Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions
Susan Crabtree | March 30, 2011, 4:44PM


The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.

...............

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without congressional approval. Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific congressional mandate.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/clinton-tells-house-obama-would-ignore-war-resolutions.php?ref=fpblg

[EFerrari]

1. It was a nice republic while it lasted. n/t

[enlightenment]

3. No kidding.

:(

[ixion]

10. yep. because it most certainly is a republic no longer.

:(

[Baby Bear]

48. I know when the republic died

It was when they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance.

[avaistheone1]

62. Yes sireee.

RIP

[Jack Rabbit]

85. One more time, with feeling: The Presidency Should be Abolished

It is a threat to democracy, liberty and the rule of law.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Clear, official notice that Obama thinks he's above the law

? = ?

[EFerrari]

6. That notice came when he refused to prosecute BushCo. n/t

[liberation]

7. The US has had an imperial presidency for a few decades now

[No Elephants]

66. Nothing like what it has been since 911. Constitution in shreds.

[opihimoimoi]

4. Now that was Spinely to stick up for the Spineful President....indicating the GOP is flummoxed

Obama is doing exactly what other Presidents had previously done...act with timely and just reasons ...esp to help...

The GOP is Whining as they always will

[lumpy]

11. The US Constitution is becoming tattered and torn all in the name of

the BOMB

[opihimoimoi]

20. I don't think so....

[caseymoz]

34. The constitution has a clause to specifically prevent standing armies.

Which has been ignored longer than anybody here has been alive, and only Congress is supposed to authorize war, so yes, we have torn the Constitution to pieces, even if most of the tears have been pre-Obama, this is only another one, a bit more damaging coming from a purported "liberal" and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Our nation had better address the violations of the Constitution, somehow. Either by amending it to reflect current reality or, better, cutting back on Executive power. Otherwise, nobody knows where the power of the President stops.

[ttwiddler]

53. No it doesn't

It simply says that Congress may authorize one, but there is no prohibition against a standing army.

Attempting to restrain executive power through legal means, instead of political, is just silly. Flexibility is absolutely necessary to run a government.

[caseymoz]

58. Sorry, you're so wrong, yes it does!!

It doesn't just say Congress may authorize a standing army.

I didn't think it was necessary for me to cite it. It's easy enough to find in the Constitution online and use a browser that has a "find" feature, but you didn't even look. You just presumed I was lying or misinformed. Here:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Why would it limit the appropriation to two years after it says Congress has that power? The Constitution doesn't make another specific limit like this on any other power of Congress. It doesn't make it on the Navy, whose Clause is immediately below. That looks like a limit on a standing army to me.

What's the election cycle on the House of Representatives? Two years. In other words, the House (where appropriation bills have to start) doesn't have the power to extend an appropriation for an army (not a military intervention or a war, but the army itself) for two years. Meaning also people would get to vote between the time it forms an army and its next appropriation.

If you're going to say we can't limit executive power by legal means, you might as well just flush the Constitution, because that's the idea behind the entire document. Not doing that is the same view of executive power dictatorships take. Why wouldn't every branch of government need this "flexibility" to "help" the president? Remember, the Constitution is there to prevent dictatorship, and it's odd that you see the necessity for loosening restraints on the Office of government that naturally threatens it the most.

And given Obama's enthusiastic grasping and extension of executive powers that Dubya pioneered, I'd say dictatorship is exactly the threat now.

There are two other places where the Constitution looks decidedly anti-standing army. One of them is the Second Amendment, and if you look at the first draft of it, in the Constitution of Virginia written by Thomas Jefferson, you see that.

Really, if this is the current reality where we need an expensive standing army, we should amend the Constitution to reflect that. Keeping it the way it is just invites disrespect for the rest of it, where whole sections can be declared "impractical."

[No Elephants]

70. Legal constraints on executive power are silly? How Nixonian!

You tell Washington, I'll tell the Framers and the people who voted on the Constitution circa 1789.

[No Elephants]

84. Congress may authorize an army, but only for 2 years at a time.

Constitution give no one power to authorize a standing army.

[No Elephants]

68. Well, as long as YOU don't THINK so, it must be as you say.

[frylock]

19. don't know if you caught this or not, but brad sherman is a dem..

flummoxed nonetheless.

