E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Sylvie Stein
Once again, the overlapping war-making roles of Congress and the president have come into conflict – this time over U.S. operations in Libya.
Yesterday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama demanding that he provide a cogent explanation for committing troops to Libya no later than Friday. If Obama continues involvement in NATO operations and does not comply with this deadline, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution, Boehner warns.
Sunday will be the 90th day since Obama notified Congress of U.S. military deployment to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, designed to protect the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) – now recognized by fourteen countries as the legitimate government of Libya – fighting Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. U.S. forces initiated the no-fly zone, with Obama saying he felt compelled to act because Qaddafi threatened to “show no mercy” to his own citizens who opposed him.
“The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation,” Boehner said in the letter.
Though the White House has obeyed the law by notifying Congress of the initial involvement in Libya, and by reporting – at more than ten hearing and thirty briefings – the status of U.S. commitment, the Obama administration never sought congressional approval.
“We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya,” White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Tuesday. He added that the White House will also explain what the Obama administration views as legal grounds for continuing operations in Libya without authorization from Congress.
Meanwhile, Senator John McCain advised against undermining Obama in what could be a crucial moment in expelling Qaddafi.
“Let’s be very careful that the Congress does not say something… that would encourage Qaddafi to believe that somehow we have lost our commitment to him leaving office,” McCain said.
Leave a Comment:
When warmongers like McCain come to your defense, seems to me its time to reassess your actions.
I'm torn on this one Indy! If you remember I vehemently opposing getting involved in the first place...
Having said that, we're there & if there's any chance of dethroning Gaddafy (sp?) then I think we should carry out the mission...
Only wish my damned crystal ball wasn't on the *blink* today.
I was all for stopping genocide, but I want it to end as quickly as possible.
I don't think America should be the world's police man, but that isn't what is happening in Libya.
Ah, don't sweat it Feisty. My view on the matter comes from being a bull-headed monolithic non-interventionist.
LOL That's why WE love you!
{blush}
Well, a Bi-Partisan group of congress (3 D's, 7 R's) just sued the President's Administration for his actions in Libya. This should get interesting now.
Mix in the ATF selling guns to Mexican drug cartels that are used to kill border agents and the administration is having a bit of a tough week.
The article says: He added that the White House will also explain what the Obama administration views as legal grounds for continuing operations in Libya without authorization from Congress.
This should be interesting. It appears as though Obama wants to continue without having to explain to Congress and getting their approval. I'm wondering what sort of chikanery he's going to pull.
I guess this doubles down that Obama has more of a warmongering attitude than Bush... considering we haven't gotten out of Iraq or Afghanistan as he promised... now creating another battlefront.
And the libs are shapeshifting as usual. It doesn't matter what Obama does. It doesn't matter what they said about Bush's illegal war... If Obama does it, it's okee dokee with the libs.
Feisty's first comment is fascinating.
Now let's apply that to Iraq and Afghanistan, eh old gal?
Isn't is just peachy that Feisty, and I presume all the libbies [cause none seem to be complaining too much] are all about "carrying out the mission."
That kinda seems to be the opposite of what they wanted to do when is was that other Cowboy - Bush. Gosh, remember what Reid said? We had LOST in Iraq.
Lovely, but do tell Feisty, what is the mission? ANd what is the mission in the other two wars that the Commander in Chief continues to wage?
Priceless spin from the libbies. It really would be funny if it was not so sad.
What it boils down to Spanky is when a modern democrat is commander in chief, military action loses direction. History shows that LBJ totally screwed up Viet Nam. Carter couldn't rescue our personnel in Iran. Now we have an inedpt, but warmongering narcisist doing his level best to screw up the military again.
The one provision in the Constitution I feel is the most important is for the government to provide for the protection of this country. Anytime we have a democrat in office, I shudder.
I really love the way the sides flip-flop when their party is/isn't in the WH...
Can you really imagine a democrat being FOR, or a republican AGAINST any intervention anywhere if the president was a republican?...:)
It's strange... when you dive into news from foreign press from throughout the world... it paints a distinctly different picture for the situation in Libya as opposed to American press. For starters, they point out the terrorist ties of the rebels, the lack of popularity for the rebels by Libyan citizens, as well as pointing out that Libya has enjoyed the highest rate of improvement for living standards of any African nation under Qaddafi, and that's not even to mention how the rebels have perpetrated acts of violence against non-combatants.
Critical/editorial foreign press regarding the United State's rhetoric and the allies regarding a sovereign nation's ability to assert rule in its own land is something to marvel at. Here we have a dictator who told the rebels and the citizens that support them, that they shall either lay down their arms, or face no mercy... being represented and portrayed indirectly as a mass murdering, kill any citizen, abuse his people tyrant.
At what point and time do we finally recognize that we should keep our nose in our own damn business? At what point and time do we begin seeing both sides of the coin?
We have no business in Libya... and McCain can blow it out his ass.
