The President Violated the Constitution With Our Involvement In Libya?
By gladys46
@gladys46 (1205)
United States
March 24, 2011 1:12pm CST
As has been reported, the president DID NOT violate the Constitution. First, this isn't a war; we, as followers of the international community through the UN, imposed a no-fly zone and a cease fire, to which there were consequences specifically outlined in Resolution 1973. Second, according to The War Powers Act of 1973, the president can send troops without congressional approval if there is an emergency!
Is genocide an emergency?
Also, according to that same Act, the president has to notify Congress within 48 hrs. The UN Resolution was passed on a Thursday, he notified Congress on a Friday, that's 24 hrs. And, the president has 60 days to get congressional approval ... we're in what the 6th or 7th day? And, if congress does not give approval, the president has 30 days to bring troops home.
When GW Bush got congressional approval to invade Iraq, he received that approval based upon a lie! Is presenting false information to congress to get the vote and outcome you desire UnContitutional?
2 people like this
8 responses
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
26 Mar 11
I do think that Prs. Obama is within his authority under the War Powers Act. So as long as he gets a congressional declaration within the 60 day time limit, I don't think he's acting unconstitutionally.
However, his cowardly explanation that the UN called for it so he "has no choice" is incredibly telling. He couldn't care less about Congress or the US Constitution. His gods in the UN pantheon spoke, and he obeys.
I also notice that he can't seem to articulate what the mission is. Every day he seems to contradict himself. Every time Clinton or someone else in his cabinet tries to explain the ultimate objective, they contradict each other.
He seems to simply be voting "present" in this matter, hoping the outcome will define the mission.
He also doesn't seem to understand that HE ALONE is the Commander in Chief of the US Military. Not the UN, not NATO... not a French steering committee. Only HE has the authority to make policy and set the mission for the US Military. He seems happy to just let other nations or the UN or NATO decide what to do. This is NOT his job. He is being a coward here.
If he is not willing to be the Commander in Chief, then he has no ethical grounds for sending ANYONE into harms way.
If he does not get a congressional declaration in the 60 days, and doesn't pull our military off the mission, then he should be impeached. Do you at least agree with that?
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
24 Mar 11
Allow me to first provide Obama's OWN WORDS
"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."
The multiple military attacks were not authorized by congress. They were UNILATERALLY authorized by the president. There was no actual or imminent threat to our nation. The hostilities in Libya were between the Libyan government and the citizens of Libya. As such, based on Obama's OWN WORDS, he violated the constitution.
Now, to the War Powers Resolution of 1973
"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html
There is no declaration of war by congress. He has no specific statutory authorization, and there has been no attack on our country, territories, or armed forces.
Seriously Gladys, he himself said this action was unconstitutional when he was a candidate. Was he lying then?
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Mar 11
Seriously Taskr ... words mean something!! Specifically, the word "unilateral" is very key ... think about it!
The president met with members of Congress, had multi-national support, a UN Resolution prior to any action on this limited mission ... did you hear Speaker Boehner come with an immediate press conference after leaving that meeting held for more than an hour with the President?? No, Speaker Boehner one could assume understood the mission clearly as presented to him as "leader" of the House and if he did not clearly understand shame on him!
Again, the word "unilateral" as spoken by President Obama was clear and precise! And, the same word is most operative here.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Mar 11
One more serious thingy Taskr: Did Harry S. Truman for the Korean War, did Bill Clinton for the Bosnian War and Bush for the second Liberian war and the 2004 Haitian Rebellion? History tells us that on at least 125 occasions, the president has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. Including instances in which the US fought in Korea 1950, the Phillippine-American War from 1898 and in Nicaragua in 1927.
So, I would ask you Taskr ... is President Obama the one and only president you would deny rights to prevent possible genocide??
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
24 Mar 11
For your question regarding Truman, Clinton, and Bush, YES. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Americans know full well that Truman violated the constitution when he entered the Korean war without authorization from congress. That's why he kept trying to weasel out of it by calling it the "Korean Conflict" as if it wasn't a war involving FIVE sovereign nations. Congress almost unanimously voted against Clinton's war in Bosnia with only 2 yes TWO people voting in favor of it. It was an illegal war and blatantly violated the constitution.
Saying other presidents violated the constitution is not an excuse for Obama to do it.
Congress didn't send our troops to war with Libya, Obama did. That is a FACT. As such, the action was "unilateral" with ONE MAN sending our troops there. The UN is irrelevant. Our troops don't answer to them and they have no authority or vote in our country.
"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
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
Regardless, the War Powers Resolution is crystal clear and I'll paste it again for you since you chose to ignore it.
