John Boehner invokes War Powers Act

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

House Speaker John Boehner is warning President Barack Obama that he may be in violation of the War Powers Act if Obama refuses to ask Congress for authorization to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi.

In a letter to Obama today, Boehner noted that Friday is 90 days since U.S. forces first attacked Libyan targets as part of the NATO-led campaign to topple Qadhafi.

Boehner also told House Republicans during a closed-door session on Tuesday that GOP leaders may seek to restrict or cut off Libyan funding, although no decision has been made to do so yet, GOP sources said.

Boehner is demanding Obama formally seek authorization from Congress for the campaign or withdraw U.S. forces.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56965.html

[FLAprogressive]

1. It's not even legal under the war powers act

[toddwv]

11. So let me get this straight...

$600 million (give or take a few million) so far for the action against Libya.

$2-3 trillion for the invasions of Afghanistan and the side show invasion of Iraq.

And the right-wing is going to get sanctimonious now? Give me a fucking break.

To clarify, I think we should pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan AND retract all but support roles for the action in Libya.

[sakabatou]

2. So John, did you speak up when Bush went to war?

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Bush got permission from Congress

[wordpix]

50. after lying about WMD

[Springer9]

7. Boehner voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force

Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that authorized the Iraq War, so yes he did speak up.

[onehandle]

Doing stuff is only ok when the President is a Republican and let's say...

...not black.

[The Nexus]

46. Republican? Point taken. But black?

If you don't count Powell and Rice as black.... :shrug:

[damntexdem]

3. I support the intervention; but it would be wonderful to see Congress employ the War Powers Act.

Even though Boehner is doing so only as a partisan farce.

[pampango]

8. Agree on all three counts - support for intervention, Congress should vote on it, and

Boehner pretending to be a peace-maker is about more than I can stand. :(

[eleny]

4. I'd rather see the House take responsibility and own this, too

[FSogol]

6. Hey Speaker Boehner: doesn't criticizing the President during a war = aiding and abetting the enemy?

I seem to remember your party promoting that a few years ago.

F'ing pukes. :puke:

[24601]

16. What defines an enemy? Obama? Giving any president that

unilateral authority is folly. At least it's folly until the War Powers Act is held unconstitutional.

That must be Obama's position - after all he went to law skool did he not?

The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive to declare war and if an AUMF is the modern vehicle for legitimizing conflict, then we might be helping kill Libyans, but they are not "Enemy Libyans" until Congress says so.

[The Stranger]

9. Boner's party is split on the issue; he may have really fucked up on this one.

[Peregrine]

10. Has any president ever technically obeyed the WPR

The War Powers Resolution (it is a resolution and not an act, not signed by the President) that usurps the constitutional powers of the Commander and Chief. The only constitutional control Congress has is the purse strings.

[FLAprogressive]

13. "[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War"

[Politicalboi]

14. Has any other President been

Black? LOL! See it's all different now.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Yes, some have, although none have liked it, and you're wrong about the Constitutionality

The Necessary and Proper clause grants Congress the right to draft any legislation to delineate how the enumerated powers in the Constitution are to be exercised. It specifically says that this pertains to all officers of the country, so that includes determining the exercise of rights granted to the executive.

The War Powers Resolution is the law, and has been for almost 38 years; it is literally the statutory definition of how war is to be waged. Period. It's a brilliant piece of legislation, and specifically states what it determines "war" to be: the introduction of armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent, so there's no weaseling about something not being quite a war. It specifically says when a President may initiate war: after a Declaration of War by Congress, after specific Authorization by Congress, or after we are attacked.

Ford took heat for the Vietnam rescue in 1975, so he stuck pretty close to the law for the Mayaguez incident, which was initiated by us being attacked.

Carter sent forces into Iran after we had been attacked.

Reagan complied a bit sloppily--at best--in the Lebanon situation, and even though he attacked Grenada with no authorization, he did invite Speaker O'Neill to the White House the night before and stated that it was too hot a situation to have debated, but that he would be beholden to the Resolution and felt it would be wrapped up quickly. O'Neill told him he didn't like this, but that he recognized the effort.

