Posted on 06/15/2011 7:11:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
First the debt-ceiling standoff, now this. Man, that’s going to be one awkward golf summit.
Dear Mr. President:
Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission…
Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.
Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions: Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached? Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch? In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011? Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011.
I wrote about Boehner’s War Powers brinksmanship a few weeks ago but I’m still not sure what his game is. He was, I think, cowed into demanding that O seek authorization of the mission after Kucinich’s resolution demanding full withdrawal from Libya started to gain traction with Republicans. Boehner knew that having a chunk of the caucus support a measure like that would risk a conservative split between hawks and libertarian types, so he rammed through his own milder proposal instead that put the ball on authorization back in Obama’s court. The White House’s reaction: *Shrug.* Now Boehner is dropping this ultimatum on him, which, if Obama complies, would force … precisely the sort of divisive vote among Republicans in the House that I thought Boehner was trying to avoid by torpedoing Kucinich. I don’t get it.
Maybe JB thinks a court battle over the War Powers Act would be politically useful? It’d certainly underscore the perceptions of Obama among some lefties and libertarians as a lawless Bushian cowboy, eager to protect his kingly prerogative to wage war without anyone’s approval. But it’ll also bolster the perception among hawks that he’s a stronger-than-expected C-in-C who’s unwilling to let Congress pull the rug out from under airmen eager to complete their mission. And of course, a legal battle also risks polarizing Republicans on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. All of which is to say, while I respect Boehner for sticking to the law, he’s sticking to it to a surprising and not necessarily politically advantageous degree. If he’s that down on the mission, why didn’t he force a vote on Kucinich’s resolution without offering any alternatives?
Here’s McCain suggesting that the White House will make the case to Congress for the mission within the next day or two, although he’s unclear on whether that means a request for authorization or just a little “FYI” session. I’m guessing the crux of Obama’s argument will be that there are no servicemen in harm’s way over there, only drones and other unmanned technology, and therefore Congress doesn’t have to approve anything. Oh, by the way: I might have missed it, but did John King ask a single question about the War Powers Act at the debate last night? This subject has, after all, come up now and again over the past three months since Obama decided unilaterally to commit U.S. assets to the Libya mission. One would think he might have been able to slip it in between asking the candidates whether Moe, Larry, or Curly was their favorite stooge or whatever.
Let's say Obama ignores the warning -- THEN WHAT?
What can Boehner do? More inmportantly, WHAT WILL CONGRESS DO ?
Cut off the damn funding and tell Obummer to find the money in his travel budget to pay back the military funds illegally spent.
Boehner, put on your big boy shorts and start impeachment proceedings.
Nah, Obama is the first post-Clinton Democratic president, and operates knowing that the GOP House might impeach, but the Dems in the Senate would not vote for removal - so there is no real recouse here. Because at the end of the day, from the Justice Department hijinks to this, the only real remedy is either impeachment or voting him out next November.
See post 5 - impeachment is practically meaningless in the post-Clinton world.
I don’t see how putting our troops in danger by cutting of the funding can be a good thing.
Cut the funding for this war and THEN demand an explanation as to why we are there. That will be far more effective.
And screw this nonsense regarding the unconstitutional War Powers Act. Congress should have demanded an explanation for the war, and tied funding to it long ago.
An exactly how do you think any troops are in Jeopardy? You really have no idea of what you are speaking do you?
We have zero troops on the ground. We are just wasting money fighting Frances war...Let the frogs fight the war an in between sex scandals maybe the Italians will surrender to someone...
McCain is obviously already out there preparing a defense for Bambi, so this could be difficult for Boehner if McCain gets the RINOs behind him. The author seems to believe that the US military is gung-ho for the Libyan adventure, but I don't know if this is the case; however, the RINOs would certainly do anything that they thought might endear them to Obama and the Dems.
I don't really know what Congress can do, even if Boehner does manage to make them take action. Is this something for which they can cut off the funds? Have any funds actually been formally alloted for this Libyan adventure?
I'll take "cry" for ten Alex.
What’s this got to do with Casey Anthony?
What’s this got to do with Casey Anthony?
Cheers to you!
You are exactly right, but since the repubs have no spine (see DOMA) when will it end!
“Let’s say Obama ignores the warning — THEN WHAT?
What can Boehner do?”
Cry?
Forget the War Powers Act. For 86 days now, he has been in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember when the Constitution actually meant something in this country?
I disagree. Whatever one thinks of Obama's terrible military action in Libya, the War Powers Act is not law.
I’m tired of pansy Boner making idle threats. What’s next? Counting to 3?
RE: the only real remedy is either impeachment or voting him out next November.
_________________________________________________________________________
There’s one more arrow in the quiver — DO WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DID IN VIETNAM — CUT OFF ALL FUNDING FOR THE LIBYAN MISSION!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.