It's nice to see a "Kadaffy" supporter, here to correct the record on this extremely popular and just ruler of the sovereign nation of Libya, who is under attack by the forces of evil who should just mind their own beeswax...
You should really use links to the articles from the "foreign press" that you've gathered here so that we all can see for ourselves exactly how this poor man has been misrepresented.
What a travesty that our government controlled media lies about this man, who as you contend is wrongly..."being represented and portrayed indirectly as a mass murdering, kill any citizen, abuse his people tyrant."
So please fill in the sources for these helpful facts about the unjust intervention against this peace loving sovereign nation by the evil forces of NATO...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's strange... when you dive into news from foreign press from throughout the world... Links?
1-For starters, they point out the terrorist ties of the rebels,
2-lack of popularity for the rebels by Libyan citizens,
3-That Libya has enjoyed the highest rate of improvement for living standards of any African nation under Qaddafi,
4-the rebels have perpetrated acts of violence against non-combatants.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
looking forward to your continued support of the Colonel and those links to the "foreign press"
http://oleafrica.com/recent-post/with-all-the-bad-things-about-muammar-gaddafi-what-good-and-notable-contributions-did-have-on-africa.php
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html
http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2010/08/28/opinion/doc4c77bc310a77c020661397.txt?viewmode=fullstory
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR05_complete.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/05-06-2011/118114-libya_nato-0/
I'm gonna just stop there... you can use Google and search on your own if you were actually curious. What you'll find is that Africa and Libya actually like Qaddafi. Granted that there is a long history of issues between him and the west throughout the start of his rule, through the Cold War and even into the 90s, but towards the end of the 90s and certainly for the past decade Qaddafi has made large steps in reforming not only Libya's image, but also Africas.
You can find news from Russia to China to what little bit of news comes out of Africa to begin shaking out the bugs in our press and NATO. You can also use a little bit of logic and consider why a man who has been improving social security, and education in his country as well as seeking improved relations with the western nations, a seat in the UN, developing its oil trade, and improving tourism would do a 180 and start killing civilians without cause. Of course, you can also read how Qaddafi has even been providing arms to civilians to help put down the rebellion too. Or you can stay enclosed in a little box surrounded by one source news articles that talk to a US admiral/commander and a rebel leader who say Qaddafi is out murdering civilians with rocket attacks... yet have nothing to show for it.
Finally... it's a cute sarcastic reply dangerfield, and your assumption that I support Qaddafi is just that. In reality my opinion of the situation stops with where I think our involvement should... Libya and Qaddafi's rule... this intervention... it is none of our business. Whether the man stays in power or not is none of my concern, how he rules his country and handled the rebellion would be up to him... however now that the United States has decided to poke its over grown nose into the situation; I think I am allowed to point out the lack of clarity and skewed message being delivered by press here.
I wonder what you would think if the Tea Party decided to actually rebel against the leaders of this country... and suddenly China and its allies decide to recognize their effort and leadership and fly over here to stop the US military from applying its superior strength under the guise of a humanitarian effort. Maybe you're okay with that prospect...
Is the War Powers Act just another law Obama doesn't feel like enforcing? You know, like the illegal immigration laws he ignores.
Hey, look on the bright side; it's okay with John McCain.
Yeah, Obama's got that going for him.
What's Sarah think?
Just to be serious for a minute, just what is the plan if/when Gaddafi is exterminated? Who or what exactly do we have in mind to replace him? And how is that better than what is there now? These are just some basic questions that Obama needs to answer to.
Why would you do that to me? I promised myself never again to mention she-who-must-not-be-named and their you go with a perfect set-up. {self-control mode initiated}
As for any post-Gaddafi plans, I tend to be very cynical.
The republicans ignored the law for eight years under Bush, whats another couple of years matter.
Are Newt's negatives lower then Palin's?
Sorry IL, I just edited in some more background questions.
And I didn't say which Sarah I was talking about (Silverman).
Indy Lib
If it's ok with John McCain, what does the law say regarding this kind of commitment? GOP will always be on the opposite side of the president in every debate even if it is what they've always supported. In as much as am against any kind of war especially at this trying period of this country, I was for this war. But the law should always be upheld at any giving time. I'll expect the president to act wisely.
How? Congress approved the actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It would take this administration no time to go through the process.
Just another basic question the Libs will not answer. Just more mindless drivel trying to blame Bush for something else he didn't do.
The goals for the Libs used to be "Barack Obama - Best President Ever!"
Now its "Barack Obama - Well, he might be a little better than Bush, maybe."
Forgive my assumption JS. Of course I would be interested in what the dazzlingly brilliant, stunningly beautiful Sarah Silverman would have to say.
Alan, as for your comment in 2.7, thats because only a handful of senators and congressmen (namely Russ Feingold and Ron Paul) actually had the guts to stand up to Bush and his ridiculous claim that opposing the wars was unpatriotic.
