Kucinich Is Wrong! Can We All Please Try To Understand That?

[Motown_Johnny]

The Commander in Chief as head of the armed forces has the authority to use military force, and always has.

If Congress doesn't agree with this use of the military they can invoke the War Powers Act to force an end to the conflict. The Senate even passed a resolution calling for a no fly zone on March 1st. It should be abundantly clear that the majority of Congress approves of this action.

Congress has declared war only five times in this nation's history. There has not been a declared war since WWII and no President has been impeached over any use of the military, ever.



Please stop adding to the insanity. The use of military force in Libya isn't illegal and is not a grounds for even talking about impeachment.


We can debate if it is moral, or economical or if it makes us look bad but the legality is not in question and should not be discussed as if it were.




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

^snip^

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



http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-passes-resolution-calling-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya-20110301?page=1

^snip^

The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

[RKP5637]

1. Recommend!!! n/t

[L. Coyote]

3. UnRec

[RKP5637]

26. Rec! n/t

[L. Coyote]

2. And the fine print, the letter of the law, be damned, right? Kucinich is right!

Kucinich was right about Cheney, about Bush, and he is right again.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. please show this fine print or the letter of the law you are talking about

it doesn't exist

you are kidding yourself


Being right about Bush Co. doesn't make him right now

Kucinich is wrong!

[L. Coyote]

28. Placing the burden on someone else to do your homework does not make you right.

[Modern_Matthew]

13. +1

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

21. I second the request for you to provide evidence of your claim

Dennis certainly hasn't.

He just thinks Congress shouldn't follow the existing law in the War Powers Act because he feels it is wrong.
He is opposed to the Law as it stands.
That doesn't mean he is right.

[arcane1]

5. You omitted the very first sentence in your Wiki link:

"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."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. So in other words, Kucinich is right

And even if I were to accept the OP's idea that Kucinich is right on procedural matters, he is certain right on moral matters.

[arcane1]

9. Is he right that's in an impeachable offense? I have no idea.

But I do know there was no authorization from Congress, nor are we under attack, for what it's worth.

[The Magistrate]

14. Actually, Ma'am, 'Serious Threat' Is Language Several Trucks Can, And Have, Been Driven Through....

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Except that that language does not exist in the Resolution, period.

Please respond to this; as a very well-respected member of the board of long standing who has served as a moderator, your word carries much weight around here.

Here's the text pertaining to the President's use of military force:

"(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."

There is no editorializing about the justification or whether it's "fair" or not, and the wording or intimation of "serious threat" doesn't exist at all, period.

The President may only send forces if Congress Authorizes or Declares War, OR if we are attacked. That's it, period. Reagan stretched the latter for Grenada by claiming imminent danger that was tantamount to being attacked, and I believe Bush did roughly the same about Panama. Reagan did not consult beforehand, but pleaded the need for immediacy and secrecy, and DID meet privately with the Speaker of the House, Democrat Tip O'Neill, so he had SOME semblance of regard for the law.

I guess I have to recap the realities of this crap elsewhere, but, in short, it goes like this:

The President has to obey the Constitution. The Constitution takes precedent over any Treaties. Involvement is well defined as very broad, with "forces" and "hostilities" or imminent ones. He has to act AFTER Congress' Declaration or Authorization, unless WE'RE ATTACKED. In all cases, he has to CONSULT with Congress, not just send them a letter (without even chocolates or flowers, mind you!) after the fact. It's very clear. It's iron-clad and very disturbing.

Yes, this would warrant impeachment and conviction, since this is at LEAST a misdemeanor.

I do not want this pursued, though, and I want the President to acknowledge the mistake publicly and promise to include Congress as necessary in the consultations. (This will also make them responsible for any mishaps that they can then claim as due to his illegal adventurism.)

This is not just an arcane little bit of decorum, it's the soul of the Constitution itself, and it's not the least bit ambiguous.

I appeal to your sense of civilization and decency, and call upon you to exercise your moniker's function in service of the community. Your not the least humble servant.

[The Magistrate]

41. You Are Right, Sir: I Should Have Looked To The Actual Text, Rather Than The Common Paraphrase

However, the section which you cite first has its own dificulties. Congress has the power to make law; it does not have the power to declare what the Constitutional limitations on an Executive power are; that is a matter for the courts. There is are reasons why the War Powers Resolution has never been put to a court test by either the Congress or a President; it very likely would not survive. It is pretty much the standard position of the Executive, since this resolution was carried, that it is not Constitutional, but is complied with as a courtesy, and because in instances of a major commitment of forces, is politically wise.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Article 1, section 8 has something to say about that: Congress makes the laws to execute the powers

Enumerated under the powers of the Legislature is the power

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

It's called the "necessary and proper" clause, and it's been argued as the authority for this law being valid. The Executive is an Officer thereof.

One of the foregoing powers is the unshared right to Declare War.

This clause is designed to serve as a clarification, and is considered the source of the opinion that the Congress is first among co-equals. It states here that it can make the laws to clarify the Constitution's powers and their implementation.

