Bipartisan Lawsuit against Obama Administration over Libya

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...st-obama-administration-over-libya-operation/

I hope the SCOTUS uses this case to settle the matter of "use of force" without a declaration of war once and for all. The only way that US Troops should ever be committed to armed conflict (other than an extremely short term--hours to days--while the declaration is sought) is with a formal declaration of war from the folks authorized to so declare: Congress.

How long did it take Roosevelt to get a declaration after Pearl Harbor? If the American People are behind a military action, the declaration is not hard to get and takes very little time. It must be absolutely clear when we are at war and when we are not--and that the executive branch is fully in charge of the prosecution of that war, that Congress has done its part and steps back. That is what declarations buy for us, why they are absolutely necessary, as opposed to half-stepping "authorizations." We need to get back to using declarations to formally start forceful military actions.

While better than arbitrary action by the President (Libya) "authorizations to use force" (Afghanistan, Iraq) still violate the letter, if not the spirit, of the Constitution.

well,,,

thank you eye95,,,!!!

Maybe they can sue him for enough money to pay back the american people for the record setting deficit that he ran up already.

stainless1911 said:

Maybe they can sue him for enough money to pay back the american people for the record setting deficit that he ran up already.

Click to expand...

Howdy Stainless!
What we've spent so far in Libya is a drop in the bucket compared to the completely unnecessary war in Iraq. Why we're still in there, or Afghanistan for that matter, bewilders me. But the money was kept off the books. Wonder where your money went? Iraq mostly.

Our military did their job with professionalism and courage. Still, I never could figure out why we were there. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and lots of people died that didn't need to.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

You are free to post what you will (as long as the admins and the mods don't object), but I would ask that declarations of war being required for armed conflict be the topic of your posts, rather than the topic being your pet rants. Thank you.

A good quandry!

Hmm this is sort of a tough one. If what you say were to happen Eye... then Osama Bin Laden might still be alive and killing. I also believe that as the (currently anyway) only super power in the world we are almost expect to step in and defend the little guy so to speak.

I think America has lost something over the last 10-30 years. It use to be when we went to war the people believed in the cause(maybe our governement isnt as good with propaganda now?). Now it seems the people are all for it until the war takes longer then a month, and anyone dies. I remember in Operation Desert storm the president declared war(actually I think it was mush earlier) and people were supportive. Now that we have lost a meager 2,8OO troops the people seem angry and feel wronged(not even bothering to notice in Op1 and Op2 over 100,000 Iraqi "RedGuard" were killed). How does one justify a war to the poeple, who seem so fickle?

After 9/11 Bush declared war on terrorism and the people wanted blood. Yet surprisingly there is little to show for the wars length and asset allocation. Pre Pearl Harbor the people didnt want to go to war, feeling it wasnt their problem(until it affected them, which might have been prevented). How many lives might have been saved if we didnt just mind our own business for so many years?

All that to say I think it is such a delicate balance of declaring war with the people's approval, and declaring war because it benefits mankind. Thats not a job I think many could sleep soundly doing.

Please don't think I am against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although, I am wondering why the current administration is dragging its feet winding them up.

Anyway, my objection in those cases is to the lack of declarations of war. The authorizations are insufficient, for one reason, because they carry the implication that a "de-authorization" is possible. Once Congress commits to war, the day-to-day prosecution of it should fall under the executive with no strings attached. The declaration of war carries with it a finality. There is no such thing as undeclaring. You're in it until the enemy is defeated, you surrender, or a more mutual ending is agreed to in a treaty.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3] some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.[4][5]

Let's not forget Vietnam. This was supposed to be the "never again" for committing American lives in a non-winnable conflict or one with no US vital interests, think Bosnia. How's it worked out recently?

Gunslinger said:

[snip]
Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3] some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.[4][5]

[snip]

Click to expand...

The crux of the issue is here. The Constitutionality of the Act is Found by SCOTUS. Until that Finding arrives, the President is not engaged in an unConstitutional Act.

The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Click to expand...

What the President is arguing is that the U.S. is not engaged in a war, but merely providing 'support'. The "armed forces" are not in action, so they obviously cannot "remain" anywhere. Basically, our Military Force is not being used, and the President seems to be telling the truth.

"The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action..."

What constitutes "Military Action?"

"and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,"

What constitutes "remaining?" On the ground? Bombing? Offering Arms Support?

"... without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."

So, the President can actually still pursue a War if Congress is unable to get a veto-proof vote? Interesting.

