Free Republic

The White House has finally forged a bipartisan consensus in Congress. Unfortunately for President Obama, lawmakers are uniting in opposition to his approach to the ongoing U.S. involvement in the Libyan civil war. Some see the operation as an ill-advised and useless military venture; others argue that Mr. Obama is breaking the law. On Friday the House took up two nonbinding resolutions regarding the Libyan adventure. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, called for the withdrawal of all U.S. military support within 15 days. His resolution attracted 148 votes, 87 of which were from Republicans. A second resolution, submitted by...

Lt. Col. Allen West: Obama’s Libya War Illegal In this wide-ranging C-SPAN interview, Lt. Col. Allen West (R-Florida, and a future President of the United States, if America should be so lucky) points out that Barack Hussein (not a Muslim) Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act, which requires the president to get the approval of Congress for any military operation that lasts more than 60 days. If Congress doesn’t give approval, the Act requires that the military operation stop immediately.From an editorial in the Denver Post: This choice is not merely a preference expressed by Congress in...

In another blatant act of chutzpah President Obama declared that his direction of military action against Libya is so limited it does not have to comply with the War Powers Act. The fact that the operation was lead by the United States in establishing a UN approved No-Fly- Zone, air and missile strikes disappeared down George Orwell’s famous Memory Hole. The passing of the mission to NATO was nothing more than window dressing. May 20th marked the 60th day of military action against Libya and the Administration can only declare the usual rules of war don’t apply to them. Sad...

President Obama launched a U.S. war in Libya two months ago with no congressional approval. Under the Constitution and under the War Powers Act, which allows the president to wage defensive wars for up to 60 days without prior approval, Obama probably broke the law. Now that 60 days have passed since the United States joined the hostilities, Obama's war is more clearly illegal. But nobody should expect this to matter to a president with a long record of disregarding legal and constitutional limits on presidential and federal power. Presidential arrogation of power is nothing new. President George W. Bush's...

IS BARACK OBAMA VIOLATING THE WAR POWERS ACT? - Let’s be honest. If you (my liberal friends) read the following quote at Daily Kos, which name would you choose as the correct answer, George Bush, or Barack Obama? “Is President (fill in the name) about to violate federal law? It’s possible, though the administration is currently exploring several options that would enable a continued presence in Libya without superseding executive powers.” Thanks for playing. It’s been two months since Barack Obama sent a letter to Congress announcing the mission in Libya. Guess what? Captain Awesome’s time frame for securing Congressional...

Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline Washington (CNN) – As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days. "Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others...

If a recent report by The New York Times is accurate, the Obama administration is attempting to figure out a way to continue bombing Libya without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The act requires the president to terminate the prosecution of such activities 60 days after formal notification of Congress regarding the deployment of forces "into hostilities or into situation (sic) where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." The 60 day period ends on May 20th... ...Pentagon officials admitted the issue has been turned over to lawyers who are ostensibly...

Whether you support the overthrow of Dictator Maummar Gaddafi or not, the administration's handling of the situation cannot be described other than horrendous. First, according to critics, the President dithered for over a month on what to do in Libya. He waited for the Arab League to act, then the United Nations... Now, according to the President, the War Powers Act allows the President, at least in the short term, to order the attack, bombing, or infiltration of a foreign country without even notifying Congress, let alone waiting for their approval. That is a nice line and all, but apparently...

A discussion has brewed on the right concerning the War Powers of the Executive Branch. I have read both Woods' "smack down" (his words) and listened to Levin's reasoned debate on his radio show, as well as the relevant Federalist Papers, checking back to see who wrote them, and the constitution itself. I have also read Yoo's discussion and the argument for Bush's war powers in the area of the War on Terror. That said, I have no tolerance for the Ron Paul view, nor many of his followers, not because I'm a huge fan (student) of Mark Levin, but...

The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release March 21, 2011 Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE March 21, 2011 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners,...

It’s not as if President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t have enough on his plate with a financial meltdown and a home-state scandal. But now he is delving into the thorny question of who can send the country into war. In between interviewing cabinet nominees and announcing health care plans, Mr. Obama plans to meet Thursday with the leaders of a commission that has proposed revamping the legal process for launching military action, to require more consultation between a president and Congress. The proposal would scrap the problematic War Powers Act of 1973, a measure passed in the hangover from Vietnam to...

While listening to the House speeches concerning the "Iraq resolution", Rep. Chet Edwards, D., Texas used as a point, the fact that checks and balances were in place to prevent the Executive branch from having absolute power in waging war.

As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great--the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens--that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers....

Do the arguments in this paper not hold true for Bush as they did for Clinton? WMD being irrelevant.Somalia In the meantime, after consultations between the Clinton Presidency and U.N. Secretary- General Boutros Butros-Ghali (but not between President Clinton and the U.S. Congress), an important policy decision had been made and was in the process of being carried out. This was the decision to transform the Somalia operation from a limited intervention with a humanitarian objective (distributing food to the starving Somalis) into an overly ambitious and totally unrealistic plan for "nation-building"--a plan for forcibly imposing national unity on the...

Legality of War Still Debated Worldwide By TOM RAUM .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration says the war in Iraq is lawful, an assessment disputed by many skeptical foreign leaders and international law scholars. It is a a debate that U.S. officials hope will subside once Saddam Hussein is toppled and a new government in power. But the criticism is just as likely to intensify if the war is prolonged and if there are many civilian casualties. Television images beamed around the world of the massive American aerial bombardment of Baghdad, showing dozens of buildings going...

As of this writing, American and British forces are poised to attack Iraq. Questions of military strategy, geopolitics and morality loom large, but so do questions of law. Is the war to disarm and dislodge Saddam Hussein justified under international law? Has it been adequately authorized under U.S. law, with proper Congressional approval? It is doubtful that any court will ever address either question, but that may provide all the more reason to consider these issues in the court of public opinion. The International Law Issue: Three Possible Grounds for War Under international law, force is authorized in essentially two...

Precedent? I’ll Give You A Precedent by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief October 9, 2002 "Candidly Yours" During the House Hearings today on authorization of use of force against Iraq, the level of posturing extended far beyond humorous to sublimely grotesque. Had enough of the nonsense? So have I. Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? First and foremost, as I have already shown, President Bush was not the one who changed our nuclear first-strike policy: President Clinton did. In November of 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which allowed the United States to "consider using...

<p>President Bush yesterday formally declared to Congress his authority under the War Powers Act to use America's armed forces against Iraq and told top lawmakers in a classified Oval Office briefing that the United States is "making progress" in its military operation to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.</p>

<p>WASHINGTON — For the second time this week, President Bush formally notified Congress on Friday that he is sending U.S. troops into combat in Iraq.</p> <p>The notification was made under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The law requires congressional approval if troops remain in a conflict for more than 60 days. Congress already gave its approval in October as part of a resolution authorizing force against Iraq.</p>

Bush vs. Congress: The War Powers ResolutionBy Henry Mark HolzerFrontPageMagazine.com | September 12, 2002 On September 4, 2002, amidst a national guessing game over President Bush's intentions regarding Iraq and the role of Congress in his plans, the president sent a carefully worded letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. After establishing that America and the civilized world are at a crossroads regarding Iraq, Mr. Bush wrote (the emphasis is mine): I am in the process of deciding how to proceed. This is an important decision that must be made with great thought and care. Therefore, I...