(2) The fact that the President believes that he needs to play ball with the advocates of this questionable piece of legislation shows that he shares the leftist attitude of the framers of that sketchy Act.
(3) His legal team is either ignorant of, or does not want to make their case on, the executive power regarding treaties - which is the unassailable constitutional ground this intervention could easily stand on.
(4) It is bizarre that so-called "conservatives" and even self-described "Constitutionalists" would go to bat for the War Powers Act.
It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed. If Obama wants to make the un-Constitutional argument, then he should do so. Until then he's bound by his oath to faithfully execute the law.
On the other hand if the Pubbies had any gonads they'd strip out all funds for this misbeggoten Libyan debacle in the budget.
Insisting that the President get a Congressional declaration of war for ongoing hostilities he initiated is not a defense of the War Powers Act - it is a defense of the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war.
Then you have COMPLETELY missed the point, and have been living on another Planet for the last decade.
It’s not the War Powers Act itself. It’s that Dems DEMANDED IT under Reagan, DEMANDED (including OBAMA) that Bush comply with it after 9/11, and now UTTERLY IGNORE IT.
It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. And the media KNOWS they became so biased under Bush, that they DO NOT DARE report the facts about this now.
Whether or not the act is correct, he can’t simply take it upon himself to decide that he doesn’t need to abide by it.
Bush and the other presidents since its enactment have abided by it (Republicans more than others).
If he feels it’s wrong, he should challenge it and announce that he’s doing so, not simply ignore it and pretend he has the right to do whatever he wants...which has been his approach to every single US law (and even the more vaguely defined checks and balances) since day one.
President Obama's predilection for expanding Executive power in other respects notwithstanding, I think the correct course for Congress would be to defund the military effort, should they decide that our involvement in Libya does not serve the national interest. In my view, the United States has an insufficient national interest there to justify a direct military presence. But Congress must act to pull the plug by denying funding after a given date.
However, if the War Powers Act is amended to cut off all funding for a conflict that does not comply, then that is simply Congress using the power of the purse in a perfectly appropriate manner. My understanding is that the House just passed such a provision.
I go to bat for anything that ties that pinko terrorist in knots.
Here is my basic position on the “War Powers Act:”
Constitutional or not, it was passed by Congress and has not yet been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS or repealed by Congress. Until such a time as those two things happen, it must be followed, regardless of political party of the POTUS, who controls the House, etc.
Whether it SHOULD be found unconstitutional or repealed is a very worthy argument, but until it IS I expect our POTUS and Congress to abide by it. Otherwise it sets the precedent that any piece of legislation can be ignored on the grounds that the POTUS “doesn’t think it is constitutional” or “doesn’t think it applies.” If we agree that it is unconstitutional then we should also agree, I feel, that it should be removed in a constitutional manner.
Just my $0.02, as it were.
The Constitution (Article II) does not give very much power to the president - he is the executive, he carries out the will of congress, and if he does not, can be impeached and removed from office. Article II, Section 2 gives the president only four powers, two are mediated by the Senate.