[opihimoimoi]

23. A tad supect despite his many years in office...but linked to Scientology thingy

[liberation]

29. Of course your ad hominems and narrative are not suspect at all...

... even when you're being exposed wrong.

[opihimoimoi]

31. The negative narrative in our society has reached imbalanced levels...

[liberation]

33. Right...

[No Elephants]

78. Lots of imbalance of all kinds.

[frylock]

40. suspect in what respect?

and WTF does that even have to do with OP?

[ThomCat]

59. A true believer automatically finds him suspect because he's not

cheering whatever Obama is doing.

[No Elephants]

67. Remind us which President said he'd override a war vote by Congress.

[Metta]

5. The imperial presidency, an impeachable offense.

Sorry to hear it though not surprised unless they make good on their promises to not get more involved. I'm not especially confident that they'd do that dispite what they claim given their steady drift to the right.

[DeSwiss]

8. So.....

...what she's saying is: He will "dictate" what is and what is not lawful?

- Constitutional lawyer my eye......


Can you believe they gave me
this? Ha!

K&R

[lumpy]

9. Illegal shortcut to war.

no no

[monmouth]

12. I was sort of for this action on behalf of Libya before I'm now against it. I'm

a flip-flopper but the more I'm getting info on this...not a good idea at all. I'm not liking this more and more as the info is slowly coming out about these "rebels."

[stockholmer]

13. and in breaking news, the President states he will simple ignore the Articles of Impeachment........

:thumbsdown:

[Zorra]

14. The repubs may attempt to impeach the President. nt

[Iliyah]

15. On what?

The gopers are hopeful to get a goper into the Prez office. In trying to impeach Prez O they would eff up what they desire the most, total control and one is the ability to go to war w/o approval from congress. Y'know they are itching to attack Iran.

Actually, some gopers want to start WW3.

[Jack Rabbit]

89. You're assuming the Koch snorters are rational beings

So what if impeaching Obama would hinder the goal of formally establishing an imperial presidency that can go to war without congressional approval?

Of course, they would ever think of impeaching him for violating the constitution, well, not a real violation of the constitution, any way. They'll impeach him for a blow job. And if that isn't true, then they'll make it up and suborn perjury with a video tape provided by Andrew Breitbart and funded by the Koch brothers.

[madrchsod]

16. we don`t have the ability to fight another land war...

[No Elephants]

71. Hell, we do not have the ability to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan without driving our

troops nuts.

[abelenkpe]

17. What?

That can't be right...

[frylock]

18. decider 2: electric bugaloo

fuck me.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Funny, his ardents are always claiming his powers are very

limited, that he is not able to make unilateral decisions, and that Congress holds all the power. Funny.

[liberation]

30. To be fair the extent of their stance has been that if Obama does it, it must be for a reason

and thus perfectly reasonable. Which is why these New Dems are totally different from the Old Republicans who used to support whatever Bush did, because it must have been for a reason, and thus perfectly reasonable.


I am frankly very entertained, it is amusing to see a Dem president implement a military intervention (we do not have wars anymore) and seeing some of the die hard Dems use some of the very same justifications (language even) than the die hard Republicans used during the run up to Iraq.


The more things change....

[frylock]

36. it will be even more entertaining when the self-fufilling prophecy of president palin..

rears it's fugly head. will the people who support our actions in afghanistan and libya because of a democratic admin still support them? or will the hypocrisy be on full display (again) as their views flip 180 degrees?

[KoKo]

102. OFGS...that Palin/Bachman thing is the Powers that Be Pushing to keep Obama in Power...

Don't fall for that stupid stuff the MSM is Pushing at you! UGH!

[Gravel Democrat]

55. "Funny, his ardents are always claiming his powers are very limited"

A veritable laugh riot!




"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."
Thomas Jefferson, finding himself a tad less than amused...

***

http://costofwar.com

[ThomCat]

60. It's also funny that the only time Obama shows a spine is when

he's opposing left-wing ideas, like peace, and upholding checks and balances.

We would all expect any republican to thumb his nose at Congress this way. Or a professional triangulator like Clinton who constantly tried to act like a Republican. It looks like the only time Obama isn't a coward is when he's emulating Clinton, or his hero Reagan, and setting himself up against the left.

