E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Pete Williams and Jonathan Hutcheson
Did President Obama violate the Constitution or federal law when he ordered the U.S. military to take part in coalition attacks on forces loyal to Moammar Khaddafy in Libya?
The Constitution itself doesn't answer the question, because it gives Congress authority "to raise and support Armies," "to provide and maintain a Navy," and "to declare War." But it also provides that, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
Congress has formally declared war only five times in U.S. history -- for the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World Wars I and II. But presidents have approved dozens of military actions with no such declaration, including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam.
Well over 100 military operations were ordered without any advance Congressional authorization at all. Recent examples include actions in Grenada, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, and intervention in civil wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.
A federal law, the War Powers Act of 1973, requires the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before deploying U.S. forces. An exception was made for emergencies created by attacks on the U.S. or its armed forces.
Some legal scholars conclude that President Obama violated the law's requirements, when he failed to seek congressional approval.
"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.
While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.
But one former official who advised President George W. Bush said that while the decision to deploy U.S. forces in the Libyan operation was a political and strategic mistake, it's entirely legal.
"Congress raises and supports the military, but the president is the commander. Declaring war and making war are two different functions. There's no question President Obama has the authority to do what he did," the official said, asking that his name not be used.
Mr. Obama's actions are consistent with the way every president since Richard Nixon has treated the War Powers Act, choosing to notify Congress only after a decision has been made to sign orders authorizing military operations.
His actions do, however, appear to contradict the view he expressed as a candidate. In December 2007, he told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a 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."
So who's right? Constitutional questions, and legal battles over violations of federal laws, are normally resolved by judges. But this is an area where the courts have been reluctant to tread, unwilling to referee what they see as disputes between the political branches of the government.
Leave a Comment:
Didn't Kaddafi order the bombing of PanAm 103?? What happened to fight them over there so we don't have to etc, etc?? Why are the repubs suddenly soft on terrorists?? ???
The executive branch of our government hasn't been using that document for quite awhile now. They have found that it gets in the way. After all, this is the same guy that decided he didn't like a law, so he wasn't going to defend it anymore. Our government is broke and I'm not sure if it is even possible to fix it.
Looks like a job for a knowledgeable constitutional scholar. Damn, there never seems to be one of those around when you need 'em. Anybody know the name of a really good one?
I know a really bad lawyer who used to "lecture" at the Univ of Chicago. Couldn't get the Professor job.
Anytime that a sovereign nation drops bombs or missiles into another sovereign nation it IS an act of war. You can call it whatever you want but it is an act of war. Call it a no-fly zone, call it a humanitarian effort call it rainbows and puppy dogs, its still an act of war. I have usually stood behind President Obama but I think this sets a really bad precedent and is wrong. If this is allowed, who is to stop a potential future president who is very conservative and a war-monger from doing something like this in other countries. While it might not make good political sense and that president may not get reelected, we might just have entered into WWIII at the whim of a president!
Acts of War, short of actual war declarations, are permitted under the War Powers Act. The beginning of WWIII has always existed since 1947, at the whim of the sitting president. You're a little late to that realization.
Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense'
Tuesday, 22 Mar 2011 01:16 PM
By Jim Meyers and Dan Weil
Nine liberal Democrats have found something they agree with Republicans on: President Barack Obama’s authorization of military strikes on Libya without congressional consent is unconstitutional.
Those Democrats join GOP critics, including Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even suggested that Obama’s action could be an “impeachable offense.”
Sen. Paul points out that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to declare war.”
“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist,” the freshman senator says in a statement on his congressional website.
“Frankly, it is not up to the president whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up ‘no-fly’ zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.”
Obama has no authority to launch military attacks under the War Powers Resolution, Paul argues, because the United States has not been attacked.
“This is not our fight,” he adds. “If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.”
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, echoes Paul’s view. “The United States does not have a King's army," he said in a statement Monday. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."
As for Sen. Lugar, he said in a congressional hearing last week, “If we are going to declare war against Libya, we ought to have a congressional declaration of war.”
And Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tweeted on Sunday that the president is treating Congress as a “potted plant.”