I don't disagree. I was for the original action in Afghanistan. That is where the perpetrators of 9/11 were located. I am against it now (actually from around 2005) as I don't understand what we are now trying to achieve. Iraq was always BS. However, as much as I was against the Iraq war, Bush did comply with the law, and used a UN resolution to justify it as much as Obama is using a UN resolution to justify Libya. On the principal of this there is very little daylight between the two (you may have an argument on scale). I really don't understand why Obama does not comply with the War Powers requirements. It seems kind of petty to me.
At the end of the day though I have no idea why we are picking sides in a civil war in Libya because the justifications that have been used for our intervention could be used to justify an intervention in Syria.
It really is stunning. Obama violates the law and the response: John McCain. Really, that's what you libbies got?
It really does look like to the libbies two wrongs make a right.
1. Obama signs tax cuts for the rich, but they are still magically "Bush's tax cuts."
2. Obama puts on a big old cowboy hat and starts blowing away North Africans, but it's ok cause Bush wore a cowboy hat.
3. Weiner gets his pecker in a stitch, but it's ok cause Vitter is bad.
and my favorite libbie-ism
4. Republicans screw the middle class through tax cuts.
Sorry to break it to you all, but there have always been a butt-load of dems in congress. In fact they have written a great many tax codes.
It is just impossible for them to take responsibility.
This :"debate" sounds like an old bitter married couple reiterating the same tired argument they have been having for years...
You are both (left and right) "them"...and they never learn...
Dangerfield, that's because its all about party first with most folks. "Maybe my guy did this but your guy did that." I can't differenciate that easily; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, all bad; it don't matter who's in charge.
I call it the "selective outrage of the partisan"...
Yankee fans HATED Johnny Damon when he was a Red Sox, but they LOVED him in pinstripes...if you get my drift...
Heh, excellent analogy.
FR: Though the White House has obeyed the law by notifying Congress of the initial involvement in Libya, and by reporting – at more than ten hearing and thirty briefings – the status of U.S. commitment, the Obama administration never sought congressional approval.
“We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya,” White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Tuesday. He added that the White House will also explain what the Obama administration views as legal grounds for continuing operations in Libya without authorization from Congress.
If you need legal grounds to justify your actions without authorization or consent of Congress then you must think you are in violation of some law(s). Otherwise why provide justification. That 90 day deadline is approaching quickly. I, for one, would like some clarification as to why and what we are doing there and for how long we intend to stay there and is there a strategy if Gaddafi remains in power.
BTW..McCain is right. You don't want to tip your hand to the Gaddafi IF we intend to continue our mission there.
I dunno, we keep bombing his compound and anywhere we think he might be, I think Gaddafi gets the message of what we/NATO are up to.
JoAnnaSmith1..
Not we, NATO. The French and British are launching strikes from from THEIR ships. Missiles are being fired from THEIR ships. As far as I know from reading the news, we helped establish a no fly zone and took out command and control. We then turned it over to the French and British who do have boots on the ground. We are in a support mission only.
Question is, does support include providing special forces and CIA "advisors" to the rebels? The answer to that and why this action does not fall under The War Powers Resolution Act should be interesting.
Groucho Marx,
Perhaps it's time for the U.S. to get out of NATO. After all didn't you once say: "I wouldn't want to join any club or organization that would have me as a member?''
TorpedoYou...
Exactly right.
I also said the other day that Gates called NATO a fiasco and wanted us to re-evaluate our continued involvement there.
Part of the reason we deployed to Libya in the first place was in support of our NATO allies.
You are correct Groucho - But does that give the president the go-ahead to not get congressional approval? I don't think so. Sometimes it's hard to figure out the motives of Obama. Personally I feel he's of the opinion that he is above the law. Didn't he once say, "If it weren't for the Constitution, I'd be able to do a lot more?"
Don't forget -- leave no stone unturned by any Republican that they can use to throw at the President. Boehner is un american and himself in violation of the law by his attempt to hire an outside attorney to defend the DOMA.
Weeper of the House has demands!
Hey, Weeper, here's a demand....where are the jobs?
Chilled. He never had any plans for jobs, except his own.
I know Patrick.....
...just thought to bring up another one of the Teapublican talking points that really is important, but they seem unable to address.
The Teapublicans just move from one talking point to another!...The American People want jobs!
Keep talking about jobs, you two, and you'll get Spankie and JAS back on here like mad hornets. Now quit it.
Talk about them all you want. Drive By, did you see the economic numbers this morning?
Oh My!
But tell us Pat/Chilled what are Obama's plans for job creation? Kinda looks like he has given up.
Chilled in making you demand are you admitting that Obama cannot do anything, whereas the all powerful GOP can?
That would fit with the libbie meme - that everything is the GOP's fault, because the dems are powerless to do anything on their own.
Even appaerently when they ha that sweet super-majority. Crazy, right Chilled?
"Tea party summer camp teaches kids about Communist Europe and the gold standard" Poor kids, these guys are indoctrinating the next generation.
