1973) which REQUIRE the President to CONSULT with Congress, not send them a letter and inform them of what he's doing. The greater issue is that the War Powers Act pertains to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces", unless a declaration of war or statutes otherwise permit the action. THERE IS NO IMMINENT THREAT FROM LIBYA TO THIS COUNTRY, AND HE HAS NOT CONSULTED CONGRESS.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
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.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

[KoKo]

11. I think his bombing of Libya (under guise of coalition) says he does believe in UN Resolutions trump

US Constitution.

Once we invaded Iraq once again...the US Constitution was "out the window...off the table...whatever you can say ...DITCH IT" The President no longer has to go to Congress ...after Bush and Clinton and Poppy and Reagan.. the US Constitution is WHATEVER the current President wants it to be.

The "Doctrine of Premptive Strike" ....and other wording...plus "Iran-Contra" and such...has made our Constitution just a piece of paper...where lines and changes in wording by our current government can make the "necessary changes" to move forward. :shrug: Not, My Way of viewing it...but it just "is what it is." :-(

[Junkdrawer]

16. Unitary Executive. It seems we have the same dictator with new spokespersons....

every 4 to 8 years.

[KoKo]

29. sad to say...but it does seem that way... n/t

[stevenleser]

39. Only if you ignore the fact of Congress' approving the UN charter in accordance with article 2 of

the Constitution.

If you are ignoring facts in order to feel good about your argument, what does that say about your argument?

[KoKo]

42. Whatever Congress approves is the "Law of the Land"...isn't it?

Did Congress approve Obama's action in Libya?

[The Second Stone]

12. The UN Charter does not trump the US Constitution

in any US matters. Nobody has ever said otherwise, in either party that I am aware.

Properly enacted treaties become part of US law and are interpreted by US Courts in which the Constitution is always supreme.

The US has a veto over any UN military action on top of all that.

[Junkdrawer]

13. That's what I've always heard....

But there's been a flood of On Message posters using that argument.

[KoKo]

18. Chimpy Bush said it did...UN Res. (999....something) that Bush/Cheney touted

was the DEFINING MOMENT... So, we control UN...and we ENFORCE THE REGS...We and the BLAIR (Cameron Govt.)...aligned. It's us White Guy EMPIRE BUILDERS who (for now) STILL HOLD THE CARDS!

BTW...I'm white, English, French, Scotch-Irish in background. I think it's terrible what we are doing...just so you all know... Not all of us AGREE with our EMPIRE BUILDERS against all of the OTHERS WE SUBJECTED for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.. I think my radical Irish and French is the ruling genes in my make up. LOL's Got some good genes there...My family didn't get the same genes, though... :-(

[emulatorloo]

22. We control the UN?

[Junkdrawer]

23. Largely. When we want something bad enough, we can usually push it through....

the Security Council.

[Swede]

25. Yeah,Russia and China are pushovers.

:shrug:

[KoKo]

26. Google how many times Russia and China have "Obstained" in the past 15 years.

They are very clever...

[Junkdrawer]

27. We got them to abstain. Wonder how much that cost? n/t

[emulatorloo]

24. Explain to me why this isn't needless speculation

If I accept your premise that the US is at war with Libya (which I am not sure I do) then:

Then you yourself noted in the OP that there are 60 days without a congressional vote.

Your post seems a bit premature.

[Junkdrawer]

30. Will Obama notify Congress within 48 hours......

It's a formal thing. We will know if he does or doesn't do it.

[emulatorloo]

34. OK. But I am still not sure that this qualifies as a "War Declaration" on Libya

rather than a limited strike on military targets in support of UN resolution. 1973

[KoKo]

31. 60 days? Nothing matters...It's a done deal. We bombed yesterday...

we can bomb as long as we like. There aren't any RULES, anymore. You missed that when Wall Street Banksters took the Global Economy Down in '08 and are making everyone from here to Europe PAY FOR WHAT THEY DID ...On Teachers, Firefighters, Nurses, Policemen, Pensioners and SS Payers BACKS?