[abqmufc]

22. So long representative government the last nail went into your coffin. n/t

[Wilms]

24. I don't think a resolution carries the force of law.

Not happy about all this, mind you. But I'd like to know for sure if the admin is on solid ground in this particular regard.

[No Elephants]

72. Not so simple. Start with the Constitution, which gives Congress the

EXCLUSIVE power to raise armies and navies (then being the only kind of troops known), the EXCLUSIVE power to declare war and the EXCLUSIVE power to fund wars (or anything else). And, subject to the foregoing exclusive powers of Congress, the President has Constitutional power as Commander in Chief of the troops (though Congress has power.

(That way, a good portion of the people who voted to declare war will answer for their votes at the polls within two years, at most.)

So far, so good, from the Continental Congress until 1950-1962 or so.

However, then came the Korean "Police Action" and the Vietnam Something or Other, where Presidents got us involved in wars without so much as a "by your leave" to Congress, raising serious Constitutional "questions, to put it euphemistically. So, we got the War Powers Resolution of 1963.

Btw, anything passed by Congress and signed by the President (or veto overridden) as the Constitution provides IS a law, regardless of whether they call it "law" or "resolution" or "Harry." However, as with any law, the question arises, "Is the War Powers Resolution a Constitutionally valid law, or does the War Powers Resolution conflict with/violate the Constitution?"

Some say, "It's Constitutional." Some say, "No, it provides for an unconstitutional delegation to the President of Congress' EXCLUSIVE power to declare war." Still others say, "No, it's an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the President as Commander in Chief."

And, now, we have the Executive Branh not only starting a war without a delaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution, but also saying it will ignore Congress if Congress says "Stop," as the War Powers Resolution of 1963 gives Congress the power to do.

As I said, "Not so simple."

[No Elephants]

80. Too late to edit, but year of War Powers Resolution is wrong. I apologize.

[Wilms]

94. Thanks for the response.

And, yeah, my head hurts a bit.

:(

[democrank]

25. Hope President Obama is enjoying his Nobel Peace Prize.

[oNobodyo]

26. I don't support Obama generally, nor do I support wars

However, Obama consulted with the leadership of both the house and senate before taking action...and then there's this...Senate Resolution 85 which passed on march, 1st unanimously...

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sres85ats/pdf/BILLS-112sres85ats.pdf

After Bush and Iraq it's easy to fear presidential power but you have to consider that Afghanistan had congressional preapproval and turned out just as bad and in neither case did congress ever formally declare war, nor will you see congress formally declare war again because they recognised with the war powers act that having a presidential scapegoat made politics easier for congress.

So far Libya has been done correctly and it's saved lives.

[amandabeech]

28. Those of us who think that he should follow the War Powers Resolutions,

think that he needs an okay from the House. Just the Senate doesn't do it.

The UN is nice of course, but action under the UN resolution must conform to US law.

I like the rule of law.

No matter who is in the White House.

[liberation]

32. "I don't support Obama generally, nor do I support wars..."

... and yet, here you are supporting both Obama and a war.

[oNobodyo]

37. True enough...

It's not the most comfortable position for me either...

Reality has a way of kicking you in the guts and forcing you to make exceptions to every rule...

I also consider myself to be non violent but I recognise that there are situations where I could be as violent as anyone...Also an uncomfortable recognition of reality vs. my ideals.

Here in this case I believe that stopping a slaughter that was sure to occur outwieghed the ability to wait for the formality of a joint resolution and that Obama did comply with the war powers act.

I also believe that this situation is unique in the fact that it did gain a UN resolution, the people of Libya asked for help.

If they try to take it further than this...I don't know if I can contiune to support this.

Like I said...I reserve judgment.

[No Elephants]

76. Based on what you've said, you support certain wars.

(No one but a real nutter wants war all the time.)

[Frank Ness]

61. "So far Libya has been done correctly and it's saved lives." ????

Except for all the ones we have killed....

[No Elephants]

73. What in the Constitutiion gives the Senate authority to pass a Resolution like that?

Please also see Reply #72.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[cali]

44. oh for pity's sake.

[Avant Guardian]

64. Yeah, no shit

Obama may be fucking up a lot of things, but he is still better than the alternative.

