Is Obama's Use of Military in Libya Constitutional?

Townhall.com ^ | March 23, 2011 | Terry Jeffrey

[freebird5850]

Hang on people. What I read is that Barry has to notify Congress within 48 hours after ordering the strike which apparently he has. It is now up to Congress to approve or deny the declaration of war. Let’s hope he gets the thumbs down. I think all this rant of impeachment based on not consulting Congress is not holding water. Am I right?

[green iguana]

The War Powers Act of 1973 gives him 60 days to seek approval from the House or withdraw the troops.

In this one regard, he has done nothing unconstitutional.

[rockinqsranch]

Precisely.

[rockinqsranch]

“...he has done nothing unconstitutional.”

The act of ordering military action with circumstances that the US, nor US interests were attacked initially is unconstitutional.

He used the excuse of a UN resolution.

That resolution belonged to the US Congress to debate, and authorize any action, NOT the President.

[Kaslin]

It was absolutely unconstitutional and he needs to be impeaches

[rockinqsranch]

Wrong. If we aren’t attacked, and the basis of the intent to enter into military hostilities against another Nation is a UN resolution as has happened here, then it’s totally up to Congress to debate, and authorize that action, NOT the President.

If Libya had attacked the United States, or United States interests then the President can order immediate action to protect us, and/or our interests, and notify Congress the details within a specified period of time.

[Kaslin]

And they should

[Hoodat]

The War Powers Act of 1973 gives him 60 days to seek approval from the House or withdraw the troops. In this one regard, he has done nothing unconstitutional.

1. The War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional.
2. Citing anything other than the Constitution itself to determine the constitutionality of an action is rather pointless. If there is a law on the books that legalizes the confiscation of property without due process, then a President acting on that law is still violating the Constitution.

[Roninf5-1]

Since when has the Constitution stopped a President from going to war?

[PA-RIVER]

But, if a British Born Subject such as Obama is president, and the Prime Minister calls him and demands he attacks, he should attack. We can not strip our president of his foreign obligations.

[PA-RIVER]

But, if a British Born Subject such as Obama is president, and the Prime Minister calls him and demands he attacks, he should attack. We can not strip our president of his foreign obligations.

[rockinqsranch]

Grin....is your tongue cramping stuck in that cheek?

[PA-RIVER]

What if Libya had imminent plans to Nuke Kenya?

Our Presidents immediate family is there. The president could not allow that to happen.

It seems we out grew our Constitution when we elect the Islamic Messiah.

[Rockingham]

The notification is under the War Powers Act and is not a formal declaration of war, which requires affirmative action by Congress. There will be criticism of Obama but no impeachment talk of consequence or even a serious effort to cut off funds for operations against Libya. Few in Congress want to become responsible for the ill effects of leaving Khadafi in power.

[green iguana]

The War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional.

I disagree. You may contractually give away any of your Constitutional rights that you desire and Congress may do the same. They, however, cannot do it for you, so I agree with your example of unconstitutionality.

[PA-RIVER]

I think We would need Foreign Ambassadors to sort through this issue, but little time in such emergencies.

If we enforce our constitution we could be infringing on our presidents rights and obligations as a Kenyan Citizen.

At this point its probably best to continue to let Obama dictate the application of international law over our Constitution.

[rockinqsranch]

“What if Libya had imminent plans to Nuke Kenya?”

There is no evidence, and as President he is still bound to the Constitution regardless.

As a Democrat though..........

[Durus]

No...they have not. Name one that did.

[Hoodat]

I don't buy that. Just because Nixon was stupid enough to sign away constitutional rights does not mean those same constitutionally guaranteed rights are denied to his successors.

btw, I personally do not believe that Obama violated the Constitution by attacking Iraq. I was simply drawing attention to the hypocrisy of those in power now.

[Kaslin]

Substitute “Bush” for Obama and ask the question.

That is not true, and you damn well know it.

First of all there was the Iraq liberation act of 1998 from the 105th Congress Source

And unlike the arrogant pos, who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. President Bush went to Congress and Congress authorized President Bush to use force against Iraq, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243.

0bama never went to Congress, instead he want to Brazil to give Brazil $3 billion so they can drill offshore, while our oil companies are prevented from drilling in the Gulf.