Hard-Core Liberals
On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.
One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.
“I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”
That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."
Kucinich now says he plans to offer up a measure that would defund U.S. efforts in Libya.
Another Democrat, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia — a former Marine and Navy secretary — complained on Monday on MSNBC that Congress has “been sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress.”
An Obama Flip-Flop
As an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama himself strongly stated that the president can’t authorize military action without congressional approval unless it’s necessary to stop an imminent attack on the United States.
In a December 2007 interview, a Boston Globe reporter asked Obama under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“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,” Obama responded.
But apparently his view has changed. On Monday, Obama sent Congress a letter stating that as commander-in-chief, he has constitutional authority to authorize the Libya strikes, which were made in concert with our allies. The White House also noted that Obama met with congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation Friday.
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, asked about Obama’s 2007 statement, said the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support,” according to The New York Times.
But he insisted Obama could authorize the action on his own. “This is a limited — in terms of scope, duration and task — operation, which does fall in the president’s authorities,” Donilon said.
Most constitutional scholars agree that our founding fathers purposely separated the power to decide to start a war from the power to conduct it. But since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without going to Congress first.
The split between presidents’ actions over the last 60 years and the Constitution’s text makes it difficult to conclude whether the attack on Libya is lawful, constitutional experts tell The Times.
Budget Buster
On the budget front, the attacks on Libya could erase much of the budget cuts Republicans pushed through Congress recently.
GOP leaders say those reductions have totaled $285 million a day since March 1. But defense analysts tell The Hill that the Libya action could be draining the Defense Department of more than $100 million per day.
“We are working on cost estimates,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. For now, the Defense Department is “cash flowing the Libyan operations out of funding available under the [2011] continuing resolution.”
Sen. Lugar says his colleagues should discuss the cost issue.
“Congress has been squabbling for months over a budget to run the federal government for a fiscal year that is almost half over,” he said in a statement Monday. “We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many people like. So here comes an open-ended military action with no end game envisioned.”
This dissertation would get bounced out of court in a heartbeat because in its initial pleading, it is both factually and legally in error. What Obama did with respect to Libya is NOT unconstitutional. Congress is vested the power to "declare" war but nothing in Article I or Article II forbids the president from using military force without such a declaration. Obama probably is in violation of the War Powers Act but that has never been declared constitutional on its face. The Act recognizes the existence of those presidential powers in matters involving the military, else its purpose would be without merit or reason. It is legislation of restraint which is in direct conflict with the Separation of Powers clause. I agree some handsome debate can be raised to the contrary, but the Supremes are only bound by the constitution itself, not the whims of congress.
How is Obama in violation of the War Powers Act? If the WPA is unconstitutional, as yet to be declared so by SCOTUS, then Obama would be unwittingly in violation of the Constitution, not the WPA. He is working within the constraints of the WPA. Is he not?
If it is all about the oil you democrat/commie wanna be,then why has my gas been climbing since you!elected the "Obamadud".Stalin said it best you are all "usefull idiots".
You should be happy to pay $7.50/ gallon for gas. If that breaks your budget, get a second job, or change your driving habits. Americans are addicted to cheap gasoline.
@Greg
BTW George W. Bush and his policies will indeed endure long.
Every year about 4,000 ex-republican military families will mourn the empty chairs at their Holiday tables.
All for nothing.
____________________________________________________________________
Well President Obama does not think so. He thanked the troops who fought Iraq for Bringing Democracy to the people of Iraq.
Here is his exact quote.
"I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all the men and women who have served in Iraq and who are currently serving in Iraq,'' Obama said in the short video posted on the White House website.
"Your dedication, your bravery, your courage, has made America safer and has helped stand up democracy in Iraq.''
It is hard to find this in the MSM.
So Greg, if Obama is thanking the troops for a job well done, is'nt he in fact thanking the Commander In Chief i.e President G.W.Bush for making the decision to send them in to bring about that democracy..
Apparently President Obama did not think so.