Would the parents of these children be the same ones that objected loudly when the President of the United States of America told their kids to study and work hard in school? Jeekers, y' s'pose?!
So Pat, why is it you have a problem with kids learning about Communist Europe and the gold standard?
What would you teach them? Or is it you didn't learn about history and economics when you were a kid?
How is that working out from you now?
Our president is a constitutional lawyer. Boehner is a drunk womanizing cry baby. Would be interesting and funny to see him take on our President in a legal fight over what is constitutional and legal and what is not. I bet even Republicans, like McCain and Rove and Romney, would bet on our President winning this one.
So am I getting this correct---the White House has complied with the law---in initial reporting as well as later hearings and briefings---but there is still a problem with the White House doing what everyone was clamoring for it to do in the first place? And it is being done in a way that other nations are supporting the risk and cost and there is still a problem. I think New Day had it exactly right on an earlier post---oppositional defiance.
I would add that Nashville_Fan also hit the nail on the head earlier, when she mentioned Boehner couldn't pick up the phone instead of calling a press conference...
Anyone who doesn't believe this is purely partisian politics - needs to pull their head out of their (fill in the blank)!
Come out of the darkness & into the light for a change...
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL.
Apparently the phones in the White House are out of order also.
It is the President who is required to keep Congress advised and not the opposite.
When you lose an ally like Webb, that says a lot about your actions.
Steeler Fan-380417..
No you are incorrect. The President needs Congressional approval to continue US actions in Libya. His authority to keep troops deployed is good for 90 days, expiring Sunday.
He cannot keep troops deployed indefinitely without an extension of the act or a declaration of war.
Groucho:
According to this article, the Congress has been briefed quite well on Libya. The 90 days you keep talking about applies to combat operations. The U.S. is not involved in combat operations in Libya, so I really don't understand why you are insisting that we are. You say he can't keep troops deployed indefinitely when we don't have any combat troops deployed in Libya at all. What's the deal?
“troops deployed”
First I heard that there were boots on the ground. Tell me more …..
Nashville_fan..
The act also addresses US operations in a support function.
We have ships and aircraft in the area acting in a support role.
Again, define support. Does support include providing special forces and CIA "advisors" to the rebels? Are we flying any missions to enforce the no fly zone. None of these questions have been answered. I'm not a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar but the WH said..."administration views as legal grounds for continuing operations in Libya without authorization from Congress."
Seems he needs the approval of Congress. right?
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
“troops deployed”
First I heard that there were boots on the ground. Tell me more …..
The French and the British have special forces on the ground advising the rebels and as spotters for helicopter strikes, air strikes and close combat support. It was on NBC and other main stream media.
That's why I am asking do we have our special ops guys on the ground doing the same thing?
I just want to know if we are headed towards another war.
Groucho:
Simply put, the President is under no "deadline" from the War Powers act, as implied by Speaker Boehner. The War Powers act specifically excludes troops used in a supporting role. "Support" means not shooting. So in actuality, what we have here is a smoke screen cleaverly deployed by the Speaker.
Well played but not valid.
Now if we wanna talk about if what is going on in Libya is right or wrong, that's a different conversation. But the War Powers talk is simply not valid, based on a reading of the actual law, and not letters from the Speaker designed to provide catnip to the media.
Nashville_fan..
With all due respect to your reading and understanding of the law the White House comment was as follows:
White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Tuesday that the White House will also explain what the Obama administration views as legal grounds for continuing operations in Libya without authorization from Congress.
That authorization is required under the war powers act.
The fact that they are going to make a case seems like a whole lot of people think they need authorization and they think they don't and here's why?
Groucho:
I am about to head home, but I don't think that explaining why they don't think the War Power's Act applies in the case of Libya means that they actually need authorization and are trying to side step that obligation.
I think it means that they are keeping the American people and Congress and informed, and that the U.S. is not involved in combat operations in Libya, so there are actually no "War Powers" being used at this time there.
But like I said earlier, time will tell.
Nashville_fan..
Have a good night.
This is entirely off topic, but it occurred to me that people might be interested in the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the collective bargaining case. I suggest that you pay particular attention to the concurring/dissenting opinion (beginning at paragraph 74) by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, with whom I have worked personally, and whom I find to be among the smartest, hardest-working, fairest people I have ever met. She has been elected to the court several times, including once again last year. Her opinion is, to say the least, instructive. Truly thinking people always learn a lot from Justice Abrahamson, who could easily -- and often does -- dance legal circles around the rest of the lightweights that make up the current majority, at least three of whom, including Justice Prosser, are demonstrably bought and paid for by out-of-state campaign money, and at least two of whom came to office under serious ethical clouds.
No one on this site has qualifications to question Justice Abrahamson's reasoning or integrity.
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=66078
For those who haven't paid attention, the entire case on behalf of the legislature is that it is free to ignore any legislation or any rules that it makes whenever it wants to do so. The conservative majority took just one day to decide to take the case and then decided the case the same day.