Keep in mind, the constitutionality of the Act has not been challenged, just averred. However, it is black letter law and the president violates it at risk of impeachment. Congress has no duty to do anything to make the president comply. It is his legal responsibility to do so. Congress could go to the courts or issue a Contempt of Congress Citation, I suppose, should they choose. The fact is that many definitions "of the meaning of of" have never been worked out.

Gunslinger said:

Keep in mind, the constitutionality of the Act has not been challenged, just averred. However, it is black letter law and the president violates it at risk of impeachment. Congress has no duty to do anything to make the president comply. It is his legal responsibility to do so. Congress could go to the courts or issue a Contempt of Congress Citation, I suppose, should they choose. The fact is that many definitions "of the meaning of of" have never been worked out.

Click to expand...

Has the Supreme Court of the United States Found what the 'black letter Law' of the Act is?

Your latter response shows that right now, as I type this response, President Obama is not engaged in a UnConstitutional or impeachable Act.

If Obama had not made the decision to assist the NATO action, some on the right would be whining about that. He just can't win (with some folks).

beebobby said:

If Obama had not made the decision to assist the NATO action, some on the right would be whining about that. He just can't win (with some folks).

Click to expand...

Which is why Obama should do what he wants, within his Authority, and tell the Republicans to kiss his a$$. My view is that if someone doesn't want to work with you, and is interested in derailing every move you make, tell them to step aside or run the risk of being trampled over.

That is one huge issue I have with Democrats. Democrats should act more like Republicans act politically which involves a little less talk, and a lot more of a 'screw the other side' attitude.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Has the Supreme Court of the United States Found what the 'black letter Law' of the Act is?

Your latter response shows that right now, as I type this response, President Obama is not engaged in a UnConstitutional or impeachable Act.

Click to expand...

I don't think he is. Committing fixed naval forces off the coast and running military operations on a schedule would be, but that isn't happening. The black letter law of the statute has never been judicially set. Would take a prosecution of a president to do that. The ensuing decision would then be settled law.

I should add, I think the law is unconstitutional and would be found to be so at SCOTUS.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Which is why Obama should do what he wants, within his Authority, and tell the Republicans to kiss his a$$. My view is that if someone doesn't want to work with you, and is interested in derailing every move you make, tell them to step aside or run the risk of being trampled over.

That is one huge issue I have with Democrats. Democrats should act more like Republicans act politically which involves a little less talk, and a lot more of a 'screw the other side' attitude.

Click to expand...

The Democraps have been less willing to work with Barry than the Repubs in point of fact. When they had absolute control of congress and w/h, they still didn't accomplish dick worth talking about except one blunder after another. Now, the ones up for reelection are running away from their votes then--and barry, as fast as they can. 'It's the economy, stupid' will be the siren song of the '12 elections--on every level.

Gunslinger said:

The Democraps have been less willing to work with Barry than the Repubs in point of fact. When they had absolute control of congress and w/h, they still didn't accomplish dick worth talking about except one blunder after another. Now, the ones up for reelection are running away from their votes then--and barry, as fast as they can. 'It's the economy, stupid' will be the siren song of the '12 elections--on every level.

Click to expand...

You better hope Republicans push the economy to the best of their ability, and have a 'good' plan or they are going to lose. I get the 'sense' that Democrats are going to have a good day on November 2nd. Then again, I am merely considering the overall sense politically of what is going on by what I have read(e) (probably read too much)...on both sides of the isle.

Sorry Eye, back to the topic -What President Obama is doing right now apparently does not fall under the Act, unless Found otherwise.

eye95 said:

You are free to post what you will (as long as the admins and the mods don't object), but I would ask that declarations of war being required for armed conflict be the topic of your posts, rather than the topic being your pet rants. Thank you.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

Oh, well.

stainless1911 said:

Maybe they can sue him for enough money to pay back the american people for the record setting deficit that he ran up already.

Click to expand...

Whatever Obama's fortunes, it would only be a drop in the bucket of the billions, if not trillions of taxpayer dollars he's utterly wasted while bringing our country to the brink of financial default.

But if the suite won all, it would still be HIS drop in the bucket, and that's good enough for me.

I'm 100% on board with the idea that only a formal, Congressional declaration of war would be enough to commit troops to any action beyond a week or two. These extra powers given to the President in recent years have proven a vast waste of trillions of dollars.

If, after a Constitutionally-appropriate declaration, war is inevitable, I'm also in favor of it being prosecuted solely by a single commander in chief, rather than a Congressional committee. When committees run a war, it does NOT work.