Obama violates the original, unamended, REAL constitution just by being in office! We need to repeal all the amendments, including the first ten, to return this country to greatness for some people and not all those others - you know what I'm talking about, because that's what you are thinking too. That is the only way to restore a holy text second only to our beloved Bible to it's original glory.
Get a grip dude, You're really into the "Holy Text" thing wayYYYYYYYYY too much !
And oh by the way, What exactly are you talking about "The REAL constitution" Dude there is no such thing, there is only one Constitution ( notice the Cap.) and it is the one we have NOW ! get over it !
Wait a minuet you want to take away the Bill Of Rights ! Is that what you just Said??????
Are you totally INSANE !
Mark have you had a lobotomy recently get rid of the Bill of Rights. No Christian I know of would endorse that sentiment. You are a lone wolf on this.
This post is probably the one post that can unite both sides as 99.5% will most definitely disagree with you.
US Congress of the past two years of doing nothing has to respect possibility that it is irrelevant, solving problems beyond its capability?
If military action in Libya is wrong, then how does it reflect on Iraq, Afghanistan? The constitution has been rendered useless by politics?
If having troops in Libya & dying is such a bad idea. What does it say for the causalities in the decade long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The US created the Libyan dictatorship because he was a madman, but he was our madman, justifying our future military presence in the area?
If military action in Libya is wrong, then how would it reflect on Iraq-Afghanistan? The Constitution has been rendered useless by politics?
Neither the Constitution nor Treasure of the U.S.A. matters when it comes to feeding oil dependency and sacrificing the capitalist system?
Finally, why are Americans so willing to succeed that they give up everything important, freedom, prosperity and hope for fearful security?
The answer to these questions and many others is clear the USA has had so much for so long that ever upward and onward has been easy, but whenever upward and onward is important enough to have to work more carefully to attain that same carefree and uninvolved story becomes its own barrier. After centuries of being united country, but being tolerant of utter neglect as to what kind of person we elect we have earned the governments we have elected. Who knows when we are going to come home from work, with the little energy we have left, and reject those who lie constantly waiting for the next election. The only worthwhile exceptionalism we have is the stupidity to believe what cannot possibly true and to keep believing it when it shown to wrong. And it is so wrong.
One term Obama has managed to place himself at the center of the crossfire.
Imam Obama has placed the USA military in harms way and forced them to attempt to eliminate, kill Libyans in Libya. Tragic move for a Kenyan to make, lasting mistake for an ex-president of the USA.
The progressives need to run opposition of Obama in a primary. The liar in Obama is great and growing.
I'm telling you all: Obama for UN Secretary General in 2012!
Wow, these comments have just sparked a moment of clarity! I finally understand why the right dislikes President Obama so much. So far President Obama has
So, President Obama waddles like one, quacks like one, and generally acts like one. Yep, President Obams is a REPUBLICAN. Heck, Abraham Lincoln is his hero and he quotes Reagan a lot. The President is even beginning to have that 'deer in the headlights' look that Mitch McConnel has. Who knows, maybe the President will begin crying at news conferences, too. Shoot, there are even questions about Barrack Obama legitimately being the president. Talk about following in your predecessor's footsteps ...
Here is the clarity == REPUBLICANS HATE OBAMA BECAUSE HE COMPROMISES WITH DEMOCRATS!!
And, to stay on topic just a little, all of you 50 USC people need to read through 22 USC. That title covers foreign relations. There are special provisions in there about using military force in the Middle East and there appear to be exceptions for needing Congressional approval.
WWII -
Lend-Lease was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of the European war in September 1939, but six months before the U.S. entrance into the war in December 1941. It was called An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States. Although it did not formally establish the United States as a combatant in the war, this act ended the pretense of its neutrality. Hitler recognized this and in response ordered German submarines to attack US vessels such as the SS Robin Moor, an unarmed merchant steamship sunk on 21 May 1941 outside of the war zone.
_____________
As I read articles from anti-war Americans these days, I'm reminded about WWII and how we as a country did not want to get into WWII. Churchill was desperate to get us to enter the war. London was getting brutally bombed. Hitler was marching across Europe. But the message was sent to FDR loud and clear - our country did not want to go to war in Europe. So FDR signed the Lend Lease as a means for our allies to fight the axis.