In doing so, they not only broke with long-standing precedent for Supreme Court procedure, but they also made Assembly leader Jeff Fitzgerald's uncanny prediction from Monday come true that the Court would decide the case yesterday.
Even the Chief Justice smells conspiracy in the air, labeling the poorly reasoned order and accompanying decision by Justice Prosser the product of a pre-determined outcome. She and Justice Patrick Crooks also identify numerous errors of fact in law that riddle the opinion and make a mockery of Wisconsin's judicial traditions, including citing facts that were not in the record before the Court.
If that sounds a little fishy to you, imagine how it sounds to us. As Justice Abraham observed, "The four justices are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." And the legislature is not entitled to ignore the law just because it wants to, on any given day.
Whatever you think of the merits of the collective bargaining bill, ask yourself if this is the kind of arbitrary and authoritarian government you want to have. Because we're already there.
AM-
Can you comment on the readership of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?
Yesterday, I was scrolling through the responses to their initial article about the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling (at that time, over 800 offerings), and the folks weighing in were overwhelmingly in favor of the Court's decision.
It wasn't even close.
Any thoughts?
Yes, the Journal-Sentinel readership is mostly conservative, being mostly those people who live in the Milwaukee suburbs and points north, which also tend to be highly conservative.
Well, where the rest of that post went, I hardly know. But I suspect that most of those people who commented didn't even bother to read the opinion. I found these words by Justice Abrahamson, drawing on a previous dissenting opinion by the great U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, to be particularly apt:
In his opinion (in Olmsted v United States), Justice Brandeis had stated:
Anna Molly: thanks for the analysis. I was wondering what had happened there. What is next?
Honestly, AM-
Which ordinary voters in ANY state take the time to read the ruling, word-for-word, of a decision of their own state's high court?
I admit...
I didn't do that in this case.
Of course...I don't even live in Wisconsin!
But...I know what the Court said.
Sometimes at this site, you might get the impression that there are no right-of-center voters in Wisconsin...which of course, belies the results of last year's midterm elections. Progressives like yourself (I know you'll correct me if you feel I've got this wrong) believe that the dynamics of those elections have been altered by overreaching of Governor Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature.
The responses from the readership of the Journal Sentinel to the latest Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling suggest that Governor Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin State legislature still have the support of many in Wisconsin.
So...
Anna Molly...your predictions:
What outcome do you feel it's reasonable to expect (NOT what you hope for) in the recall elections of 6 Republican and 3 Democratic Wisconsin State Senators?
What's the net change in the current make-up of the Wisconsin State Senate, AM?
My God is this a pathetic attempt to characterize someone as God's gift to state Supreme Courts. Abrahamson is one of seven. Certainly she has the right to her opinion, as do the other justices (who also have worked very hard to get where they are at). This constant ridicule and smear characterisations by you Anna Molly of people you disagree with, as well as others on the Left doing the same, is getting a bit boring. And now you're off building conspiracy theories, good Lord.
You lost a political battle. Nothing more. Nothing les'se. The Wisconsin SC said the lower courts cannot meddle in the legislative actions of the state legislator. Live with it.
Responding to Mixed Bag:
I think there will be some successful recalls, but whether there will be a net of 3 for the Democrats is still in some doubt. One problem they face is the phony democratic candidates inserted by the republicans at the last minute in an attempt to confuse the voters.
If this whole thing doesn't make right-thinking people angry, then nothing ever will.
You're right that there is an ideological split in Wisconsin, but this uproar has actually had the effect of changing some places that were traditionally red to blue, such as Paul Ryan's own district. On the other hand, it has also had the effect of solidifying and energizing the conservative base in the eastern third of the state. So, where all of this goes will depend on the determination of both sides. And a lot of out-of-state money will be applied to influence that.
The legislature took the position in this litigation that it doesn't have to follow its own rules or statutes that it enacts, and that the courts have no say in this. The Madison district attorney, prosecuting the case against the legislation, took the position that the legislature did not have the right to do so because the particular statute at issue -- the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law -- has a specific underpinning in the Wisconsin Constitution. That the Open Meetings Law is grounded in the Constitution seems clear from the review of the statute and its legislative history in Justice Crooks' opinion. As for whether the Court had the authority to overturn the legislature's action for flagrantly violating the Open Meetings Law, perhaps the best source for understanding that would be the Court's decision in State ex rel. LaFollette v. Stitt, where, as summarized by Justice Crooks, the Court said:
Using that long-standing authority, the Court has since reviewed several legislative actions based on compliance with a procedural statute. As Justice Abrahamson points out, the majority either ignored or glossed over all of this precedent in furtherance of its result-oriented quest to decide the case BEFORE the legislature voted on the budget bill.
Ask yourself what you would think about this if a Democratic legislature had done the same thing, and then acknowledge, as I know you will, that I would have opposed that, too. And so should you oppose this, if you're really honest with yourself, as I know you are.