Bush played fast-and-loose regarding the introduction of troops to stop Hussein, but he did belatedly seek approval. Panama was a bullshit invasion, and he takes heat for that, but he sought approval from both parties' leadership AND President Elect Clinton for the Somalia adventure. He was a lame duck at that point, and Congress wasn't in session.

Clinton obeyed the Resolution's ongoing stipulations regarding Somalia's continuance and lobbied both Houses of Congress with a lengthened timetable. Ironically, the Democratic Speaker, Tom Foley, would have none of it, but Senator Dole agreed and helped sway Foley due to Clinton's persuasive argument and specific aims. Clinton ratfucked the Resolution with Kosovo, hiding behind a very tenuous argument about NATO. He was the worst offender until Obama.

Bush Jr. sought approval for Afghanistan and Iraq and got it.

Obama violated the UN Participation Act, which REQUIRES the President to get Congressional approval BEFORE sending troops in answer to a UN call-up. He violated the War Powers Resolution by not meeting the three criteria for a President to initiate war.

This is all bullshit, and it needs to stop.

The Republicans love a monarchic Presidency and are generally for the resource theft and bullying of the Libyan escapade, so it's handy to let Obama go out and further destroy this particular law.

It's deeply, deeply shameful and dishonest, and people need to realize this.

[Nihil]

23. Excellent post!

Thanks for the explanation & quick history lesson!
:toast:

[rayofreason]

29. So Bush complied with the WPR...

...and Obama has not.

This is not the change I voted for.

[Hosnon]

39. The WPA is anything but a "brilliant piece of legislation".

It's a basic principle of constitutional law that an act of Congress cannot amend the Constitution. The constitutional authority of the President's military authority is unaffected by the statute.

[PurityOfEssence]

57. It does not "amend" the Constitution, it defines it; its right under the Necessary and Proper clause

The War Powers Resolution isn't fiendish usurpation of the innocent President's rights, it is a codification into law of the enumerated powers in the Constitution itself. It doesn't add or subtract any powers. It doesn't modify anything; it clarifies and codifies them.

The necessary and proper clause gives Congress the right to make any laws necessary to govern the wielding of the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution, and it specifically does so as it regards any element of government, including defining the powers granted to the Executive. It's really unarguable: they get to clarify and codify the powers.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here's why I consider the War Powers Resolution such a great document: it states the Constitutional authority from which it justifies creating the law, it defines what it considers to be "war", it defines the three conditions under which a President may initiate conflict, and then it goes on to very carefully set out a clear timetable and specific information required of the President in any situation that doesn't follow from a Declaration of War. It also gives the President a bit more power than is necessarily to be implied from the Constitution itself: he may nimbly respond to attack, whereas there is very easily an argument that he wouldn't be able to under strict constructionism.

There is a logic to the Constitution as it regards war: it doesn't want one person to have the ability to start it, and it doesn't want to hamstring the leadership of a war by forcing everything to be done by agreement. It's lucidity at its best, and displays a keen understanding of the human animal: leadership of conflict needs to be very centralized, whereas the grave import of war deserves deliberation of all.

For all the bullshit misinterpretations of the document, it really lays out a clear and very workable system, and it, to me, is quite admirable. People should read the damned thing. Obama should obey it.

[Hosnon]

59. Please cite the authority which states that the Necessary and Proper Clause vests Congress

with the power to define terms in the Constitution. I'll leave a small window open for the sake of possibility, but the overwhelmingly agreed upon effect of the Clause as handed down by the SCOTUS is not as you claim.

Generally, the SCOTUS defines the law, including the Constitution; however, I agree that It was never intended to be the sole definer. But in modern constitutional law, the SCOTUS does fill that role the vast majority if the time. A notable exception is in the realm of political questions. The SCOTUS has generally ceded the answering of such questions to the other two - and political - branches. The definition of "war" is likely a political question.

