|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 21, 2011 10:30:58 GMT -5
It's really funny, we didn't even declare war. The rebels wanted our help along with the UN and NATO. . .Gaddaffi started a civil war with in his own country and the rebels needed help. We haven't declared war since WWII. |
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jun 21, 2011 11:31:52 GMT -5
The President can declare war without congress... BUT congress can choose to stop funding it, if they so choose (and get 2/3 of the vote to do so). (Article 2 sec 2). The key here is the "long-term" part... "Freedom is popular" Article 1 sec 8 states Congress can declare war -> but it does not say that the President needs there approval to do so. Congress may also "raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years". So they too are limited to what they can do. So please tell me again how this mission in Libya is illegal again? The right to declare war is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a power held by Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ban one branch from using the powers specifically given to the others (the only restrictions that it gives are powers that the federal government can't exercise because they are reserved to the states). This is because it doesn't have to. It is simply understood that the other branches don't have them. Using your interpretation, Boehner could veto laws because the Constitution doesn't specifically ban the Speaker of the House from doing so. Indeed, in the past Congress has tried to wield a legislative veto, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give them that power. But that doesn't really matter, as there has been no declaration of war. The legal issue here is the War Powers Resolution, which was passed in 1973 (over the veto of the Republican Nixon). It requires a president to report to Congress and ask for Congressional approval within 48 hours of sending the US Armed Forces into hostile situations. Failing that, the Armed Forces cannot remain in the situation for more than 60 days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period). Obama has not done that. The only legal defense that he could have to this challenge (other than to argue against the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution), would be to argue that the Libyan situation does not constitute hostilities, but even the Pentagon and Justice Department (Executive Branch agencies) do not agree with this. ( kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=247462) Section 2 Article 2 has nothing to do with Congressional power over the military. It states that the president is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (which is the justification that presidents use for sending troops overseas without congressional approval), and says that the Senate must affirm treaties with a 2/3 vote. Whether it is right or wrong to aid the Libyan rebels is a completely separate question. The question addressed in this lawsuit is the legality of the way in which the president has gone about aiding the Libyan rebels. |
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 21, 2011 21:40:09 GMT -5
Prior to the 20th century, nearly all unauthorized executive military action was to fend off pirates, protect commercial interests on foreign coasts, and protect the Mexican border from bandits. When the President took military action against another nation, it was always with the consent of Congress. The largest expansion of executive war powers without prior Congressional authorization took place during and just before World War II. President Roosevelt created several emergency agencies answerable only to him and without the approval of Congress, but Congress nevertheless funded them. He issued an executive order to forcibly relocate Japanese Americans from the West Coast, but Congress backed the order with an Act just afterwards. His office seized factories from striking workers, but Congress justified this post facto with the War Labor Disputes Act. Also via executive order, he gave his agencies the power to enforce labor and ration regulations with economic sanctions unauthorized by Congress, but the Supreme Court considered it justifiable in a case which challenged this power. After the War, all of these changes were rolled back due to political pressure. However, they set the precedent for future executive action without Congressional approval. The Cold War pressured the United States to maintain a global presence. In the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents engaged military conflicts in Korea, Central America, the Middle East and Indochina. The increasing unpopularity of these actions precipitated the approval of the War Powers Act, whose constitutionality has been a point of contention between the Executive and Congress in nearly every armed conflict since. The Supreme Court and lower courts have remained deliberately silent as to the apparent constitutional question. The Supreme Court has summarily ignored the issue each time it has been brought to its attention; lower courts have deemed it a political question, something they are not willing to answer. The 107th Congress gave War Powers Act authorization for U.S. presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq. President Bush solicited and signed both, but his administration, like all those before it, maintained that the approval of Congress was not needed for it to take military action. |
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jun 22, 2011 8:15:33 GMT -5
Just because executives have refused to follow the law does not mean that it is not the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 23, 2011 0:02:35 GMT -5
Just because executives have refused to follow the law does not mean that it is not the law. That is obviously the bottom line. Somehow, I expected better of the current administration than this. |
|
