A question about "troop deployment" and "war"

[underpants]

I am not being snarky about this and I have done no research (forgive me) but as a child of the Reagan years I remember being told repeatedly that the President can deploy troops for up to 60 days (or is it 180) without Congressional opinion.

Looking back this was clearly the infusion of the "Unitary Executive" theory onto the public via the media. We were told that it was necessary due to the increasingly rapid pace needed to respond to emergencies. Efficiency in government you know.

Beirut - not "war" so there was no Congressional vote as I remember it
Grenada - of course not that was to cover for the bombing in Beirut three days earlier

Panama - was there a vote?
Gulf War I - I think there was a vote. There was no way it could lose

Kosovo- Was there a vote?

Invasion of Iraq - the troops were deployed while they were waiting to vote

Now all of a sudden there is an outcry AN OUTCRY I TELL YOU about Obama not consulting Congress before the action in Libya (whatever you think of it)....even though he did and did send the paperwork up to the hill.

Am I missing something or am I failing to not-remember?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. In accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1972...

§ 1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultations


The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations 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.

Since we were not attacked, and not even endangered by anything in Libya, if I read the above section correctly President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.

Which changes my view on its legality.

Congress should move to (1) Demand he withdraw, or (2) Defund the action, or (3) Censure him, or (4) Move to investigate him for impeachment.

If I've missed something that allows this under law, I hope some will point that out.

If congress does not act, then the ballance of powers is hereby revoked by non action of the U.S. Congress.

[Shandris]

2. Ehhh, I'm thinking it goes along the lines of procedural policy thought.

Since our stated 'policy' on Libya is, if possible, replacing Ghaddafi, and our stated policy towards the 'Middle East' is supporting emerging democracy (carryover from Bush), then the phrase 'clearly indicated by the circumstances' is (circumstantially) legitimate, thus making the action not technically illegal.

I likewise believe the WPA was written that way intentionally, because under the vague wording in the statute, there are MANY situations where one can argue 'compelling circumstances' based on our 'stated policy' as interpreted by a successor.

[underpants]

3. As I read it 'clearly indicated by the circumstances' explains "case by case basis" in the speech

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Because it says every possible instance the President shall consult with congress...

that sort of blow all those compelling circumstances away. Every possible instance means, well every possible instance.

It is pretty clear that the Republican House has not more intrest in maintain separation of powers than the Democratic House.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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