Congress Must Debate the Libya War

[Catherina]

Congress Must Debate the Libya War
by Robert Naiman

The U.S. is now at war in a third Muslim country, according to the "official tally" (that is, counting Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya but not Pakistan or Yemen, for example.) But Congress has never authorized or debated the U.S. military intervention in Libya. (A sharply disputed claim holds that the Pakistan and Yemen actions are covered by the 2001 authorization of military force, but no-one has dared to argue that the 2001 AUMF covers Libya.)

...

To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral Presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime.

...

On the Democratic side, John Larson, chair of the Democratic Caucus in the House, called for President Obama to seek congressional approval. Reps. Jerrold Nadler, Donna Edwards, Mike Capuano, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Rob Andrews, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee and Eleanor Holmes Norton "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during a Saturday call organized by Larson, the Politico reports.

...

In times like this, you can be sure some journalist will marvel at the "strange bedfellows" coalition of Democrats and Republicans standing up to the President. But there's nothing strange about this bed. Everyone who wants to live in a constitutional republic belongs in this bed. Everyone who wants to hold the Administration to its promise of a "limited intervention" aimed at "protecting civilians," rather than overthrowing the Libyan government, and to avoid "mission creep" from the former to the latter, belongs in this bed.

...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/21-10

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.

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

US Code

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541

§ 1541. Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment 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 indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
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 hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html

We were not under attack or serious threat of attack.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Actually the UN did not authorize war...so this is a state...

between peace and war, a limited armed conflict.

[Abq_Sarah]

3. Ultimately

It doesn't matter what the UN authorized although 100+ Tomahawks raining down on you would probably make you believe you're at war.

Our participation is a matter between the Congress and the President. No other parties or opinions really matter.

[LaurenG]

2. K & R. nt

[mmonk]

4. This is correct though the cat's out of the bag now.

But that is the proper channel as laid out Constitutionally.

[ProSense]

5. Here,

from the War Powers Act

(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

This is a U.N. action under the U.N. Charter and the Security Council.

Precedent: United Nations Security Council Resolution 84

United Nations Security Council Resolutions

On 25 June 1950, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.<83> After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states yield military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime. On 4 July the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister accused the US of starting armed intervention on behalf of South Korea.<84>

<...> <85><86>

Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya

[Catherina]

10. Nice try but no cigar. n/t

[mmonk]

11. Duel on

Nothing in this chapter—
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this chapter.



What is the War Powers Act?




Answer

That is a law, passed by congress after the Vietnam War, over President Nixon's veto, and of dubious constitutionality, which seeks to define and limit the powers of the president of the United States to command the armed forces. The most important provision is that if the U.S. armed forces go into combat the president must get a resolution from congress authorizing the mission. If the resolution is not passed then the forces must be withdrawn from the combat within sixty days. Since it was passed no president has ever acknowledged its validity but they have always complied with it nonetheless.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_War_Powers_Act#ixzz1HHsRkMmp


The UN Charter is the law of the land but cannot replace or alter Constitutional authority.

[former9thward]

12. The section of the War Powers Act you quoted

actually argues against what Obama did. There is not " legislation specially authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter." The Korean situation is irrelevant because it occurred before passage of the War Powers Act.

[TomClash]

6. And unlike what Joshcryer and others argue

There is no specific statutory authorization. A general, abstract treaty obligation is unsatisfactory for this purpose.

[fittosurvive]

7. Indeed, the power to declare war was vested in the Congress to ensure a rational contemplation

of the grievances, as well as the projected cost of lives and resources of the People.

However, The War Powers Act has been exploited to circumvent the debate; thereby denying the People's representatives the opportunity to consider the consequences, and then decide the matter as a legislative body.

Obviously, our elected representatives were more honorable in the beginning than they are now.

[flvegan]

8. According to what I read on DU tonight, President Palin could rain hellfire on ANY

country of her choosing, so long as she notified congress after her commencement by letter. Then she's got 60 days to blow the shit out of anyplace she chooses.

Yeah, right here on DU!

[leftstreet]

9. "...then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization"

oops

K&R