(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. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html
Do tell me how his actions did not violate that.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
25 Mar 11
Actually Bush was unaware that there were supposedly no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Or as I suspect that Saddam had them removed to another location outside of Iraq or destroyed before the invasion. And had Obama gone to the congress, they would have said that they would agree to a police action based on knowing that Qadaffi was committing genocide.
What is not that he should or should not as the other presidents did (it does not take long to investigate and make a list and they did see the evidence on Tv).
You have to ask yourself do you want a president that presumes that he knows best then the laws of the United States? Do you want one who has the potential to be a dictator and says that what he wants go no matter what any else says?
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
25 Mar 11
Well, then I not certain why you continue to defend a President that has lied to you on numerous occasions. With all the present indications, President Obama is going to leave an ever big mess for the next President.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
25 Mar 11
Hmm, I suppose you forget what Rumsfield wrote in his latest book? I suppose you also forget all the testimonies revealing the fact that the Bush Admin. stressed and pressured the CIA, et als to bring them cherry-picked intel regarding Saddam!! You actually expect that anybody should accept "Bush was unaware ..." Really? A POTUS "unaware" would never be acceptable nowadays ... or let's say that would not be an excuse afforded President Obama. How many times did our stated reason for going to war in Iraq change ... WMD, Operation free the people, exporting democracy ... on and on!! Thing is many of our troops are still deployed in Iraq ... the great clean up of Bush's mess!!
Again, President Obama met with the House "Leader" Boehner, Senate Leader Reid and many other high ranking congresspersons for more than an hour prior to any action! Exactly what are such "leaders" Boehner/Reid roles and/or responsibilities to their individual bodies?? None? Boehner now pretends (lies) absolutely no knowledge gained from that meeting that he could share with HIS republican supporters ... that's very interesting!!
2 people like this
@GanChoSan3 (25)
• United States
25 Mar 11
gladys:
For the first part of your post, I agree that obama did not violate the Constitution. As a member of the UN, we were obligated to help impose a no-fly zone.
Saying that , I have two items that I found problematic.
1. Is genocide an emergency?
Yes, but the threat of genocide is not. Therefore, that is not a valid point of fact since there was not, and thanks to the no-fly , there is not genocide.
2. Your last paragraph injecting politics into your statement. I have always found it to be a false argument that it is acceptable to do something because someone else did it. Since you found it unacceptable for Bush, how can you defend obama?
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
24 Mar 11
Weren't you against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What exactly is so different with this war (that is actually what it is) on Libya? Was it because President Obama ordered it? Because that reason alone is not good enough to justify your response. When Clinton went into Kuwait (basically the same reason just different players), he didn't wait for NATO or anyone else. He made a decision and played the leading role.
Frankly, since when has the US ever followed NATO? This is definitely a historical first and a very bad one at that. When has the US ever played second fiddle in anything? Again, another historical first that is shows a very weak President.
Even with all the "Conflicts" that US Presidents have put us into, they have never played second string to any country.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
25 Mar 11
You don't have to see the weakness. The world already sees it. That is the problem. Yes, it is weakness when President Obama decides not to take Command of operations. That is a very real weakness in the eyes of leaders of foreign countries. To them he is a Commander that doesn't take Command but instead passes the buck. It has nothing to do with whether or not you perceive it as weakness. The very action of waiting on NATO seriously hurts his reputation in our allied countries. That is a fact.
No, we shouldn't bear all the responsibility. He should have been putting pressure on Arab countries to take the lead by cutting off foreign aid. That would have been a non-painless and frankly cheaper way to have handled the matter. But the reason he can't do that is because he has no respect as a strong leader, at least not in the Arab world.
But if he is going to put the US in the fight then he bears the responsibility of the one being in charge. He is the Commander-in-Chief and those are US troops he is sending in there. He can't play second fiddle. Frankly, he is shirking his ultimate responsibility as stated in the US CONSTITUTION. You are so big on saying that his actions weren't in violation. But he is violating one of the prime responsibilities given to him by the Constitution.
You can't President of this country and act like a back seat driver.
@sonofmercury (407)
• United States
25 Mar 11
sierras... the gulf war was in 1990 Clinton became president in 1992. sorry but as much as it pains people to do so you have to give credit to Bush.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Mar 11
You know I h8 war sierras, I just made that statement recently ... here!
Anyway, America is a NATO member as are many other nations. You see, it appears under President Obama's administration, international laws as well as American laws will be adhered to.
