Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

John Boehner Warns Obama On Violating War Powers Act With Libya Mission

WASHINGTON � House Speaker John Boehner says the Obama administration clearly will be in violation of the War Powers Act by this weekend after failing to seek congressional consent for the U.S. military action in Libya.

In a letter sent to the White House on Tuesday, the Ohio Republican says the upcoming weekend will mark 90 days from the first U.S. air strikes on Libya. Boehner asked President Barack Obama to explain � by Friday � what are the legal grounds for the operation.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.

I hesitated before posting this on a separate thread, but decided it is more about the US than it is about Libya.

This has the makings of a constitutional crisis where we have the Speaker of the House in a direct challenge to the President. Constitutional scholars are split over the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, so this could get ugly real fast.

I haven't seen any other articles except the one posted so far, so I don't know what Boehner has in mind if Obama does not comply. He's got a majority in the House, so impeachment is an option. I have no idea if he wants to go that far, but it's in the realm of possibility. Politically it could work for him since support for the Libya intervention is not strong; besides, it would distract the country from his failure to offer any jobs bills since he came to office six months ago.

[Kuros]

Link?

[Ya-ta Boy]

That was the whole (AP) article that was up at lunch time. It has since disappeared at Huffington Post. Here's another with some of the letter, but with more response from Think Progress:

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. [...]

[I]t would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/14/245566/boehner-war-powers-hypocrisy/

[Ya-ta Boy]

Well, here is Chapter 2 of this story.

Today the House passed an amendment (to some other bill) DEFUNDING Libya. That seems like it would be an important story but it isn't showing up anywhere. The bill was authored by Brad Sherman, D-Calif, and passed 248-163, with 60% support from Republicans and 60% from Democrats, but with none of the top leadership of either party. (This info comes from Rachel.) There was no mention of any letter from Boehner.

At this point, we have two separate actions on the same issue--one by the House and one by the Speaker-- that none of the few sources I've found have connected. Odd.

The only conclusion I see is that once more we are being poorly served by the media. (But we do know from a gazillion sources that Michelle Bachmann pre-empted her own announcement later this month about officially declaring she will run.)

[Ya-ta Boy]

Chapter 3:

Ten members of Congress led by Dennis Kucinich and Walter Jones filed suit over Libya in federal court on Wednesday.

The administration has responded thusly: "We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities," one official said. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting."

That's a little dubious, if you ask me.

But Boehner did get the legal analysis that he asked for. Senior administration officials, offering a detailed legal analysis to Congress to justify Obama's Libya policy, argued he had the constitutional power to continue the U.S. role against Muammar Gaddafi's forces even though lawmakers had not authorized the mission.

I've read several articles on this this morning and there is nothing about the consequences of Obama not complying with Congress's point of view. When I read the first article, it seemed to me there was an implied 'Or else'. That does not seem to be the case. It was more of a toothless warning: "You're going to be in violation of the law on Sunday. Have a nice day."

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/obama-legal-power-libya-campaign-white-house-204533787.html

[Kuros]

Finally, here's some media attention devoted to the issue.

[Ya-ta Boy]

^
Thank you. That's a better article than any I've come across.

[Friend Lee Ghost]

^ Well, whaddaya know? The article was on Mathaba:

U.S. House of Representatives Votes to Block Funding for Libya War

Posted: 2011/06/14

The US House of Representatives has voted to prohibit the use of funds for US military operations in Libya, but the important news is not being broadcast by US and NATO news media.

Politicians adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163 late on Monday.

A number of members of Congress have expressed their dissatisfaction at Barack Obama's, the US president, decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorisation.

According to US law, the president must seek congressional authorisation to send US troops into combat and must withdraw the forces within 60 days if Congress has not authorised the military action. Bombing of Libya has gone on now for 90 days and tomorrow the United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Libya expire.

The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.

Sherman's text states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act..."

[Ya-ta Boy]

^
A site that supports Qaddafi runs an article critical of Obama. What a surprise.

[Friend Lee Ghost]

^ The article is about blocking funding for the Libyan War, but leave it to you to see it through your partisan blinders.

You were complaining that no one was covering the story. Now that Mathaba covers it, you find something else to complain about.

[Kuros]

I think the title of this thread should be "Obama's Illegal War," but if I were a supporter of illegal wars, I suppose I would keep the title as is. But come Sunday, June 13, 2011, this will certainly be Obama's Illegal War.

James Fallows, former Carter speechwriter and erstwhile Democrat shill, criticizes Obama

First he gets his apologetics out of his system:

[sirius black]

I'm no constitutional scholar but my guess is nothing will come of it. Even if is in violation. Not condoning it but these sort of things are done routinely by Presidents it seems. Hardly a president of the last 20 years has not sent done some sort of military strike with missiles or some other belligerent act on foreign soil. A bit hypocritical of Repulbicans to talk of illegal wars. Now that I think of it, surprised at Dems involved in this as well.

Usually a president gives the senior membership of both parties in Congress a heads up as well those on committees related to such actions. Either this wasn't done or other members of Congress took matters into their own hands.

[Kuros]

[lithium]

[Underwaterbob]

Is that pronounced "boner"? Because that would be hilarious.