[caseymoz]

35. It's awful, but the irony is bittersweet.

So, the GOP finds themselves being the peaceniks verses a purportedly weak, Democratic president? I never thought I'd see the day. I can't wait for them to organize sit ins and marches for peace, armed to the teeth. This is Vietnam: The Farce.

[bluesmail]

38. This still getting to be a worse nighmare than the day before...

and I'm feeling trapped. Drained and trapped. Where did my energy go? :shrug: Fighting fascists was never on my life's menu, but there it is, fascism du jour.

[No Elephants]

79. "Fascism du jour." Did you just make that up? I'm jealous.

(Charlie Sheen voice) Stealing!

[underpants]

39. Okay hold it - since Reagan was in office we have been TOLD they could deploy

troops for up to 60 or 180 days (I forget which) without Congressional approval

Did this change? Am I remember this wrong? Are we mind-erased by the media?

[EFerrari]

41. It's 60, although that was an expansion, too, iirc. n/t

[No Elephants]

81. Please see Reply 72.

[Catherina]

Go ahead. Make him ignore them and then do what you need to do Congress

You're the people's representatives, not the President. He there to serve us not the reverse.

[cali]

43. and what is it that you think they'd need to do?

[No Elephants]

88. Nothing will be done, except maybe more bloviating.

[Catherina]

96. I'm not holding my breath either. n/t

[24601]

42. I've always thought that the War Powers Act had Constitutional

flaws. Obama apparently reached the same conclusion. Since he's a former law professor, perhaps people will listen this time.

Congress' hammer in this area is to cut off the funds.

[amandabeech]

47. Obama was "lecturer in law" was not a "professor", and there is a difference.

Professors of law are subject to the "publish or perish" rule of all academics. Lecturers are generally exempt, and are more like adjuncts.

Obama has not published any significant legal scholarship on this or any other legal topic. If he had, I'm sure that we would have heard about it by now. At Harvard in his day, members of the Law Review were not forced to submit legal scholarship to be published in the Law Review. This appears to be different from many law reviews and journals, particularly that of Yale, Harvard's competitor, where at the time Obama was in law school, each member of the Law Journal had to write a substantial piece of legal scholarship that was of publishable quality.

It has been reported that a friend of his from the Law Review, who is now a real professor at Georgetown Law School, that Obama found the Constitution to be a flawed document, but I don't recall that the professor disclosed details of Obama's views, which I think would be helpful here.

In sum, Obama was not a professor and published no material that would give us a real idea of how his legal mind works or what his theory of the Constitution actually is.

[24601]

57. Politically flawed, morally flawed - yes. Constitutionally flawed - no,

since it is supreme in our country.

[No Elephants]

87. Wha? Are you saying the Constitution is not Constitutionally flawed since

the Constitution is supreme in our country? What a soup salad word sandwich!

Anyway, no one even argued that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the U.S. Why the straw man?

And, wasn't the issue whether Obama's alleged status as a law professor gave what he said about the War Powers Resolution some sort of extra credibility, or even more?

[No Elephants]

86. Many think that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, BUT that analysis

cuts both ways. Please see Reply 72 (as amended by Reply 80).

Since he's a former law professor, perhaps people will listen this time."

Obama has had no He's had no legal education beyond 3 years of law school, like any lawyer who did not pursue his or her educatiion beyod law school.

Obama then got a job as a lawyer and a part-time job teaching Constitutional law, which he did for a number of years (10?). None of that does means Obama is at the level of a constitutional law scholar or expert.

Lifelong Constitutional law scholars disagree about the War Powers Resolution. What in hell would make someone who taught Constitutional law on a part time basis the final authority on these issues?

[Stinky The Clown]

45. Why, how very special.

I am forcing myself to sit quietly and not say anything to upset anyone . . . .







mothe . . . . . .

[Arkana]

46. And somehow everyone neglects the fact that we didn't put any people on the ground in Libya.

Also, any resolution passed by the House that didn't pass the Senate has no force of law.

[amandabeech]

49. It has been reported this evening that the CIA is on the ground and has been for some time.

British SAS and MI6 are reported to be there, as well.

So maybe we don't have boots on the ground, but it looks like the wingtips are there.

Also reports of indeterminate reliability that the White House is considering mercenaries. You know, Xe f/k/a Blackwater. American feet, but not in government issue boots.

[EFerrari]

50. CIA is in Libya and likely Special Forces.

Nato is not ruling out ground troops.

