Reply #25: to a certain degree, but he violated the War Powers Act, so he is not in compliance

[PurityOfEssence]

Again, the UN Charter does not supersede national law; the charter itself says that all agreements between a leader and the Security Council for making forces available "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

The UN Participation act lets the President make special agreements, but they MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. If the UN calls up forces via Article 42, the President may send them without Congress' authorization PURSUANT TO a special agreement that has ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, and he may NOT have them do anything beyond that authorized agreement without further authorization.

This Congressional law, which governs everything we do with the UN, expressly FORBIDS THE PRESIDENT TO SEND ANY TROOPS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, regardless how annoying the wording may be.

He did not fulfill the War Powers Act, and he doesn't even claim that he did. The whole justification is that he's following a UN Resolution, which he references SIX times in his letter; at the end, he mentions that this letter is "consistent" with the War Powers Act, which is lawyerspeak for "I am not being a total scofflaw, I'm providing myself some quibble room, and I hope fools think this suffices."

The War Powers Act ONLY allows him to act without Congressional Act IF WE ARE ATTACKED. That's it. The 60 days with an additional 30 are requirements after he's acted on Authorization or if attacked.

As for the Non-binding Senate Resolution about the "no-fly zone", it merely urges the UN to adopt one, with no mention of our involvement at all. Lest we forget, too, Resolution 1973 isn't just a little bit of "hall monitoring" and restriction of the airways, it allows virtually any exercise of armed forces, including ground troops, with pretty much no restriction of their targets or operations, just as long as they don't stay as an occupying force. That's not a "no-fly zone". If people think a non-binding Senate vote urging the UN to intervene is the same as the Senate agreeing that they want us to commit to a full-on WAR with potential land operations, then nothing means anything.