Bag Boy, you know as well as anyone here I'm trying to be as honest as possible about this. In the end this doesn't really have much to do with the collective bargaining rights of public employees. This travesty could have occurred with ANY piece of legislation that Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers chose to ram through the legislature. This has to do with what amounts to a naked power grab by one group that is willing to break the rules and ignore the law and trample over the long-established rights of others in order to establish its own agenda, aided by several corrupt justices who are willing to play along.
We've seen this before, I think. In 2000. As applied to Florida.
Back to the smears, as if you ever stopped. "Corrupt justices" - because they disagree with you. Com'on AM, unless you have proof of this, real proof, not something off a thinkprogress lite website, it's time you took a good hard look at what you claim.
And don't forget, Wisconsins budget is now balanced.
Naked power grab. Huh. Well the good news is we will get to see, won't we? If it truly is a power grab, then surely the citizens will rise up and smite the evil Walker and co., right?
See AM, I get you are a true liberal, and in my view an actual idealist, but the fact is most don't care nearly as much as you. In fact most could basically care less.
Us ill-informed conservatives look to see how we are doing - is it our job, our family, our taxes? We don't buy into good v. evil as much as the libbies, plus we know the unions are doing all right, and in many cases better than us private sector slobs.
We also see a bunch of highly paid congress folk literally cutting and running when things didn't go their way. That was the wrong thing to do. And for that there are consequences.
But I think you know that, and know there will be no net gains from recalls.
1. You lost in 11/10;
2. you lost when they voted in their programs;
3. you lost when the dems cut and run;
4. you lost the Prosser vote;
5. you lost this ruling; and
6. you will "lose" the recalls.
Status Quo and you are on the wrong side.
But keep fighting the good fight.
Naked power grab. Would that "naked power grab" be when the Democrats in the Wisconsin state legislator ran away from their sworn duties to prevent a vote they knew they would lose? Would that disenfranchisement of all the voters in Wisconsin be a "naked power grab"?
Wisconsin is not unique with its limiting of collective bargaining for public employees. Most states, and the federal government, do the same thing. Wisconsin though is the location the unions made their last stand. They pumped millions into the state, and will continue to do so in their attempt to influence the recall elections (they'll fail, again). They really have no choice , they (the public unions) see the writing on the wall that it's over for them. They had to try something, it just didn't work out for them. They too will live with it.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Shirley_Abrahamson
Justice Shirley Abrahamson:
I live in California, Anna Molly.
We have had an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature for as long as I can remember...regardless of who occupied the governor's mansion.
Democrats have shaped the present state of the state in California, and they'll shape the state's future.
That is, to the extent that California has a future.
I'm leaving California.
Good luck, Spanky.
So what?
Her qualifications mean absolutely nothing. Is she smart? Sure.
How about Kloppy's resume? You were all for her, correct?
Like I said - a true idealist. Problem is all these issues facing you and your state are real world, time to pay the piper stuff.
I do wonder, does the lovely and talented Chief Justice have a practical bone in her body? Any real world experience? Ever have to run a business or make a payroll?
Anna, no one is saying Justice Abrahamson is not a learned woman. She in fact has remarkable credentials. No one is saying Justice Abrahamson is corrupt, in fact she looks to be scandal free. No one is saying Justice Abrahamson is part of a conspiracy, there is no evidence to support that notion at all. She is by all accounts an honorable woman with a great legal mind, and is a wonderful role model. But so are the other six justices on that court, and is this case they just disagree.
What does 14 years in private practice say to you? She worked all kinds of cases in that time, which I know for a fact. She gets "real world" experience every day on the court by having to make decisions that have real impact in the real world. By the way, how much criminal experience to YOU have, just as one example? She has a staff so she manages personnel. She manages the court as Chief Justice. You might also ask the same question about Justice Prosser, who spent most of his career in the Wisconsin legislature without being half so distinguished at that as Justice Abrahamson.
Before becoming a high-court judge, Prosser was a Republican member of Wisconsin State Assembly, (the lower house of the state legislature), for 18 years, serving six of those years as minority leader and two as assembly speaker. He also served as a commissioner on a state tax appeals board, and as a district attorney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prosser,_Jr.
Or even Justice Ziegler:
For fun, maybe you should look up Justice Ziegler's ethics record and her family ties to business interests that she frequently did not disclose while she was a judge deciding cases that impacted on those interests.
And then maybe you should look up Justice Gableman's ethics record, too. His only defense to being accused of lying in a campaign ad was that it was protected by the First Amendment. Just like Anthony Weiner's tweets.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/97557794.html
That might be persuasive if only it were true. Maybe you should look it up.
Do tell? Bound for where?
One more thing for Spanky:
You say "idealist" like it's a dirty word or something. I'm proud of it. Being an idealist doesn't make me wrong.
By suggesting that idealism is somehow not a desirable characteristic, all you do is say something about yourself. You signal that you advocate taking the low road whenever it serves your interests. In other words, the ends justify the means. Expedience over principle.
