Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (What about Libya?)

The White House ^ | October 16, 2002 | United States Congress

[mvpel]

The War Powers Act gives him the authority to do what he is doing.

Actually, I don't think it does.

150 USC 1541(c): The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

There is no declaration of war, there is no statutory authorization as far as I know, and there is no attack on US territory or armed forces.

The 48-hour report requirement doesn't override these basic restrictions on the prerequisites for commencing hostilities against a foreign nation. And launching Tomahawk missiles into sovereign territory counts as "hostilities."

[mvpel]

Can you cite something that overrides 50 USC 1541(c)?

Presidents have said, from the moment Nixon vetoed this law, that the President’s constitutional authority as commander in chief overrides this law, so the War Powers Act which requires Congressional authorization, an attack on the US, or a declaration of war before commencing hostilities, has been played down by many different presidents, now to include Obama.

[politicalmerc]

The separation of Powers Doctrine in the Constitution doesn't allow for Congress to restrict the President by legislation. The part of the law you are reading is the Congress' interpretation of the President's Constitutional powers. Since interpreting the law is the Judicial Branches' job, that is just their opinion.

All that having been said, the war powers act was the democrats way of trying to restrict republican presidents like Nixon from acting without their approval. There is a real question whether or not the whole thing is constitutional. Congress can not tell the President what he can and can't do with the Military. They can Defund the operation, but he is the CIC.

This has never really been before the Supreme Court and it isn't going to be. Suffice it to say, what you are reading are not "restrictions" they are "interpretations" of the Constitutional powers of the President. The whole "law" is suspect, that's why it is just a joint resolution.

[politicalmerc]

Can you cite something that overrides 50 USC 1541(c)?

You did it quite nicely. The Constitution: specifically the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Congress can't tell the President what to do or not do with the military. Their opinion of what his powers are under the Constitution, even if codified in the law are nice but not binding.

In my opinion the Constitution also gives the President the right to use force to counter act the threat of force against us, or to simply enforce or advance our interests. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to be attacked before the President can use force. That was the Congress trying to limit the President by legislation.

[CT Hillbilly]

thanks for the clear post...I actually understood that with only a half a cup of java in my bloodstream.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

You only need Congressional approval if the President is a Republican.

[mvpel]

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007

[P-Marlowe]

Thanks for posting that. This is clearly an illegal war under that statute.

[hoosierham]

You actually believe the president can use miltary force to "advance our interests"?

Then the Constitution and the very concept of limitations on government power mean nothing.

I ,for one, don't want all these rogue warrior types roaming the world killing people "to advance our interests";neither do I want any president ordering up a war to boost poll numbers.

If Congress hasn't declared a war ,or it is not in response to an attack upon the US,then we ought to stay out of the fight.

[FreeReign]

You actually believe the president can use miltary force to "advance our interests"? Then the Constitution and the very concept of limitations on government power mean nothing.

I believe the point is that the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional.

The question of whether a president can use military force without a DoW or not should only be answered based on what's in the Constitution.

[Grampa Dave]

My trophy wife and I watched Whorealdo last night for a few minutes on FOX and Whorealdo seemed ready to climax over what his beloved 0b0z0 had done.

Then after a few minutes of Fox this morning, my intelligent and long memory possessing Trophy Wife asked how many countries were backing this bombing versus GW’s Iraq situation.

When I told her 5 countries for this versus over 40 for GW, she just shook her head.

[Grampa Dave]

On another thread, just a nobody, posted a great reply and links to show the difference between this war and GW’s war against Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2691712/posts?page=18#18

Wow...how times sure have changed. Now 5 countries make up a coalition? They along with a single UN resolution and no Congressional approval now constitutes a legitimate declaration of war on a country? A sovereign nation that has not threatened us nor harbored those who would do us harm, nor have launched a war of aggression against their neighbors, nor do they possess or plan on making WMD and have not violated more than a dozen UN resolutions? This is what passes for a legal war these days?
From an article Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:05 pm:
In a joint statement to Gadhafi late Friday, the United States, Britain and France — backed by unspecified Arab countries...

Yeah, unspecified because they do not exist, but hey, the “coalition” is hoping some of them will join them.

According to this website there were 52 countries in the Coalition of the Willing in March-April 2003, 15 of which provided boots on the ground. In March 2004 there were 53 countries with 34 providing troops.

17 UN resolutions were promptly ignored by Iraq along with harboring of known terrorists, large payments to suicide bombers, known terrorist training camps, WMD and its use on their citizens, over a year of warnings and a Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and all of these led to an illegal, immoral, war of choice and agression by President George W. Bush.

But this fiasco? All is well in Barry’s World. [BARF!]

18 posted on Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:07:53 AM by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))

[manc]

Bush went to congress to declare war, open transparency

obama takes his family/MOTHER IN LAW to Rio on our dime and orders a war.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
lets see, Libya one UN resolution ignored in 24 hours.
Iraq, years of ignoring 17 UN resolutions.

GOP WHY ARE YOU NOT OUT THERE DEMANDING HE COME BACK AND SORT THIS CRAP OUT?
Media go into cover for obama drive AGAIN.
no mention of protests, illegal war, rush to war, on vacation with his family and the frigging MOTHER IN LAW.
Why am I paying for this freeloader to live in then white house and go on fancy vacations?

The world is a mess right now and he’s on vacations or doing basketball or playing golf
THIS IS A PISS TAKE BY THE MEDIA AND THIS FAMILY
Where are the protests from the anti war left, code pink will they now attack Clinton like they did with Dr Rice?

[ratsreek]

Kucinich calling for Obama’s impeachment for no congressional authorization.

Fat chance.

[ratsreek]

Not I. I want those muzzies and ragheads to kill as many of each other as possible. It’s insanity to stop them. I couldn’t care less which side wins. I sure as hell don’t want to expend so much as one tank of jet fuel on those people. And misslies at $1M a pop? GMAFB.

[MinorityRepublican]

Broken clock........

[ratsreek]

Libya. If you were really sitting with Helms when that happened one would think you could spell “Libya.” It’s not that I’m a spelling Nazi, but when someone makes an unusual claim such as yours it carries more credibility if a mere five-letter word that is the main subject is spelled correctly.

I’m not saying you weren’t really there. I’m just suggesting you get it right when making that claim if you expect to be believed.

[ratsreek]

The left used to want to save the whales. Now they want to save the ragheads. Too bad the ragheads want to kill us.

The more they kill each other, the better off we are. Our only involvement should be air-dropping munitions to both sides.

[politicalmerc]

Well for me, sitting with Helms isn’t an unusual claim. I wasn’t trying to impress you. I use to work for Reagan when I was younger. So sitting with Helms is the least of it. Typos happen, and my spelling has never been the best. :-)

[ratsreek]

I envy you that experience. RWR is one step below God in our household.

:)