Do you get it? :-( It's ugly what they are doing to us.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Invoking the War Powers Resolution is not applicable here.

So the OP is incorrect.

"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. "

That is, IF the U.S. or its territories are under attack or under serious threat, the War Powers Resolution grants the President the right engage in military action. Following such action, the President is required to inform Congress and commit to the action for no longer than 60 days without Congressional authorization."

The U.S. was decidedly not under attack or serious threat when Obama gave the go ahead to bomb Libya.

[former9thward]

47. War Powers Act applies here.

You are missing the word "or" in the law. If either the first OR the second part occurs the President must report and get authorization. The first part has occurred.

[Luminous Animal]

49. The U.S. was not under attack nor did Libya pose a serious threat.

To recap. A U.S. President can take military action if one of these two conditions are met.

1) Congress authorizes

OR

2) The U.S. is under attack or serious threat (and must report to Congress within 48 hours)


If number 2 is absent (which it is in this case), then number 1 is mandatory.

[former9thward]

50. No you are misreading the Act.

The president has 60 days to report to Congress on his actions. They then authorize or not. If they don't he has to withdraw the action.

[Luminous Animal]

51. No I am not misreading it.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

"(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. "


War Powers Resolution restricts the ability of Presidents to engage in military operations to one of 3 conditions:

1) Congressional approval (Obama did not seek it)
2) Specific statutory authorization (There is none)
3) A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (There was no attack on the U.S., its territories or possesions)

IF #3 is invoked, the President has 48 hours to notify Congress and must report within 60 during which time Congress may or may not authorize.

[former9thward]

52. The UN resolution gives him the statutory authorization.

Just as it did in the Korean War.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Illegal wars are what prompted Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution.

Also, the UN is very specific about acknowledging sovereignty when it comes to using military force to reach an objective (Please note the bolded section in Article 43 section 3):

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

[Luminous Animal]

55. FYI, specific statutory authorization means authorization that originates in Congress NOT

from an outside source:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001544----000-.html

[stevenleser]

32. This is a classic straw man argument. And that is the BEST part if your contentions

You are taking an argument no one has made and beating the hell out of it. As I said, that is the best of what you offered.

Once congress approves a treaty, it is considered federal law, all of that is part of article 2 of the Constitution.

Thus, abiding by a duly approved treaty, like the UN Charter, is both legal and Constitutional.

If Congress decides a treaty has become a bad thing, it can repeal or alter it. Thus, no unitary executive issue.

Look, It's fine to oppose what we are doing in Libya. It's not fine to invent legal reasons to be against it.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Treaties do not amend the Constitution.

And this has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

"According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,""

[stevenleser]

37. I never said that it did. I said it becomes part of Federal law. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

43. The supreme court has ruled

In several cases that treaties can't nullify or alter any part of the US Constitution.

[stevenleser]

46. who is saying that they can?Once again, I am saying that treaties become a part of federal law n/t

[Hosnon]

56. Wrong.

"Congress" doesn't approve treaties. 2/3 of the Senate and the President do.

And simply because a treaty is ratified by those individuals does not mean that the treaty is constitutional (primarily if it amends any part of the Constitution - because that process is spelled out in the Constitution).

Abiding by a "duly approved treaty" (i.e., one that is signed by 2/3 of the Senate and the President) is not necessarily constitutional; it depends on the issue.

[stevenleser]

58. Actually, I am 100% right and what you wrote does not come close to challenging what I wrote

"Congress" doesn't approve treaties. 2/3 of the Senate and the President do. <------ This is irrelevant to the discussion

And simply because a treaty is ratified by those individuals does not mean that the treaty is constitutional (primarily if it amends any part of the Constitution - because that process is spelled out in the Constitution). <------- This is also irrelevant because neither you, nor anyone else has tried to assert that the UN Charter is unconstitutional.