The War Powers Act hasn't been seriously challenged for many reasons, and one of them is that the War Powers Act actually gives the President a LOT more latitude than the Constitution can be interpreted as giving him/her by a strict reading. Challenging it could open up a can of worms and net the President not so good a deal; I guarantee you some of the strong executive hotheads have taken pause in the face of this before.

Some of the challenges pertain to Congress' ability to force a withdrawal of forces, so the shirt-waving discord that there have been challenges of its Constitutionality have nothing to do with THE INITIATING of war, but it's continuance. Like George W. Bush discrediting treaties as "flawed" or fundamentalists marginalizing science as "theories", these disputes about Constitutionality are absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the Executive's right to wage war whenever the whim seizes him.

If the War Powers Act IS Unconstitutional, it was STILL in effect at the time of this misstep, and even if there is some quibbling about it, it can't simply be disregarded due to a personal prejudice on the part of the Executive in question.

Thanks for the response, but this STILL doesn't affect its standing as a law in effect, and it doesn't raise much of an issue at all about Congress' right to delineate the specifics of the Constitution in law, since it is specifically charged with the right and duty to do so.

It's the law. All of the Presidents have disliked it, and all of them (except Obama and Carter) have behaved themselves and at least somewhat complied in at least certain situations; Even Ford made efforts regarding the Mayaguez mess. Carter has taken heat for not even consulting with Congress on "Operation Eagle Claw", the Iran Rescue attempt, but it was also a small, commando raid. Personally, I think he overstepped here, but it was also a single operation that would have had no follow-up.

Reagan overstepped with Grenada, but only slightly so with Lebanon. Bush overstepped with Panama, but had a bit of an arguable case, and he complied with Iraq and more or less with Somalia. Clinton did with Somalia, and only glancingly did with Bosnia. Bush 2 complied with both Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama spits on it.

[DrDan]

7. details . . . . . that sentence only clouds the point of the OP

[M155Y_A1CH]

8. In other words...

he didn't trump up the threat to us enough?

I guess there wasn't time for that.

:shrug:

[Motown_Johnny]

10. the requirement is to notify within 48 hours

It doesn't say that he needs authorization prior to sending the troops.




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

[arcane1]

15. "or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat" n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

18. yes "or" not "only"

"only" if ......

would be different than

"or" if.............

[fittosurvive]

23. Hold on for a second--let me look out the window.

Nope. I don't see any Libyan jets flying over my house.

How about you?

[Xithras]

19. Not only that, but there's a general consensus among scholars that the WPR is unconstitutional.

It remains law only because it's never been comprehensively challenged. The Constitution places the responsibility for maintaining the military and sending them into wars with Congress, and limits the powers of the President to raising new armies when needed and directing them once a war has been declared. The WPR upends this by placing the power to commit troops entirely into the hands of the President.

There's just one problem with that. Changing powers delegated by the Constitution requires an amendment, not a "resolution". Technically speaking, every war since WW2 was initiated under the auspices of an unconstitutional law.

Not that we care about the Constitution much anymore...

[guruoo]

25. WPR has been considered to be a 60 day Congressional blanket approval for military action

[Xithras]

30. Were you around at the beginning of the Iraq war?

Believe me, these issues were hammered to death back then here on DU, and the consensus was about 95% that the WPR was unconstitutional. It's rather funny how opinions change when it's a Democrat giving the orders.

As I recall, the argument is that the blanket approval itself is unconstitutional because it amounts to a redelegation of Constitutionally assigned powers. It would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws on his own without having to go through Congress. More accurately to this particular example, it would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws without Congressional intervention, but only if he "explains" things to Congress, and for a limited time period.

That law would be blatantly unconstitutional. Congress cannot create dictators or monarchs, even if it wanted to. Congress cannot redelegate Constitutionally assigned powers to another branch of government without going through the amendment process.

[guruoo]

34. Argument is that by approving WPR, Congress approved (pre-approved?) 60 days of military action

and 30 days withdrawal period, while still requiring that a President
get approval for any military action that continued beyond that time frame.


Any comparison of Bush's massive buildup to the Iraq war to what we've done so far in Libya is
so absurd as to be laughable.

[Xithras]

35. Which refutes...what exactly?

Put this into a different context. What if, in 2002, Congress had passed a resolution pre-approving any and all laws that George Bush wanted to implement, for a period of 60 days, with a 30 day phaseout period. In essence, this would grant him the legislative powers of Congress, unchecked, for 60 days. Would you have supported that? Would you call it constitutional?

The WPR does the same thing. You can couch re-delegation of authority with the term "preapproval" all you want, but the legislative act is still the same. A constituttional power delegated to Congress was reassigned to the Executive without following proper constitutional procedure. The WPR is unconstitutional. As are actions taken that utilize it.

Bush was an idiot on a power grab, so I could understand why he didn't care about trivial things like "constitutionality", but I expected more from Obama, who spent 12 years of his life as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. Especially as he himself has stated in the past that President's do NOT have the constitutional authority to launch military attacks without congressional approval.