Bush does something and we heard about it every day, they had a daily count of the dead soldiers, and if Obama has a 'surge' in Afghanistan, it is praised and then forgotten about, it worked this time Obama did it.
Yes. Obama did usurp Congress, he did not seek their authority and should be called on this...
False. FAIL. FAUX NEWS strikes again.
AVATAR Rules
#7 Cuts and Pastes so much "noise" no one has the time to read the REAL peoples posts!
This is NOT about the LAWS the BANKSTERS have pasted in the last 60 years it is about BHO violating the United States Constitution NOW!
jerry
How did Obama "usurp" Congress. He has every right in the power of his office to order strikes as he did.
Man, you Obama haters are like alcoholics looking for any excuse to take another drink of hate tonic.
No wonder Red states are overwhelmingly the least educated and get far more money from the Fed than they pay out.
Just a bunch of uneducated welfare suckers complaining while the rest of us pay the way.
Forgive me for everyone else's ignorance, but where the hell does it say in the Constitution that the US can get involved in a Coup of a sovereign Gov't? B/c that is what not only the US, but the other countries of the "Coalition of the Willing" are doing right now. There was a failed Coup in Libya. The people rose up, with the help of some of the army, and it was beat down by Khadafy's military. That is what gov'ts do to protect themselves against a coup. They protect their power at all costs. If this was happening in the US, you could be damn well sure the gov't here would put down the rebellion with the strongest of intentions. And to make a point to future people to not try the same thing. See Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. Hell, we even infiltrate Environmental Groups, and all sorts of organizations in this country, for fear someone is trying to overthrow the gov't. And, if the US was defending itself against it's people, you can also be damn sure that the UN would not dare get involved against the US. So, the US, and UN are all hypocrites b/c there are also Coups going on in YEmen, an attempt in our Filling Station Country of Saudi Arabia, they are killing protesters left and right, and also jailing any opposition, but we don't say boo to those countries. And don't even get me started on Israel, as I don't want to be labeled an Anti-Semite, but we cow tail to those people too at the expense of over a million Palestinians.
We overstep our boundaries as a country the moment we got involved in another countries Coup-de-tete. Team America and the UN World Police are at it again. While people are dying in this country in Louisiana b/c of the oil clean-up, while a new 100 mile long by 25 miles wide new oil spill is going on again. People are dying, and losing lives here at home. But we go off and play war and waste $1 million a cruise missile we waste on Libya. Obama is Bush, only with a little darker skin.
Exactly....... well thought out!
Obama is the CinC.
Therefore, he has the authority to order airstrikes.
Just like Bush.
Just like Clinton.
Just like Reagan.
I don't see any Constitutional conflict whatsoever.
Look, Obama has done pretty well using the drones in Pakistan....it's been going on all during Obama's presidency.
I am no fan of Obama...but he IS in charge.
Who says? The Banksters?
Don't make me "cut & paste" the US Constitution on you!
American are never satisfied, they complaint everything Bush, Obama, and now this, they are hippocrates....
Our congress leaders as well....
A week ago I was still an Obama supporter. Not any more. He has lost all credibility with me. Domestic issues are important, but becoming another George Bush is a show stopper.
This war was none of our business. It was not in our interest to intervene. My heart goes out to the people of Libya. And to all that suffer.
We can't save everybody.
We're not saving "everybody". If this is your breaking point with Obama, you were never an informed supporter of him anyway. The benefits of our doing this greatly outweigh any risks and expense.
MUW
What part of the US Constitution did Obama violate?
Huh? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
I'll answer the question for you since right wingers aren't intelligent enough to answer questions.
There is no part he violated.
You will prove my point about the lack of intelligence thing..............You will attack me and have no point whatsoever......Check and mate.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
BHO ain't in the Congress anymore pilgrim!
So how do you figure he DIDN'T?
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
Nonsence please keep it German (or at least French) or show a little more intelligence please!
Avatar Rule #2
Attack the messenger NEVER the Message!
BTW Steve he STILL has to obey the cause to get a Declaration of War FIRST!
What war?
Am retired from the military and what a lot people do not understand is that the us army, navy and marines do not answer to congress because the president is commander- in- chief, a senator or a congressman cannot give the joint chiefs of staff orders, only the president and what has happened is the president is using his war power acts authority to justify supporting the UN no-fly zone. What amazes me is that a few years ago when Russia was bombing their rebels, the UN did not recommend a no-fly zone over Russia because Russia is a super power and they would have declared war on the UN for bombing their country, so being a superpower has its advantages. Last, think about this, what if a million people marched on the white house and demanded that the president and congress leave office right now, they would not step down and if violence erupted we may being doing the same thing as the other governments that are having problems with up risings.
The President is the CIC that is true but EVEN he must have Congressional approval to START a WAR!
Otherwise he has committed both high crimes and misdemeanors which REQUIRES Impeachment!
Sorry but it is the Supreme Law of the Land!
War? What war?
Again, what war?
MUW is refusing to understand the basic concept that not all armed forces hostilities rise to the status of war. Does he really think that a President with 8 minutes to live is going to wait for Congress to rule on whether he can declare Nuclear War during a Russian or Chinese Nuke attack? Your beef is with the War Powers Act, not the Constitution. The POTUS/CiC/"Unitary Executive exists to be able to make quick decisions and seek Congressional approval for continuation at a later date. He has 60 days.
MUW, the U.S. Constitution says that treaties are also part of the supreme law of the land. Our obligations to the treaty that created the U.N. makes this a lawful fight; we are bound by treaty, according to the constitution, to assist in this matter. The Supremacy Clause states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land"
Mary shooting Tomah-Hawk Missiles and launching fighter bombers at a Foreign Country is an ACT OF WAR even by stated "by Treaty". Please do not try to claim a War is not a War. It is a waste of all of our time.
Zappa I am sorry NOTHING in our UN Memberships Charter says WE GOT TO DO IT! Nothing!
Nor does the US Constitution allow for ANY other possible methods to TAKE US TO WAR, except as outlined above. Period... For the UN to be able to they must first add that Amendment to OUR Constitution. War is not a power that can be delegated to foreign powers and it is amazing any normal person would think so ANYWHERE!
"By Treaty" you are trying to make a "straw man" argument and it doesn't work legally or morally and the only reason BHO can do it is the Supreme Court has refuses to address this very issue for over 60 years.
The Oligarchs are allowed to continue to make obscene War Profits and US pay for the privilege. Our kids no longer have Head-Start School Lunches or a Future.......
BTW I try and read all of the new posts when I can so PLEASE put any comments as a new post at end of the thread OK. Back Reading Posts waste time I rather spend researching or reading & listening to new opinions.
Vote Paul/Nader 2012 Investigate/Prosecute/Incarcerate!
In case you haven't noticed, the NWO is forming and has been for many, many years; even before Mr. Obama came along. The USA is and will be the leading military peacekeeping force of the world! Pay attention to what is going on! It won't matter who is in the Oval Office. It has all been decided. Get off Mr. Obama's back. The only thing I'm reading here (by many) is a bunch of racism.
Proamerica, you should pick another name. Proamerica you are NOT!! Your racism is showing big time!!!
MUW
Obama didn't do anything you just described.
Sorry if you aren't smart enough to understand, perhaps you heard that on some right wing propaganda show somewhere but when you deal with people who are clearly more intelligent than you are you might want to make an argument above the 5th grade level.
You just look like a paranoid partisan freak.
Care to try again?
hahahahahhahahahhahaa
Nonsence who sounds Paraniod?
I am very Partisan I only support AMERICA never the do no wrong BANKSTERS!
Unlike YOU obvously!
Hey MUW
Did Reagan violate the US Constitution when he sold arms to Iran and sent the money to Central American rebel forces?
Obsolutely! Happy now?
REAGAN started this entire economic / war I don't have to obey Congress or Constistution MESS!
gee some people really do have memories like Gold Fish