Abiding by a "duly approved treaty" (i.e., one that is signed by 2/3 of the Senate and the President) is not necessarily constitutional; it depends on the issue. <--------------- Once again, you have not asserted a way that the UN Charter is Unconstitutional

[Hosnon]

60. 100% right? Congress doesn't approve treaties, so, no... not 100% right.

"Thus, abiding by a duly approved treaty, like the UN Charter, is both legal and Constitutional."

This is also not true. The constitutionality of "abiding" by any treaty depends on the treaty's contents, not solely by whether it was duly approved.

ETA: One more thing: we have a unitary executive, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. All it means is that the authority of the executive branch is concentrated in one person: the President.

[stevenleser]

61. Keep telling yourself that your being right on non-relevant tangential issues means something

it's all you've got. I hope it makes you feel better.

[Hosnon]

66. I'm just clarifying/correcting your mistatements of law.

That's important when discussing the law.

[stevenleser]

71. No you arent. you are being argumentative. that is hardly the same thing. n/t

[Hosnon]

74. Actually I am.

This issue pops up every time a conflict is entered by the U.S. without Congressional authorization; and I guarantee we will see it with this one.

[stevenleser]

76. Sorry "ignored" I cannot read your response

[Hosnon]

77. Certainly can't stop you from doing that.

Unfortunate though.

[stevenleser]

72. You are one of the people I am talking about in my OP in GDP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x635282

The pathetic items you are posting delegitimize the cause for which you purport to be in favor.

[Hosnon]

73. What cause is that?

I haven't really come down on any side of this, other than wanting to keep the legal framework on these kinds of matters clear.

[stevenleser]

75. In whatever cause you are making these nonsensical arguments n/t

[Paradoxical]

64. A law is not unconstitutional until it is decided that it is so.

Specifically by the judicial system.

A law that was just approved cannot be unconstitutional because it has yet to be challenged.

[Hosnon]

68. That's more of a theory of law question.

And it isn't a workable answer when dealing with legal issues that the Supreme Court, as a matter of policy, will never address (e.g., Political Questions, such as those relating to war). The Court has repeatedly declined to intervene on this kind of matter; therefore, the issue of constitutionality, if it is to be resolved, must be resolved in the political branches.

[Paradoxical]

69. Constitutionality of law is NEVER decided in any other branch.

It is decided in the judicial branch.

This is not theory. This is practiced.

[Hosnon]

70. Whether a law is unconstitutional only upon its being deemed so is a legal theory question.

If Congress passed a law stripping the Veep of his tie-breaking vote in the Senate, I for one wouldn't assert that it is constitutional until struck down (and I think most people would agree).

Plus, it isn't clear that all of the Founders wanted the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of constitutionality. After all, it isn't explicitly given that role in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court agrees, in my opinion, because it undeniably views some constitutional conflicts as outside of its ability to resolve. Who then is to resolve them? The two political branches.

[yodermon]

35. Clinton / Yugoslavia

http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html

[Gravel Democrat]

45. Interesting that that link does not mention Rambouillet

appendix b in particular

Only a traitor to his/her country would have signed such an outrageous set of demands.

few supporters of that 78 day bombing have even heard of that, proving yet again that we're told what we are intended to hear. This was, after all, the "legal basis" for US/NATO intervention.

Oh yeah, the UN never did approve, the Clinton sdmin said there was "no time" to wait.

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

[TheKentuckian]

40. It doesn't trump it, Congress had oversight at ratification.

No one is evading the Constitution here or claiming another law supersedes it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. I'[m waiting for all the anti-Obama Harry Truman fans to chime in here

:rofl:

[treestar]

62. No one says it does.

Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.

And if we did nothing, you'd be saying "Obama is letting people be killed and he's a murderer therefore" right?

[Motown_Johnny]

67. he already notified congress