Call it what you will, but I prefer to live by different rules.
For both Spanky and JoAnna. From now on, I intend to make a journal to catalog all the things you either advocate or defend, and how those things shift like the sand, depending on whether it forwards your interests. I'm sure it will be amusing someday to review that. Idealism it ain't.
Maybe Boehner's real beef is we don't have enough troops in Libya, to take down the tyrant and show the Middle East what democracy brings? Time to hit the google: Boehner>quotes>Iraq War:
“ When we support our troops, we support them all the way — there is no such thing as supporting our troops, but not their mission....That’s why I and my fellow Republicans stood on principle and supported the new strategy in Iraq, fortified by a surge of U.S. troops.
Not everyone was convinced, however. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) claimed that the strategy had failed just weeks after it had begun. Her views were echoed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who declared in April 2007 that “this war is lost.”
Then-Sen. Barack Obama, who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, flatly declared that the troop surge would not work: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
...While the administration continues seeking credit for “ending the combat mission” in Iraq, it is important to remember that this transition was made possible by the very surge that President Obama and Vice President Biden opposed."
http://www.johnboehner.com/?tag=war-on-terror
All I would suggest is that folks actually read the War Powers Act (of 1973) for themselves before drawing a conclusion.
It does not say what you think it says.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html
The United States has not deployed troops to Libya. The operations ongoing there are NATO led. The War Powers Act makes an exception for forces deployed for training and support.
Speaker Boehner had a very different view of these same powers in the not so distant past:
So in summary, there are some legitimate questions to be asked about U.S. involvement in Libya, but the War Powers angle is not one of them in my humble opinion.
Great so according to you any old cowboy president with a burr up his butt can bomb the hell out of anyone and any country he wants.
So what prevents that if not the War Powers Act?
I don't know about you, but I kind of like the checks and balances system we had.
Nashville
If you don't think that what we are engaging in in Libya and Yemen are acts of war you are simply a fool. Despite your interpretation of the War Powers act, there is still the little nagging issue of the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war, not the President. Engaging in war without Congress first declaring war is a direct violation of the Constitution. The war Powers Act does not trump the Constitution. In fact, the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional in that it delegates, temporarily, Congressional powers to the President without a Constitutional Amendment allowing them to do so.
Kevin:
Thanks for calling me a fool and then contradicting yourself in your own post.
Well played.
We are not involved in combat operations in Libya no matter how bad you want to believe we are. That is just a fact Kevin.
anyone who who thinks that we are not 100% involved in liyba does not want to know. The brits and french don't fart unless the us says its ok. believe me if we weren't there, they wouldn't be either.. o, i'm sorry. we're just dropping bombs. if this was bush we all know what the libs would be saying. now we're also bombing yemen. i'm sure that will win the hearts and minds of the yemens. and anyone notice we don't capture terrorist anymore? we just kill them. thats one way to stop waterboarding. also no intell.
On a brighter note, after the stimulus started when the President took office, it has saved or created over 1 million jobs...oops, I meant lost over 1 million jobs. Nice work...
you lie! we gained jobs!
Good one Pat!
War Powers Act
Under section 1543.a.2, the president had 48 hours from the time he put our armed forces (this includes Navy) in a hostile area including imposing in foreign, hostile airspace to notify congress of the why, where and provide a timeline of our intervention.
under section 1544.b.2, the president shall TERMINATE the presence and activities of US armed forces in a hostile region unless congress gave an extension, declared war, etc.
So, under the above, he is definitely guilty.
Bush got approval within 60 days, but he was a lying crook too :) I'm unilateral in my disgust with the avante-guarde handling of the constitution by our last two sitting presidents.
And an addendum: the president shall TERMINATE our interference after 60-days unless he receives further authorization from congress, etc etc etc.
Go read it for yourselves. Good stuff.
Bush cleared the way for a president doing whatever he wants!
Spying on u.s citizens by BUSH ! = JUST one Of SO MANY EXAMPLES !
How we forget !
I think I stated I was disgusted with Bush, too.
I don't think you actually added anything pertinent to the discussion, Old GOP.
At no point was I weighing in on Bush other than to say 'not a fan', in passing.
Obama, however, is flat-out guilty.
<Although i didn't vote for Bush in either election, I did vote for Obama and I apologize to all for my rash and reckless actions. Sowwy, I won't do it again!>
Translation: The puppet in chiefwill continue this unconstitutional war regardless of what Congress and American citizens want.
Like This is EVEN CLOSE to LYING to MAKE a WAR HAPPEN ?
We all Know IRAQ !
Old GOP,
your post perfectly illustrates why I am an independent. What does the Iraq war have to do with Libya? Are you trying to say since some retarded republican started a terrible war it's OK to excuse this one brought on by a Democrat?
By the way, if you still believe this war is about "protecting civilians" you are an idiot! That being said this war was started by an Obama/Nato lie of protecting civilians. This was started without congressional approval...NOT OK. BOTH WARS ARE/WERE WRONG! Please hang up your "political Party" hat and see if you still have any brains under it!
