US senators seek to force Libya vote

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON — Two senators concerned about US military strikes on Libya warned on Friday they aimed to force a vote on whether President Barack Obama has the authority to wage war without congressional approval.

"We believe the answer is that he does not," Republican Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee said in a letter to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Paul and Lee said they would block legislation pending in the Senate until Reid schedules a debate and vote on a resolution offered by Paul that states Obama "does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

"While we realize there are other matters the Senate had planned to work on, it is our belief that there is very little we are doing that rises to the level of a constitutional question regarding war," they wrote.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQwwlRFEqPFQx27CAFu1OdAk98Pw?docId=CNG.3bf4105ffa63410f8b0d2165e00d15f5.8d1

[Tx4obama]

1. The U.S. Senate already passed a resolution March 1st requesting a UN NoFlyZone

it was passed by UNANIMOUS CONSENT which means NONE of the 100 Senators objected.

See comment #10 on the following link to read the text of S.Res.85 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717373

IF Rand Paul had objected to the resolution (which he did not) then there would have been unlimited floor debate.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Non-binding thus meaningless. Gen. Gates admits this & said

he wasn't claiming that the non-binding measure authorized military action, "but it certainly was a manifestation of the wish and the view of the United States Senate on this issue."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110401/ap_on_re_us/us_libya_congress_fact_check

So, it was a non-binding resolution with no recorded votes. The Senate vote does not conform with the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution.

In effect, it is meaningless as in terms of policy.

[Tx4obama]

3. You are still missing the point.

It was a UNANIMOUS CONSENT resolution. That means ALL 100 SENATORS agreed to say yes. No one objected.

What Paul and Les are going to introduce is also a 'resolution' which would be non-binding.

The point is that Paul and Les already gave their consent March 1st when they consented to request the UN to impose a NFZ in Libya.

And btw, please stop tossing shit out (on comments that I post) that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You apparently are having a conversion with yourself in your head because you keep bring up things that no one is talking about.

NO ONE has said that the Senate resolution gave Obama 'any power' to do anything, the Senate resolution was a request to the UN to do what is necessary in Libya to protect civilians and to impose the NFZ.

Rand Paul is a NUT and should be ignored.

[EFerrari]

8. Asking the UN for a NFZ is not the same as authorization to go to war.

[Tx4obama]

9. Obama does not need authorization to go to war. We are not in a war.

The UN MISSION is protecting the civilians that petitioned the UN for the NFZ.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Yes, we are in a war. We've dropped megatons of bombs and we are killing human beings

with the assets of our military. Clearly, we have taken sides in a war and are offering military support. Thus, we are engaged in a war.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Yes he does, yes we are. You are either deliberately deceiving, don't check rebuttals or can't read

By US Law, Obama may NOT send forces to a UN Article 42 Resolution unless he makes a special agreement with the Security Council which is then AUTHORIZED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. If he has this in hand, he may send troops when the call-up comes without further authorization.

Here, once again, is the American Journal of International Politics to explain:

� Under the UN Charter, in the event of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the UN Security Council may decide in accordance with Article 41 to recommend "measures not involving the use of armed force." If those measures prove inadequate, Article 43 provides that all UN members shall make available to the Security Council‑‑in accordance with special agreements‑‑armed forces and other assistance. These agreements would spell out the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. As noted above, it was anticipated that the member states would ratify these agreements "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

He is also in direct violation of the War Powers Act, since he may only introduce armed forces into "hostilities" or where they're "imminent" if Congress Declares War, Congress Authorizes War, or we are attacked. IF, AND ONLY IF HE MEETS THESE REQUIREMENTS, he may then send in the forces, but must notify within 48 hours and has only 60 days to get the job done. These latter stipulations are "Reporting" and "Congressional Action", not permission of any sort.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

Please respond; you are entirely and unequivocally wrong. Continuing to blather this inanity is a form of deception.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Thank you, it will be interesting to see if you get a response. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

11. No, You do not understand. A nonbinding resolution in the Senate is Constitutionally meaningless.

Meaningless. Meaningless.

And yet you continue to post it as if it does have meaning.

[Tx4obama]

14. If it has no meaning at all then why is Rand Paul and Lee introducing another resolution?

Have I ever said a non-binding resolution has Constitution meaning? NO.
And I have not said the majority of the things that you think I've said, on this thread or on the other thread.

And honestly, I think you are deliberately ignoring what I am saying in my other comments, you continually ignore the fact that Rand Paul and all the other 99 U.S. Senators did NOT object to asking the UN to impose a No Fly Zone in Libya - therefore I have no desire to converse with you.

Ciao!

[Luminous Animal]

15. If it is non-binding resolution that it is meaningless as well and mere grandstanding.

And, by the way, there is no evidence (no meaning zero, nil, nada) that there were 100 Senators present to vote because at the behest of those who voted, the tally has hidden.

For all we know, 11 Senators were present to vote on this non-binding resolution.

[Tx4obama]

16. Your comment shows that you have absolutely no idea how 'unanimous consent' works or is.

ALL 100 Senators 'agreed' to the resolution. They are sent the resolution, they have ample time to 'object' if no one objects during the time allotted then it is adopted and it is acknowledged that ALL 100 Senators have agreed - that is why is it called UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

1) Unanimous Consent resolutions do not get a roll call vote.
2) Nothing was 'hidden' and no one requested anything to be hidden.
3) Go bone up on 'the hotline procedure'.
4) There is no tally because EVERYONE has agreed to the resolution and NONE of them has to be there - so ALL 100 senators names would be listed if there was a list. If even one senator were to have objected (before there was an unanimous agreement) then it would not be 'unanimous consent', it would have gone to the floor for debate and then a roll call vote would be called - which is DIFFERENT that passing a resolution via unanimous consent.

What your comment has proven to me is that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Goodnight.

p.s. You should have been watching Lawrence O'donnell the past few days, you might have learned something.
Instead of arguing online about what you don't know about, you could head over to the MSNBC website and let Lawrence explain things to you.
Wednesday: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42350498#42350498
Friday: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42350498#42385868

[Luminous Animal]

18. Prove all 100 Senators were there.

[Tx4obama]

20. Your reading comprehension is utterly atrocious. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

24. Prove that all 100 Senators were there for the vote.

[slipslidingaway]

19. What are the rules for hotline procedures ...

could it be true that there was less than a minute to respond? If so, that is messed up.

Even so, there was no authorization from Congress. As Gates admitted yesterday in the video I posted to you, launching missiles at another country would presumably be an act of war.

This talks about a spending bill, but please post the rules for hotline procedures. Even then one could argue that another resolution would still need to come before the full Congress for an Introduction of United States Armed Forces.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2010/spending.html

"The term ``hotline'' or practice of ``hotlining'' bills does not
appear in the Senate's official rules, but this procedure is utilized
nearly every day the Senate is in session. A hotline is an informal
term for an alert sent to members of the Senate giving notice of a
proposed agreement to allow a bill or resolution to be approved by the
Senate without debate or amendment. A measure that is ``hotlined'' is
recorded in the Congressional Record as a being agreed to by unanimous
consent, UC.
Hotlines occur at the discretion of the Majority Leader in
consultation with the Minority Leader. The leader's office contacts
each Senate office with a message on a special alert line called the
``hotline,'' which provides information on what bill or bills the
leader is seeking to pass through unanimous consent. Hotline notices
are only given to Senate offices.
If there is an objection to the bill being ``hotlined,'' a senator is
asked to call the leader's office and give notice of intent to object
to the bill being passed by unanimous consent whenever such a request
may occur. The process of notifying the leader's office of an objection
to ``hotline'' is informally referred to as a ``hold.'' In practice,
instead of requiring explicit unanimous consent to pass a bill, the
``hotline'' process only requires a lack of dissent.
In many instances, bills are hotlined for which no text, description,
or budget estimates have been made publicly available. In some Senate
offices, the ``hotline,'' or request for unanimous consent to pass a
measure, may never even reach senators, and the decision to allow a
bill to be approved without debate is determined by staff, who do not
even read the bill."

[slipslidingaway]

21. Friday video - 47 seconds to respond to this hotline procedure...

is that true, what are the rules.

And maybe O'Donnell should invite some constitutional lawyers on his program to debate the issue, I'm tired of the media just trying to score points for one side or the other and generally do not turn on corporate media anymore.

[slipslidingaway]

4. Obama's unconstitutional war

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2014630908_bruce30.html

"...But is it a constitutional war? I think not.

The Constitution makes the president "commander in chief." He is authorized to conduct war, but not to start one. The Founding Fathers said, "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war." They also said no state shall "engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay" — "without the consent of Congress."

...Obama did ask for consent, and received it — from the Arab League, and on the United Nations Security Council from the governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, the United Kingdom and South Africa. He did not ask for the consent of senators and representatives of the United States.

Obama is hardly the first. All recent presidents have usurped the war power. In particular, President Truman took America to war in 1950 in Korea on the permission of the Security Council only.

"U.N. authorization is not sufficient," said Washington's former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, who was a member of the National War Powers Commission, chartered by Congress. A few years ago the commission called for participation of Congress, and was ignored..."

[Tx4obama]

6. Obama has not declared war. The UN - the UN - has imposed a NoFlyZone. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

7. Sec. Gates Forced to Admit Bombing Libya is and Act Of War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGgA-yCVsOs

[Luminous Animal]

13. With bombs. US bombs, military personnel and assets. Of course, Obama has not declared war...

that is the privilege of Congress. What Obama has done is illegally engage in warfare while shitting on the Constitution.

[leftstreet]

5. Interesting the article title doesn't say "Republican senators..."

Just US senators

Oh well

:popcorn:

[slipslidingaway]

10. Obama's Unconstitutional War - Ackerman

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/obama_s_unconstitutional_war?page=0,0

"...The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing. But it does provide an escape hatch, stating that it is not "intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President." So it's open for Obama to assert that his power as commander in chief allows him to wage war without Congress, despite the Constitution's insistence to the contrary.

...The president's insistence that his Libyan campaign is limited in its purposes and duration is no excuse. These are precisely the issues that he should have defined in collaboration with Congress. Now that he claims inherent power, why can't he redefine U.S. objectives on his own? No less important, what is to stop some future president from using Obama's precedent to justify even more aggressively unilateral actions?

...The U.S. Congress should also take more fundamental steps to bring the imperial presidency under control. In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress went beyond the War Powers Resolution to enact a series of framework statutes that tried to impose the rule of law on a runaway presidency. Many of these statutes have failed to work as planned, but they were the product of a serious investigation led by Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike during the 1970s. A similar inquest is imperative today. In many respects, Bush's war on terrorism was a more sweeping breach of constitutional norms than anything Richard Nixon attempted in Watergate. Yet Congress has been silent, trusting Obama to clean house on his own.

The president has shown, by his actions, that this trust is not justified. If Congress fails to respond, we have moved one large step further down the path to a truly imperial presidency."

[slipslidingaway]

23. To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War ....

previous discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=786215&mesg_id=786215

"To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War
by Michael Ratner
Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
March 31, 2011

How is it that Congress isn't screaming at President Obama for usurping its power to take this nation to war against Libya? (Even Bushes #41 and #43 had their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq authorized.) And if Congress isn't screaming, then why aren't we? We should be. The power to make war impacts us all: it kills, it costs our dwindling treasury, and it has serious consequences..."