Posted on 06/24/2011 2:29:09 PM PDT by dead
Garrett: Bill Limiting Military Action in Libya is Unconstitutional
WASHINGTON, June 24, 2011 - Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the Constitution Caucus, today voted against H.R. 2278, which would limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department to Defense for the United States armed forces in support of NATOs military efforts in Libya.
While I in no way support President Obamas unauthorized, unconstitutional war in Libya, I could not vote for Rep. Rooneys bill limiting the use of funds, said Garrett after the vote. As Chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I have serious questions related to the constitutionality of the bill. In particular, I do not believe it is within Congresss power to dictate to the president how to conduct a war. The Constitution is very clear in this regard Congress has the power to declare war and the president, as commander-in-chief, has the power to carry it out.
Furthermore, by dictating to President Obama how he can use American military forces in support of the NATO effort in Libya, we would authorize him to continue the same mission he has been carrying out for the past three months without congressional approval, added Garrett. While I have supported past efforts to defund the military conflict in Libya, I could not vote in support of a bill that only defunds some of the military effort while endorsing others. Congress should and must debate the merits of our foray in to Libya and either authorize it completely or demand that the president terminate our military engagement.
From the outset, Garrett has been a staunch opponent of the Obama administrations handling of the situation in Libya. On May 24, Garrett introduced H. Con. Res. 53, declaring that President Obama has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Resolution as it pertains to the ongoing military engagement in Libya and calls on the president to either seek formal authorization from Congress to continue the mission in Libya or cease armed engagement until such authorization is provided. In addition, on May 25, the House adopted by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Garrett to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2012 to clarify that the NDAA does not in any way authorize military action in Libya.
Highlight for me where it says “a State of War exists” in that resolution.
That is the benchmark.
Just like in the other Declarations of War. I have already shown you one, I can show you all of the others if you want me to.
no
you highlight for me where the constitution requires that
you can’t
I don't think any leadership ability was needed to declare war on Japan. After Pearl Harbor my dog could have got a formal declaration of war through Congress.
Art I Sec 8:
“The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War”
Nowhere will you find a clause that gives that Power to the President. Therefore, he is dependent on Congress to declare War. An AUMF is not a Declaration of War, though it has been used as such for many years.
But remember, I challenged you to provide proof of your claim that Bush had a Declaration of War, So far, you have not provided anything.
You may be correct,
You may be correct,
this is pointless - you establish imaginary conditions that are not present
it might make sense in your head - but it has nothing to do with law
You are correct that this is pointless, but not because of anything imaginary on my part.
You have been challenged by several FReepers in this thread to prove your claim that Bush had a Declaration of War. So far, you haven’t provided any proof to any of us. You are 0 fer.
and you have yet to disprove the it IS NOT a declaration of war
making up requirements that ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE CONSTITUTION
i won’t waste time trying to prove something that is NOT required - and you can’t prove it IS required
i think the word ‘grapes’ is required in a declaration of war
You raise some good points here, and this is probably one reason why Congress doesn't declare war anymore, but it is far from the biggest reason.
The real reason Congress no longer declares war is that a war declaration would effectively force the U.S. government -- from a political standpoint as well as a military standpoint -- to wage a full-scale war against a foreign nation, obliterate its infrastructure, kill many people, etc. The U.S. hasn't had any intention of doing any such thing in decades. Nowadays, we fight colonial wars whose sole purpose is to topple one regime, support another governing faction, and spend many years in what often ends up being a useless "nation-building" campaign.
In this kind of scenario, destroying a foreign enemy's infrastructure and laying waste to large pieces of real estate is completely counterproductive.
So we don't fight wars anymore. We just pick sides in the internal affairs of foreign countries.
Your problem is that you claimed Bush had a declaration. You have been challenged to prove THAT and you have failed to do so. That is your Job Number One.
BTW, in a debate, it is not incumbent on a debater to disprove a claim made by the opponent. The person making the claim must prove it or lose the point. So far, you are losing the point, and badly.
and challenged you to prove it was not
and you can't
the requirements that you claim are in the constitution are not present
now you have failed
until a court says otherwise, i will go with the opinion of mark levin
(that is called citing authority)
actually - i did win the point - i cited the resolution as a declaration of war - the onus is on you to prove its not
“The Constitution is very clear in this regard Congress has the power to declare war and the president, as commander-in-chief, has the power to carry it out.
The Constitution is also very clear as regards “the power of the purse strings,” dumbass.
What part of the second paragraph in my post #53 do you not understand?
And what opinion of Mark Levin? Please provide a link to said opinion.
"We have only declared war 5 times."
I think it was 11 times that a Declaration of War was issued by the Congress, not just five...
1.) 1812 War of 1812 - Great Britain 2.) 1846 Mexican-American War - Mexico 3.) 1898 Spanish-American War - Spain 4.) 1917 WWI - Germany 5.) 1917 WWI - Austria-Hungary 6.) 1941 WWII - Japan 7.) 1941 WWII - Germany 8.) 1941 WWII - Italy 9.) 1942 WWII - Bulgaria 10.) 1942 WWII - Hungary 11.) 1942 WWII - Romania
And just to forstall the, "see it was only five wars" - a declaration of War is against a specific nation-state. The Congress did not declare World War II, it delared war against six nation-states, three of them six months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.
Please notice that the United States Congress did not declare War on Finland, which was allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union during WWII. I guess that the Congress still remembered the Soviet Union's attack on Finland in November of 1939.
dvwjr
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.