HAHA Go get em 96ws6 I read so many stupid posts by people blindly following a political party it is sick! If people would start listening to both sides they would realize most on both sides are liars and you have to choose who you vote for very carefully. Not by if they claim to be Democrat or Republican, but what they stand for and by their voting record so you can make sure they do not lie about what they stand for. Any politician that says one thing and votes the other way should be hung politically by the voters but people in this country still have not seemed to figure this out. Most are too blinded by Party Lines.
One has to wonder what the hell Obama is doing/thinking. He is apparently willing risk setting the stage for impeachment proceedings if he continues to ignore his obligation under the War powers Act and the Constitution. Yet if he simply went to Congress and requested their approval he would probably receive it. So why mess around, Mr Obama?. Just send Speaker Boehner a letter requesting Congress to approve your little "humanitarian" adventure into Libya, thereby living up to your obligations under the War Powers Act and the Constitution, and also assuring the American people that their voices will be heard in the matter, via their representatives in Congress, before any more of our resources (and potentially blood) are expended on the matter. Is your ego that big that you can't stand having your decisions scrutinized under the process demanded by our laws/ Constitution? If it is, than you are clearly not the man for this job any longer.
As for Senator McCain, the fact that Qaddafi is or is not close to falling is no excuse to let Mr. Obama run roughshod over our laws and the Constitution. You know better my dear friend.
Most IMPORTANT most GOP,, LEGISLATORS & FOX Simply ATTACK WHATEVER HE DOES ............
Good old LINDSEY GRAHAM & McCain as Usaul Stay Side by Side on Military ! Did LINDSEY go GOP SHEEP ?
There are Many GOP In FAVOR of LIBYA Involvement.
I Watched Them ON FOX & others, CNN ETC. In FAVOR of OBAMA in LIBYA.
Unless THEY TURNED NOW?
With That Said ? .... You Can SEE McCain Would Also BE IN LIBYA !
This is a MILITARY POLITICAL ISSUE ONLY !
We the PEOPLE are NOT of TOP PRIORITY when it COMES to CORPORATE WAR!
Since VIETNAM ( WE ALL KNOW THIS ) !
Arizona Got $ 11,691,480 568 in 2010 in DEFENSE Contracts .
McCain and Arizona has Aerospace & Defense == More ( Jobs ) When MILITARY is USED ( Especially ) JETS ETC.
I Can't BLAME HIM. == VERY LITTLE Chance of Losing a Life in LIBYA ?
He is USUALLY ,,, NOT ALWAY'S NOW ! Been PRO-MILITARY and ALWAY'S PRO -- ( TROOPS ) .
Do NOT FOOL YOUR SELVES PEOPLE !
Someone WILL FILL the VACUUMS in The FAILED COUNTRIES !
I Can't BELIEVE I am SAYING THIS BUT,, Look What Happened When We STAY OUT !
We End up with REFUGEES and Look PATHETIC for DOING NOTHING!
Then Spend BILLIONS FEEDING these On The NEWS CYCLE People Till The Next EVENT .
Then There is RUSSIA or CHINA who May be interested ?
Or Like PAKISTAN ??
Who WANTS THEM with NUKES and NUTS ???
Thanks to BUSH .. The USA by CORPORATE Design ? We the PEOPLE ! May OWN PAKISTAN ?
More MILITARY & DEFENSE & FOX = FEAR ,, SPENDING, SPENDING DEFENSE SPENDING !
At Least By OBAMA'S Actions SO FAR ? we DO NOT OWN LIBYA !
OLD GOP,
You make some good points but I have questions....
First where did you get info that mostly republicans were for this war? Levin-(D) was the one that tried to garner political support in the way of supporting legislation. At this point I want to make it clear I am NOT a republican.
Second...
can't make sense of this at all. I do not think China Russia OR Germany look pathetic for doing nothing in Libya. To me they look smart, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the mess is over, THEY will benefit from the BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives we sacrificed. US did not get andy oil or Mineral contracts to speak of in either country....Russia and China did, and the refugees comment, yea rite we would take them all in, tell me another story.
Third, why arent you complaining about why we have not stopped dealing with Pakistan and pulled out of Afghanistan? We got Bin Laden why not leave? Why did Kerry and Hillery IMMEDIATELY make public statements about how we still need our back stabbing, money grabbing friend Pakistan rite after BinLaden was killed?
Fourth, the only credible statement was "SO FAR we DO NOT OWN Libya" Emphasis on the "so far" ....with Obama taking a stance of "war Powers resolution does not apply to Libya" I am not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about it.
If you want to stop war and foreign spending there is someone you can vote for that is a advocate of both and has the voting record to prove it, do some research and watch the debates. There is a reason few people know who he is and what he is about. The warmongers like it that way..
Obama's Watergate has begun; history could now change at a breathtaking pace.