I think it's important if not absolutely essential that Arab nations take roles in a fellow Arab nation whose citizens begged for help!! As well as other nations assuming some of the burden and costs. Second string you say, why must we always bear all the responsibility? A most obvious answer would be that we're already involved in cleaning up Iraq and the search for remaining Al Qaida in Afghan.
President Obama was clear on our mission initially and he is clear now, no ground troops and NATO will take the leading role with American supports. I see absolutely no "weakness" as you do, in our President in this matter. Yes, it may be "historical" that America won't go it alone ... I don't see that as being on the wrong side of history ... that's good history so far anyway!
@artistry (4152)
• United States
25 Mar 11
....Hi there gladys, Well we have Newt debating with himslf that he would declare a no-fly zone in Libya the very night of the day he was speaking, then a few days later when the president does just that under the UN mission, Newt says we should not have invaded, not gotten involved in Libya. Mr. Bo Jangles (Boehner) sent a letter chastizing the president for not coming to Congress like his predessors had done. Really? Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and W all did what they very well wanted and not one GOP member raised their voice in dissent.
NATO has now accepted responsibility to monitor the no-fly zone in Libya. So the hand-off should be taking place by or on the weekend according to reports. It is a given that whatever position Mr. Obama takes, the folks on the other side of the aisle will be standing on the other side of that position. It really takes on a circus atmosphere and you can't take any of them seriously. President Obama followed the law with giving a proper notice under the war powers act and they are banging the drums like a bunch of nut cases without a cause. There are 60 or 70% of the American people who are in favor of the airstrikes with some saying we should do more to help the people. In the meantime, the GOP is not listening, but making a lot of noise about what the opresident did or did not do. They are also running around trying to pass a bill to take food stamps away from the mothers of children who would not have food without them, but extra money to the wealthy they have no problem giving. It is a mean world, as they say to try to live in. Take care. Cheers.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
25 Mar 11
No Taskr ... I appreciate a president who will listen to his very good advisors! And, who is Newt? We're talking about the President of the United States here ... thank all the "gods" that he's able to think long and hard and not be pushed into anything until he's taken time to digest the "pretzels" properly! It's not always about big ego! He can change his mind!
1 person likes this
@Svidrigaylov (386)
• Guadeloupe
25 Mar 11
I don't know about the US constitution being violated but Obama and friends have certainly violated the Libyan one.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
25 Mar 11
The short answer, yes.
As per article 1, section 8 of the U.S. constitution (which define congressional power):
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
The EWPR has already been explained to you in other responses (several times) and is very clear as well. but it is still irrelevant because even if it did read to give the president authority as y9ou somehow interpret it it, you cannot change the constitution by creating a law. If you wish to give the president authority to authorize military action, you must amend the constitution.
"When GW Bush got congressional approval to invade Iraq, he received that approval based upon a lie!"
subjective. More like based on bad Intel of seven different nation's intelligence agencies. Intel that was also looked at by some of the same congressmen and women (both d and r) who authorized military action. And as convoluted and unconstitutional as the vote was (no formal declaration of war), at least Bush actually went to congress for approval. Obama got no such vote of approval by the general congress for action in Libya. But, since you question asked about Obama (and since Obama is now president), Bush is irrelevant.
"Is KNOWINGLY presenting false information to congress to get the vote and outcome you desire UnContitutional?"
Question fixed.
Yes, it is as unconstitutional as sending troops in to fight with out congressional approval. And would also be a crime...if you actually proved he knowingly presented false information to congress for said (or any) purpose.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
25 Mar 11
He violated the Constitution as well as the War Powers Act because is this Genocide happening in the United States? No it is happening in Libya which isn't a part of the United States and well The Declaration of Independence states that it isn't our business. The UN has no power over the United States we are a separate nation that can choose to support the Resolution or do what Switzerland and other countries do. Take no action on the Resolution. He Violated the Constitution because he attacked a sovereign nation without approve of Congress. He actually committed and act that would be considered an Act of War in all cases. If Mexico was to shoot Missiles at the United States at Military Targets around our borders what would the Response be of the United States within 24 hours if not within hours of the attack?
As for you statement on the Involvement in Libya he hasn't received approve for him to use Military Action against Libya from Congress which he must do under the U.S Constitution as Congress has the power to declare war which then grants the Military (President) to act in order to bring about a victory of the War (FDR) so you see he attacked first without the authorization of Congress which is a direct violation of the Constitution Bush at least got the Approval of Congress to send troops in and start bombing Obama didn't even do that. Soooo he did violate the Constitution and well for Bush lying about the reasons to go into Iraq that wouldn't be Unconstitutional but he would be committing a crime which would be Fraud so I guess he could get Impeached.