That said, a resolution of a political question (e.g., the definition of "war") does not have the finality that a definition from the SCOTUS has and for one obvious reason: the resolution is left to both branches. Congress can determine that the definition of "war" of is X, the President: Y. Which is right? That's a question left to the voters.

And regardless of the validity of your argument regarding the effect of the Necessary and Proper Clause, a constitutional rule of interpretation is that more specific provisions trump general provisions. Therefore, it is unlikely that any "power to define" created by the extremely general Necessary and Proper Clause could ever diminish (or enhance) the military authority vested in the Presidency by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief.

I have read the WPA and studied it. A quick Google search will pull up vast articles demonstrating the controversy surrounding it.

[PurityOfEssence]

60. The very clause itself, as quoted above

That's literally what the clause means: to create laws that spell out the method by which enumerated powers are to be exercised.

The Supreme Court may rule on the specifics of Constitutionality in cases where an action is called into account for its Constitutionality, but Congress makes laws determining how the powers are to be exercised. If someone thinks they've overstepped the bounds, a case may be brought and the Supreme Court may weigh in.

A law is a law, and until the Supreme Court changes it, it is in effect. Congress has the power under the Constitution to define what it considers "war", as it did in the War Powers Resolution, and if the statute crafted is passed--as this one was, overriding Nixon's veto--then that is the legal and Constitutional definition of the word until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Sadly, many people seem to think that a law that people have sneered at is not a standing law; it is. Until overturned, this is our country's legal definition of "war": introducing armed forces into hostilities or where hostilities are imminent. Sending a guy with a bayonet into a hostile area is "war". Congress was sick of the transgressions of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, and they sculpted a resolution with apron-strings to keep the President from starting conflicts.

We are a nation of law, and scofflaws will drive us to ruin. Picking and choosing which statutes are to be obeyed is deep, deep cynicism.

You've kept this at a very pleasant tone, so I don't mean to be demeaning, but the very definition of the Necessary and Proper clause is to do precisely this: give Congress the clear right to craft legislation governing the exercise of powers that exist in the Constitution.

In this instance, nobody's taking anything away from the President or being a big meanie, they're statutorily reminding the President that he is not the one to make decisions for initiating war. The founders were right: you no more want one person starting wars than you want a large group of legislators leading the actual fighting. The former is tyranny, and the latter is unfocused cacophony, whereas when the group itself decides the initiating of conflict, one can have a reasonable hope that unjust or foolish wars aren't started, and when one person leads the campaign, there's a reasonable hope that nimbleness of reaction and focused leadership may lead to victory.

He's so egregiously breaking the law--both letter and spirit--that is stomach churning. It's not just the War Powers Resolution, either, he's in direct and cynical violation of the UN Participation Act.

[Hosnon]

62. Your reading of the Clause does not trump rulings by the SCOTUS.

Simply put, the Necessary and Proper Clause supplements the enumerated powers in the Constitution. As Justice Marshall put it: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 at 420 (1819).

Therefore, because Congress was given the explicit authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, the SCOTUS held that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorized the creation of a national bank.

There is no case law that I am aware of that supports your claim that the Clause includes a "power to define" the text of the Constitution. Again, please cite authority for that claim. I've provided a case from the SCOTUS in support of my position; unless you can provide a case in support of yours, your interpretation is nothing more than that - your interpretation (and wrong with regard to U.S. law).

[PurityOfEssence]

63. Here's the definition from Webster's New World Law Dictionary

A section of the United States Constitution that enables Congress to make the laws required for the exercise of its other powers established by the Constitution.

http://law.yourdictionary.com/necessary-and-proper-clause

Can it be any clearer than this? Consider the Constitution science, and the Necessary and Proper Clause engineering.

Truly, this is a ridiculous argument: the very clause states that it endows Congress with the right to craft statutes to govern the exercise of powers granted in the Constitution. Marshall, in your quote, is effectively saying the same thing.

People love to denigrate things enacted due to this power as add-ons or usurpation or the like, but the founders wisely knew that the specifics of the powers would need to be delineated in law.

Here is another definition from USlegal.com

The necessary and proper clause is a clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause permits Congress to make laws that are deemed “necessary and proper” for the execution of its enumerated powers. The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted this clause for the purpose of granting Congress the implied power to enact any law that is reasonably designed to achieve an express constitutional power. Necessary and proper clause is also termed as basket clause, coefficient clause, elastic clause, sweeping clause.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/necessary-and-proper-clause/

As for case law, I specifically cite the very ruling by John Marshall that you offer as proof of this, in addition to these entries. Congress may enact a law that is designed to exercise a constitutional power; that's defining and specifying constitutionality in a specific statute. It's what I said. It's what the thing itself quite clearly says. Are we done yet, or are you going to Josh Cryer me through quibblings and venn diagrams and distortions and continual retorts?

The quote you offer rather substantiates my case. It's very important, and the founders were quite wise to make sure that there was a mechanism whereby the often broad and abstract powers could be specified and codified into laws that could be exercised and enforced.

Sheesh.

[Hosnon]

69. I'm sorry, but you're interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause is wrong.

The Clause expands the enumerated powers of the federal government. If Congress has the explicit authority to do "X", and "a", "b", and "c" are "necessary and proper" to do "X", then Congress has the authority to do "a", "b", and "c" despite an absence of explicit authority to do so.

That's it. That's the Necessary and Proper Clause.

For example, if the Constitution gave Congress the explicit authority to build bridges over valleys, the Necessary and Proper Clause would provide Congress with the implied authority to hire construction crews to build said bridges.

Perhaps I'm not explaining it as clearly as I could - are there any other DU attorneys following this sub-thread who can perhaps more succinctly explain this?

[PurityOfEssence]

72. It does not expand the enumerated powers; it gives Congress the mechanism to enact them

There's a weird belief that the necessary and proper clause is somehow dirty and a mechanism for usurping the power of others or subverting the pristine expressions of the Constitution. It is not. It is simply a pathway for the enumerated powers to be cast into law.

Taking your example, "X" is a power granted to a branch of government, with nothing being added or changed from the powers specified in the Constitution. The clause gives Congress the authority to craft laws to execute such powers. That's it.

Your example about bridges is a very good one, but why is there a dispute here? The broad-strokes hypothetical authority to build bridges is all fine and good, but to actually do so, one needs statutes to govern the steps by which one does it. This clause wisely grants the deliberative body with a way to get it done.

I simply don't get your point of dispute. Congress has the power to sculpt laws to govern the mechanisms by which the enumerated powers are exercised. No new powers are added. No sneaky changes are made. It's simply to engineer the way powers are to be wielded. It's very clear from the language and placement of the clause that this is the point.

This clause does NOT EXPAND THE ENUMERATED POWERS. It allows Congress to define how the enumerated powers are to be exercised. Marshall says as much.

Yes, "a", "b" and "c" are allowed to enable the particular enumerated power. This is in service of the power itself. The enumerated powers are the point: NOTHING can be done within this framework to create some new power; these actions are simply to devise a way for the already existing powers to be exercised.

I'll PM you, and hopefully we can talk this out.

Yes, attorneys, please chime in.

[Unvanguard]

21. It is the law of the land (well, at least if it is constitutional.)

It is binding. Nixon vetoed it, but his veto was overridden. And, yes, presidents have generally complied with the War Powers Act, but it was only a matter of time before it became too inconvenient to do so. This is not really a consequence of any personal failure of Obama so much as it is the long-term pathology of our political system, which is gradually trending toward greater and greater executive power.

[JackRiddler]

42. Utter nonsense.

The "commander in chief" is a military rank, not a right to initiate war.

The Constitution unmistakably puts the power to declare war entirely with the Congress.

[Hosnon]

44. And the Founders specifically replaced "make war" with "declare war".

If a declaration of war is not necessary for the U.S. to be in a state of war (e.g., invasion) or if the military activity is anything less than "war", the President arguably has the constitutional authority to commit U.S. forces.

[JackRiddler]

47. That's pure sophistry if applied to Libya or any other war of choice.

You're mistaken if you think an interpretation of the always-slippery "founder's intent" (i.e., according to you, even though it was contested already at the time) is supposed to trump the actual words, which are abundantly clear. Doesn't matter what you think the various drafts or changes to them meant; only the ratified version counts.

Aside from which, since World War I the US has entered a complex of treaties and international law organizations which are[/b[ law by way of Senate ratification. To initiate war is illegal. There are no exceptions.

[Hosnon]

49. No, it's clear that a deliberate distinction was made between "make war" and "declare war":

To make war

Mr. PINKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in Senate, so as to give no advantage to large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.

Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.

Mr. GERRY never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.

Mr. ELSWORTH. there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.

Mr. MASON was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."

On the motion to insert declare-in place of make, it was agreed to. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no.29 Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md.

ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0817.html

And that distinction is still clear in the modern vocabulary. Surely you don't contend that the President would have to convene Congress and get a declaration of war before responding if the U.S. were directly attacked?

ETA: Treaties can't amend the Constitution, so whatever constitutional military authority the President has, it remains unaffected by any treaty.

[JackRiddler]

51. The material you quote reinforces what I said: it's sophistry to apply this to wars of choice.

Thanks! You even bolded the parts that establish my point.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.

REPEL AND NOT COMMENCE.

REPEL AND NOT COMMENCE.

I'm assuming you won't try to make a case that Libya attacked the US!

Can this be any more clear to you? Hello? Do you read what you quote?

REPEL AND NOT COMMENCE.

[Hosnon]

52. When did I assert that the President can begin a war?

I didn't, so tone it down a notch.

What I did say was: "If a declaration of war is not necessary for the U.S. to be in a state of war (e.g., invasion) or if the military activity is anything less than "war", the President arguably has the constitutional authority to commit U.S. forces."

Your post in response to mine indicated you do not believe in a definitional difference between "making war" and "declaring war". The notes of the constitutional convention (and modern definitions) do not support that claim.

The major slippery slope elements are:

(1) What constitutes an attack on the United States? It's not clear to me that an attack, or an imminent attack, on a U.S. citizen abroad isn't a direct attack. Therefore, a President could arguably justify "making war" against such a belligerent and be within the bounds of the Constitution.

(2) What is "war"? (And any definition from the WPA regarding war is by no means final because an act of Congress cannot amend the Constitution.)

[No Elephants]

55. It's astounding that you interpret what you quoted as giving a President power to initiate a war.

What you've quoted indicates that the Framers originally wanted to give Congress ALL power over war, but having Congress wage war was too impractical as Congress is too large and slow a body to direct millitary operations. So, the war powers were allocated as follows: Congress gets to decide when we go to war and the President commands the troops.

Your question about responding if the U.S. were directly attacked is beside the point as no one is arguing Libya attacked us.

[Hosnon]

56. The only astounding thing is your willingness to invent things I said.

And you are mistaken that the Founders originally wanted Congress to command the U.S. military in war. The Presidency was modeled in large part after Washington; the role of Commander-in-Chief was vested in the President.

Changing "make war" to "declare war" allows the President to participate in an existing state of war without Congress' approval.

[No Elephants]

54. You are mistaken. A Resolution is passes exactly as an Act is passed.

Nixon did not sign it, but his veto was overidden by Congress, as provided in the Constitution.

And the Constitution gives Congress a number of powers relating to war and the military.

[Gregorian]

12. The GOP restricting military funding? I'd like to see that.

It would be both ironic and hypocritical.

[mike_c]

15. and welcome....

I'll support any authority who strangles the flow of resources to the MIC and the Pentagon, even if only a little.

[Gregorian]

17. I want to believe. But it is surely a mirage.

I totally understand your comment. I'd like to see Obama play along with this. Although I would like to see us out of the Middle East.

[joshcryer]

18. So, congress *FAILS* to inact the War Powers Act in a timely manner (they have 45 days)...

...and it's Obama's fault.

That's rich.

And it's even richer that liberals are buying the fucking GOPers lies.

[MikeNY]

25. What country are you from?

Around here the executive branch executes the laws.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Hey, come on, he's TRYING to execute this one, and he's certainly roughed it up a bit

Thanks to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, there's now ample precedent to simply ignore this law and do as one pleases. Add to that Harry Truman's egregious violation of the UN Participation Act, and we can thank Democratic Presidents for helping sanctify the imperial presidency.

[joshcryer]

34. You have no problem with the GOP Congress ignoring the War Powers Act?

[PurityOfEssence]

65. I have problems with them playing games, yes.

They're not shirking their duty under the law, though; they have every right to let the President hang himself, as he's doing.

They pointed out that he didn't have the authority to start it, and they're not making any effort to authorize further action. There's nothing in the law that says they need to.

They're playing a deeply cynical game here: they hate the War Powers Resolution themselves because they're monarchists at heart and are firmly convinced they'll get the presidency again and hold it more often than not. Obama exposes himself to impeachment and untold harassment if things go wrong there, and they're playing the field. It's nasty passive-aggressive chickenshittedness at its worst.

Don't you feel a bit queasy that Obama's exposed himself so thoroughly? Don't you have any respect for the law? Don't you feel betrayed by a politician who flagrantly does what he damned well pleases to start a murderous war by breaking the law, then hides behind a UN Charter that is NOT a self-actuating treaty, and fluffs the reality of the War Powers Resolution?

It's appalling. Those who support him on this are endangering us all.

[joshcryer]

33. The War Powers Act requires Congress to set up a committee in a timely manner. Congress never did it

Obama did everything the War Powers Act requests of him.

1) He sent a letter informing Congress of his actions.
2) He withdrew hostilities within 12 days.
3) He informed Congress that he would welcome any actions that they would take.

Congress has done nothing and has disobeyed the War Powers Act completely.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Where do you get THAT number?

First off, again, he violated the War Powers Resolution by initiating action. The President may only send armed forces into hostilities or where they are imminent under three conditions: A Declaration of War made by Congress, Specific Congressional Authority, or if we're attacked.

If it's a Declaration of War, then there are no timetables for action or restrictions for reporting. If he does it because of an Authorization or in response to an attack, he has no set time limit for when he may commence hostilities, but once he's done so, he has 48 hours to notify Congress in writing what's been done, what the intentions are and the forces to be used. From that point, he has 60 days to cease hostilities unless Congress extends the time period or declares war. If he requests, in writing, 30 additional days for WITHDRAWAL--which is meant to be specifically that, not a grace period for some more aggression--he may be granted it. That's it, period.

If Congress chooses not to act, he is in breach of the law once the time limits expire. It's HIS responsibility to get the go-ahead. That's all academic, since the very act he committed was absolutely and undeniably illegal.

So very, very many times you've retorted that others should read the thing, yet it's very clear: he may only initiate hostilities on his own if we're attacked. These hostilities are defined as ANY armed forces sent into hostilities or where they may be imminent. It's so sickeningly clear that ANYONE should be able to understand it.

Then there's the UN Participation Act, of which he is in complete violation.

Where do you get this 45 days?

[joshcryer]

32. I'll note you ignored statutory authorization, which is what the UN statutes do. Again and again...

...you dishonestly spread this nonsense.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. The UN Charter does not supercede US law. Period.

You should be alerted for calling me a liar, and you do it repeatedly. You are specifically wrong on this count, and the UN Participation Act is very clear on this. If a treaty has a self-actuating clause, like NATO does, then the certain actions may trigger war, but the UN Participation Act specifically, laboriously, and obviously states that the President needs prior authorization from both houses of Congress.

This is despicable.

I'm not alerting you because people need to see this exchange.

[joshcryer]

40. It is fine to call ones claims dishonest, which those claims most certainly were.

You are wrong about the UN Participation Act, and you keep invoking it. The President acted under statutory authorization under the War Powers Act, using the UN Participation Act under UN Artcle 42 (not 43, on which your patently dishonest portrayal relies). The President then withdrew hostilities within 12 days.

Meanwhile Congress ignored any statutory requirements under the War Powers Act, failed to even come close to following congressional priority procedures, the President sent his letter and they sat on their hands.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. No, you keep calling me a liar when you've been repeatedly shown that you are incorrect

I am not saying anything about Article 43 and have repeatedly rebutted this point in thread after thread with you. The UN Participation Act REQUIRES the President to have Constitutional authorization for any special agreements with the security council for a call-up under Article 42. Just because Article 42 of the UN Charter itself doesn't mention special agreements, the UN Participation Act SPECIFICALLY requires them for a call up under Article 42 as well.

For those of you unaware or blizzarded by distortions or misunderstandings, here's the relevant paragraph from the US law that dictates how we are to participate in the UN:

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

It's not well worded at all, but the key is "pursuant to such special agreement or agreements": in short, he doesn't have to go back to Congress if he has an authorization of a Special Agreement in place. He doesn't have to ask permission if it's an Article 42 call-up AND pursuant to such special agreement or agreements. It is linked.

Here's Dean Acheson, then Undersecretary of State explaining it to a congressman at the time in crystal clear language:

Congressman John Kee wondered whether the qualifications in section 6 of the Act permitted the President to take action without consulting or submitting the matter to Congress. Acheson firmly rejected that possibility:
Acheson: "This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by Congress. The answer to that question is 'No,' that the President may not do that, that such special agreements refer to the special agreement which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress, so that until the special agreement has been negotiated and approved by the Congress, it has no force and effect."

If that's not enough, here's more from the article:

The restrictions on the President's power under section 6 to use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949, allowing the President on his own initiative to provide military forces to the United Nations for "cooperative action." However, presidential discretion to deploy these forces is subject to stringent conditions: they may serve only as observers and guards and in a noncombatant capacity, and they cannot exceed one thousand in number. Moreover, in providing such troops to the United Nations, the President shall assure that they not involve "the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter." Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its amendments for unilateral military action by the President.

Article on UN Participation Resolution

JoshCryer has had this specific information shown to him in open threads on numerous occasions, yet still continually sees fit to call me dishonest. There is no ambiguity about this, and it specifically deals with Article 42, not Article 43. I have been very clear that I am specifically talking about this being Article 42. The UN Participation Act defines how we are to interface with the United Nations. I urge all to read the article, but the most pertinent part is Section IV, which outlines the drafting of the Act and its historical context: one of the principal reasons we refused to join the League of Nations was that we didn't want to allow foreign powers to have the power to compel us to do certain things, thus, it was made abundantly clear that Congress would have a vote of both houses to authorize any deal for providing forces upon a UN call-up rather than allow a President to do as he damned well pleased.

The repeated insults of dishonesty are tiresome, especially when this information has been presented to this person in threads to which he's posted afterward. This is very clear and has nothing whatsoever to do with Article 43. Please chime in people and stop this abuse. Thanks in advance.

[joshcryer]

66. What part of post #37 refers to article 42?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4884417&mesg_id=4887653

Article 42 and 43 are separate in the UN articles, and they are separate in the UN Participation Act. We have been over this before PoE, and you keep doing it, why waste my time in walls of text with someone who insists on dishonestly portraying the law as it exists? I have explained it to you several times already, even going so far as making a Venn Diagram for you! But you persist...

[JackRiddler]

41. Actually the UN Charter is US law... as is the Kellogg-Briand Pact banning war.

Treaties passed by the Senate are the law of the land.

Anyway, the UN Charter does not countenance actions like the current bombing of Libya!

In fact, UN SC Resolution 1973 doesn't cover what NATO is currently doing, either.

Obviously the War Powers Act isn't even applicable, since it doesn't even consider initiation of hostilities by the US.

Excellent run-down on the legal levels involved, and the many contradictions and basically lawless areas that have been created, by DU's own David Swanson, here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson06032011.html

If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, a treaty ratified by the United States says another, a law passed by Congress yet another, and another law passed by Congress another thing still, while a signing statement radically changes that last law but itself differs with an executive order, all of which statements of law conflict with a number of memos drafted by the Office of Legal Council (some secret and some leaked), but a President has announced that the law is something completely different from all of this, and in practice the government defies all of the above including the presidential announcement . . . in such a case, the obvious but possibly pointless question arises: what's legal?

The above theoretical example of legal confusion sounds extreme, but it is not far off the actual situation with regard to some of our most important public policies. Take the example of U.S. warmaking in Libya. Is that legal?

CONTINUE AT LINK

[Hosnon]

45. I stopped reading at "The U.S. Constitution says Congress must decide where and when to make war."

Because that is completely false.

[joshcryer]

61. "statutory authorization"

[PurityOfEssence]

64. When shown conclusive, specific proof that you are incorrect, you continue to call me a liar

while posting on the same thread.

Over and over and over.

Please explain yourself.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unvanguard]

20. Speaker Boehner is probably right, for what it's worth. n/t

[JackRiddler]

22. Has everyone got their heads so far up they can't see yet another bloody imperialist war...

except insofar as how it relates to the latest professional wrestling show put on by the Republicans and Democrats?

When Boehner comes out against gravity, some DUers will think the right response is to throw themselves off a cliff.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Yes, they have.

To far too many, Barack Obama is such sublime perfection that any action of his is by definition good.

I've seen some posts from pro-war individuals who have problems with Obama, but the vast majority of the pro-war people are EXTREMELY partisan Obama fans.

It's hero worship writ large: we were called to support a man with a rather corporatist and evasive legislative record on the strength of his character. To be fair, many truly feel for the oppressed who have risen up, but letting this emotional impulse crowd out any contrary information is not a virtue. The idea of listening to the shrill and cloying hogwash from the corporate media as gospel is hard to excuse for relatively sensible people: we've seen so many instances where the financial interests of business drive the infotainment business, yet so many people are perfectly happy to believe it when it sustains the actions of this man.

This is a wicked enterprise, and shows the true nature of our president and his allies.

[MikeNY]

24. Don't let this slide

Every party should be the anti-war party right now. Let Boner get the job done. The Congress deserves an answer, and when that terminology is used, it means that the peoples' elected representatives deserve an answer. We have a Congress for a reason. One reason is to make sure that if we go into war we're damned sure we want it. Congress would've voted no to Libya, and thats why we're dealing with this mess. Give back the Peace Prize Obama...

]

Bring the troops home now.

[L. Coyote]

26. If they were doing this for all the right reasons, I'd cheer on the guy in the orange skin

but this is just Obama bashing at work. Nonetheless, it is just as important to try to stop Obama's adventurism as it was Bush's.

[Lucinda]

27. Good.

Though I agree that the "orange one" isn't doing this for the purest of reasons.

[krabigirl]

28. Good. Don't like the guy but still a good thing,

[Vidar]

36. First time I've agreed with Boehner.

[Redford]

43. I am so tired of war

There are much better uses for our money and people

[VA_Jill]

48. Boehner is an idiot

Apparently it's okay when HIS president does it. Lips were zipped on that one.

[Devil_Fish]

58. fuck you boner. It was fine with you when Bush did it, but your pissed when a black democrat does it

You made all of your posturing meaningless when you authorised the ficticious War on Terror. Libya is just part of the WOT so shut the hell up, You all ready authorized it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

70. This logic concerns me.

Your language indicates that you don't care for the war, yet you are telling Boehner to shut up?

Are you against war or not?

[roomfullofmirrors]

71. By your own logic, you make all of your own anti-war posturing equally meaningless

[jberryhill]

68. It's up to Congress to act... Go ahead and see how it shakes out

I'll never understand why the workings of the system need to be accompanied by so much drama.