My position, today, is essentially the same position that President Obama held up until two weeks ago, when he set it aside for political expediency.

Power corrupts.

[guruoo]

36. WPR 30 day clause is considered to be the Congressional authority required in

the Constitution. Perhaps it's time for SCOTUS to take a look at the issue.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. It's current law nonetheless, and one cannot pick-and-choose. It's the law. What's confusing here?

People question the Constitutionality of all sorts of things. They're free to question, challenge, litigate, legislate and rage from the rooftops, but the standing law is the law.

He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

This argument of "oh, it may not really be all that valid, so it's not such a big deal" is barbaric beyond merely anarchic; it's self-indulgent, backhanded, scofflaw criminality.

Sorry for venting on you; you don't seem like a bad sort at all, but this is IMPORTANT. We are a nation of laws, and if we allow one of "us" to flagrantly violate something because some people find it a bit questionable, we are playing favorites and no better than the Republicans. That's disgusting.

Mull this over: even though all of the Presidents haven't liked it and many imperialists and executive-enhancers don't like it, it's BEEN SETTLED LAW FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS, so it's hardly "marginal" or "iffy"; it's got at least some validity to have stood for so very, very long.

Please join me on the side of the law. If Obama doesn't address this and try to make amends, not only will it probably bite him in the ass, it makes us high-handed selfish assholes.

[guruoo]

22. The secomd sentence says he has 60 days before that approval is required.

[G_j]

11. disagree, Kucinich is right. NT

[ProSense]

12. Yes

Kucinich is very wrong.

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. +1

Thanks for that

I was beginning to feel a bit outnumbered

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

20. Pssst! A resolution isn't legislation

The Senate passes lots of resolutions by unanimous consent. There's almost never anything written down beforehand, and no record of who was present when the resolution was adopted. It's like saying everyone in the stadium at a Bears game is a patriotic, god-fearing American (even the ones who were in the can or buying a hot dog) because the national anthem was played before the carnage began. Pretending a Senate resolution adopted by unanimous consent has any authority is to give it a power it patently does not have. It's not surprising that the National Journal would try to stovepipe it into some kind of "authorization," but canny observers of the political scene should not be fooled.

[Marblehead]

24. Obama

sure surprised the hell out of me and not in a good way. What ever happened to the man I voted for??:shrug: Dennis has valid points, this sets more precedents and shows that our Congress is null and void.

[former9thward]

27. The U.S. or its allies were not under attack.

The issue should have been debated in Congress and a war declaration voted on. Let our representatives go on record whether they support another military adventure.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Aaah, an authorization would have sufficed...

But your fundamental point is undeniably morally just.

Man, we suck.

[Enthusiast]

29. I trust Dennis far more than

Obama on most any issue. And Obama has brought this own his own through his many actions and inactions.

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. All Congress has to do to shut down this military action

is to refuse to fund it.

But they won't do that of course.

[eilen]

32. They haven't been asked to yet. Currently there is plenty

of money gathering dust in the Pentagon budget.

[LWolf]

33. We can all understand that it's your opinon that he's wrong.

That it is somehow important to you that he be wrong.

I think he's wrong about impeachment. I think he's right about the action in Libya. I think he's right to oppose Obama in this, and in way too many other things.

I like DK. I like him better than most of his party. Frankly, watching people howl in outrage because he dares to oppose Obama can be sad, or it can be entertaining, depending on my mood at the moment.

The biggest DK has done in the last few years to disappoint me is to endorse Obama, campaign for him, and hold back opposition in the early months of his administration.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. It's certainly the seeming reality around here of late: Opinion is FACT

Well said.

Impractical though I think he is, too far left (to the point of proposing an unmanageable system) as I think he is, prickly and a bit fatuous in his smugness though I think he is, I think he is honest, consistent and deeply respectful of the law and truth.

For this, he deserves praise and liberal latitude for moments of inconvenience or annoyance.

Obama blundered, and blundered arrogantly here, and he's doing so with a thoroughly naive appreciation of the system. His sloppiness imperils his party, our country, the world economy, numerous other national revolts in the region and my most crucial personal joie de vivre.

His is a necessary voice here: a veritable Diogenes amid the capricious and foolhardy meddling. I, too, want to avoid impeachment, but it is really necessary now for our President to acknowledge his misstep and make amends. This kind of thing is incrementally pernicious, and I don't want this kind of perpetration be used as further justification for the next would-be Capo di Tutti Capos to use for some future bit of Presidential Imperialism.

He is owed some thanks for speaking truth to power.

[LWolf]

44. Yes. nt

[robcon]

40. The default position shouild be that Kucinich is wrong on everthing he says.

If he ever turns out to be right, we should celebrate.

Dennis is useful... can't be bought, a man of integrity. But he's just always wrong.

[LWolf]

45. He's almost always right.

It's the default position of the party status quo to distract from that.

[treestar]

46. And Dennis should know all of that by now.