[joshcryer]

52. CIA is in every country.

[WatsonT]

83. No boots on the ground = no war?

Somehow I think that if some country were to start bombing the US but not send troops we'd still somehow manage to see that as a war.

[KoKo]

103. You don't think there are "boots on ground" in Libya? CIA wears Sneakers?

Yeah...there's a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale. :eyes: We already have American Educated "Shadow Government" we allowed back into Syria that is in place to "manage the coup" if and when Ghaddafi leaves. So, this is already Orchestrated. It was in the NeoCons Plan back under Bush.

The sad thing is that Obama and Hillary are following the NeoCon Plan. I didn't vote for Obama for MORE NEO-CONS! Did YOU?

[w4rma]

51. Obama is building a precident for an imperial "presidency". asdfasdfsda!!! (nt)

[ttwiddler]

54. This is stupid

I'm amazed she would say something this dumb. While it's true that every president since 1973 has regarded War Powers as unconstitutional, definitely not without justification, this kind of comment only makes Congress mad for no good reason. I don't mean just the idiots on the right, but everybody. This is patronizing to an equal branch of government. I'm rather ambivalent on the whole Libya bit myself, or maybe just indecisive, but this is not a situation where you tell Congress to go to hell. Libya just doesn't justify a fight with Congress over War Powers. The difference between who wins and loses there is extremely important to Libyans, but it will minimal impact on most Americans' lives.

[Baclava]

56. Queen Hillary got the warfever

She'll twist your arm right outta the socket if you get too close.

[Avant Guardian]

63. Did it say "Hillary Would Ignore Your War Resolutions?"

I swear it said 'Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions'.

Perhaps I need new reading glasses.

[Baclava]

74. I just have the feeling that this is Hillary's War, and Obama is being dragged along

I've felt it from the start - creepy, I know.

[No Elephants]

91. Is your hypothesis that he's lame, helpless, not too bright, too easily led??

[Baclava]

95. No, I just think Hillary wants Moe's head on a stick and she's gonna by gawd get it

It's just a feeling

[No Elephants]

92. That dog won't hunt, Obama's her boss. She does his bidding, not the other way round.

And if he were doing her bidding, he'd be way too lame to hold the most powerful office in the world.

[Baclava]

98. Maybe the Queen has aspirations for higher office. You can't tell me she's not out for blood.

Stranger things have happened - when her and Insane McCain are talking the same language it freaks me out.

[Keith Bee]

65. I agree with Obama/Clinton on this one.....

...since any "anti-war" resolutions coming out of the House, at least, would be entirely political, and we all know that.

[No Elephants]

77. We can ignore laws, even the Constitution, at will? Please see Reply # 72.

Does a Republican President have the same "right?" Isn't every vote taken by politicians political? Why have any laws at all, then?

[KoKo]

101. Must be more to it than just the RW...though. That's a pretty harsh statement from her..

Is she speaking for Obama Administration or Clinton Administration. I always felt that Hillary and Obama were very close.

Strange....

[harun]

69. Isn't having an Emperor grand? What could possibly go wrong?

[ProgressIn2008]

75. Emperor in chief. nt

[F Bastiat]

90. They wanted to anoint George Washington as King.

He reminded them that they just finished fighting a war to get rid of one.

[WatsonT]

82. Yeehaw! Let's kill us some ferriners

we ain't need no congressional approval for a kickass new war!

[No Elephants]

93. I recall folks saying Obama could not possibly have the $$ to close Gitmo unless Congress voted.

You'dda thunk the CIC and Pentagon were budgeted to the penny, just like some of us peons.

Somehow, though, he apparently found enough loose change under the cushions in the Oval Office to do all kinds of things to Libya. How many hundred million do you suppose we've spent so far?

[unkachuck]

97. "The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya..."

....Hillary knows it doesn't matter what the Constitution says about war as long as fat tony and the fascists control the game....

....every Washington politician understands that the President declares war and we schmucks pay for them....it's called a 'division of labor'....how else would we ever be able to maintain our assembly line of perpetual war....

....think it, do it, but don't say it....

[rayofreason]

99. How would Senator Obama respond? n/t

[KoKo]

100. Oh My..That's pretty harsh. Hard to know what's going on with that...

:wow: