• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Power outage: Libya war shows limits of War Powers Act

He's got about 2 weeks to wrap it up or he will be in violation of the WPA. He's probably counting on Gaddafi falling and it turning into a humanitarian mission, or handing over some drones to NATO and calling it a day. NATO is probably training at our drone stations right now in case Gaddafi doesn't go down in the next two weeks.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I'd like to see a permanent repeal of the the War Powers Act. I'm an independent for a number of reasons but I find it amazing that the Democrats were vehemently against war and now are hell bent to invade half the globe in warfare with the U.S. In fact, Obama is all but begging Afghanistan to ask us to commit troops for decades into the future. Why? Neither side of the isle is making any effort to raise that question. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan now?

Now we find Republicans, those yellow ribbon, Patriot naming, warmongers who couldn't wait to lay the world to waste are now pleading for an end to war. Go figure.

Me? I want our butts out of the Mid East and Africa and South America pronto. Too soon ain't quick enough. I've was opposed to American imperialism under Bush and I am opposed to it under Obama. Tossing the War Powers Act would help foster a national debate about war and future wars. That's a good thing.
 
What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan now?

Nation building. No one told you?

Libya's next, but I think the Euros are gonna own that one.
 
the President has not invoked the Constitution to take military action in Libya.

he invoked the constitution on january 20, 2009

days not weeks, anyone?

"limited" war?

nato's china shop, not ours?

are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?
 
Nation building. No one told you?

Libya's next, but I think the Euros are gonna own that one.

The Euros will never own ****, they lack balls.
 
he invoked the constitution on january 20, 2009

days not weeks, anyone?

"limited" war?

nato's china shop, not ours?

are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?

Translation: You got nothin' on this issue except platitudes and political rhetoric. NEXT!!!
 
he invoked the constitution on january 20, 2009

days not weeks, anyone?

"limited" war?

nato's china shop, not ours?

are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?

Translation: You got nothin' on this issue except platitudes and political rhetoric. NEXT!!!

I bring to the reader's attention posts #428 and #429 from the thread. The combined commentary from those posts along with that of my post #71 in this thread should put an end to this nonsense.

The President has not violated the War Powers Act nor the Constitution in any way. What we're seeing from members of Congress equates to political posturing, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
senator barack obama, dec 20, 2007, the now famous interview with charlie savage of the boston globe:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Boston.com - Special reports - News

as a matter of fact, affable, laughable, gaffe-able joe biden went one further:

"the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country with 70 million people (iran) unless we're attacked or unless there's proof we're about to be attacked, and if he does, if he does, i would move to impeach him"

YouTube - Chris Matthews and Joe Biden

hey, they're sposed to be the experts

but are you sure they know what they're doing?
 
I bring to the reader's attention posts #428 and #429 from the thread. The combined commentary from those posts along with that of my post #71 in this thread should put an end to this nonsense.
The President has not violated the War Powers Act nor the Constitution in any way. What we're seeing from members of Congress equates to political posturing, nothing more.
If you can't be bothered to re-post your points, I can't be bothered to read them.
 
If you can't be bothered to re-post your points, I can't be bothered to read them.

Very well then...

My post #428 from the aforementioned thread w/lead-off from GPS_Flex...
GPS_Flex said:
You are joking right? You aren’t seriously claiming that Congress was referring to the United Nations when it said “specific statutory authorization” are you?
I bring to your attention the United Nations Participatory Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 287d:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. 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, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, 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.

In short, the UNPA gives the president the authority to negotiate peace agreements w/the U.N. Security Counsel in an effort to help establish peace in the face of hostilities abroad provided that a U.N. Resolution has been established concerning such hostilities. However, the President cannot go beyond the limits and scope of the U.N. resolution as mandated.

Bottom Line: The UNPA is that "statutory" authorization per section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Act.

Then Catawaba's commentary (her post #429 from the same aforementioned thread):

House GOP kills vote on Libya

"House Republicans yanked a resolution from the floor that called for an end to U.S. participation in a NATO military action in Libya after it appeared the measure may have had enough support to pass."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: House GOP kills vote on Libya | Susan Ferrechio | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Satisfied?
 
Last edited:
I'd just like to point out that I was totally correct in that thread (though perhaps after others).


Perhaps Obama has an Ollie North.
 
Last edited:
unconstitutional is unconstitutional

"the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"

"the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war unless we're attacked or unless there's proof we're about to be attacked"
 
So the answer is....what? Is this a UN mission under Article 42?

In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then. And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.
 
In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s).
From the very little I have learned about law, "in effect" can be radically different than "is".
If it's not actually a UN mission under article 42, the rest isn't worth considering.

It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then.
The ILA was authorized via the WPA and reports still go to Congress from the WH in re that matter. That's prob'ly the reason why you haven't heard people saying that it violated the WPA--it's actually in compliance with it.
 
Edit

In effect, yes, atleast where a U.S. President wishes to commit U.S. armed forces to a foreign conflicts on humanitarian grounds in accordance with U.N. Resolution(s). It is the very reason GW Bush (and possible even Bush, Sr) went to war w/Iraq...he invoked U.N. resolutions. But oddly enough, no one was clamouring about whether or not he was in violation of the War Powers Act or the Constitution back then. And yet, here we are seaking justification for President Obama to commit armed forces to Libya when he has the authority under two Acts of Congress, 3 U.N. Resolutions and a Congressional Resolution to atleast continue military actions until he can provide further explanation to justify continued use of armed forces.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that when you add Article 42 under the UNPA it does seem to confuse things, but here's how I keep it straight...

The President has the authority under the Constitution to act in foreign affairs (make treaties) per Art 2, Sect 2, clause 2. He is our nation's #1 foreign diplomate. As such, the UNPA gives him the authority to negotiate measures w/the U.N. Security Counsel that could lead to peace or act on humanitarian grounds. However, I think every President since Nixon understands that they can't arbitrarily "declare war" against another nation even when invoking the War Powers Act which requires the President to report his decision to commit armed forces to "hostilities abroad" to Congress within 48 hours of doing so. The President then must report back to Congress his intent to continue the use of military force or withdraw the military unless he receives authorization from Congress via Congressional Resolution.

What is clear to me here is the President has followed the law totally and completely.

1. He obtained 3 U.N. Resolutions on humanitarian grounds.

2. He committed armed forces in advance of notifying Congress of his actions.

3. He notified Congress of his actions with 48 hours.

4. He kept Congress informed within the 60-day reporting timeframe.

5. He sought Congressional approval to retain armed forces in theather. Congress then responded with a Resolution extending military involvement for an additional 30 days. Boehner and Co. may not be calling it such publically, but if you read the wording of every letter that he and other high ranking members of Congress has written back to the President on this matter, none say "the 60-day period has expired". Instead, they all use words like "apparent" or "appears to be in violation". If he has violated the law, say so!!!
 
For w/e reason, Obama has not availed himself of your line of defense, OV.

He instead went with what I had previously suspected he would go with--the poorly defined terms in the WPA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=1
But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.

This needs to be settled. There're multiple issues with the WPA. The poorly defined terms are just one.
It will take and act of Congress or the SC to decide this matter. I would like it settled. I also would like to see the WPA overhauled, gutted, keel-hauled, and drawn and quartered
 
I see your point, Simon, and I agree. I does seem that the matter of whether or not the President can commit (elements of) the military to conflicts abroad for whatever reason he deems justified does need to be clarified because it's not only the WPA that seemingly "allows" him to act but also the UNPA.

Basically, under the UNPA the President can obtain a U.N. Resolution to "use" the military in a certain way and the WPA provides the legal latitude for the President to "commit" the military to action for a limited time WITHOUT obtaining a declaration of war from Congress. If you believe in the Unitarian Presidency, you have no problem with this exercise of presidential power as it subscribes to the notion that a sitting president has "absolute power" and can circumvent Congress and, by definition, the Constitution. If not, then you're on the side of those who believe that the President has violated the law and that the military should be withdrawn immediately w/o delay.

Frankly, I'm somewhere in the middle and here's why...

While I don't believe the President alone should have the power to declar war, I do believe he should be able to take action, including militarily, on behalf of peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. We all agree that one basic human right in this country is the right to keep and bear arms. We preserve this right so that we can keep a tyrannical government at bay. We believe in democracy, freedom and liberty. As such, shouldn't we do whatever we can to ensure people of other nations have these same rights?

I didn't approve of the Korean War nor the Viet Nam war (as an adult once I learned about it) not because I didn't believe South Korea or South Viet Nam did not deserve the right to live in peace, but rather because in both "campaigns" Congress never made a declarations of war. Yet, Congress allowed both campaigns to continue w/military involvement. (Remember: We didn't have the WPA then, but we did have the UNPA. Admittedly, I didn't know about this Act until recently. Nonetheless, I still believe we acted inappropriately because a war declaration was never passed.) As an adult, I was against Reagan sending troops into Granada because there was no humanitarian issue there. I was against the War in Iraq (which is different from the Iraq War that President Bush, Sr took on) because I believed GWB involved this nation in a war under false pretenses. I can get behind Pres. Obama using military force in Libya for humanitarian reasons, however, because there are no boots on the ground; as such, our military is taking a secondary role to NATO forces, and I'm perfectly fine with that. This should be a NATO-led campaign; the U.S has to learn we are not the police force for the world. And other nations need to start stepping up alot more. But to your point on how muddled the issue of committment of U.S. military force is, I agree. The matter does need to be more clearly outlined/defined.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom