NY Times: Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Looks like there may be more merit to what Kucinich had been saying than previously thought (although Congressmembers STILL don't have the standing to sue, even if they were 100% undoubtedly right):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=1&hp

[Keystone Phil]

I supported the decision to act and continue to support the operation in Libya. That being said, the President had to go to Congress a month ago and he's making himself look pretty damn foolish by trying to argue that all of this doesn't amount to "hostilities." He's digging himself another hole...

[Marokai Backbeat]

I supported the decision to act and continue to support the operation in Libya. That being said, the President had to go to Congress a month ago and he's making himself look pretty damn foolish by trying to argue that all of this doesn't amount to "hostilities." He's digging himself another hole...

Pretty much the way I feel about this as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh wow two lawyers disagree with Obama! He's obviously wrong!

Has Congress given any approval to actions in Pakistan including the killing of bin Laden? That's certainly "hostilities" in the same sense this is.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh wow two lawyers disagree with Obama! He's obviously wrong!

Uh, these aren't two lawyers advertised on the back of a bus or something, genius.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow.

[Lief 🗽]

What BRTD said. Those lawyers are probably very highly paid, but they're wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As for the former head of the Harvard Law Review, Obama isn't exactly a legal neophyte, or a lawyer "advertised on the back of a bus".

Were US activities in the Iraqi no-fly zone from 1991-2003 "hostilities"?

[Keystone Phil]

As for the former head of the Harvard Law Review, Obama isn't exactly a legal neophyte, or a lawyer "advertised on the back of a bus".

But he has a reason to ignore the legal questions here. But I forgot: Obama does no wrong so this is moot.

[Cincinnatus]

As for the former head of the Harvard Law Review, Obama isn't exactly a legal neophyte, or a lawyer "advertised on the back of a bus".

Were US activities in the Iraqi no-fly zone from 1991-2003 "hostilities"?

Yes.  It amazes me how the President can just declare such military acts for extended periods of time without Congressional approval.  I think the President is screwing himself on this one.  On top of that, the Speaker and other House Republicans make me laugh because they're doing exactly what the democrats did to Bush now.  When they have a Republican back in the White House, I hope this move comes back to bite them.  Furthermore, indulge me by looking at this picture I found amusing;

[CitizenX]

As for the former head of the Harvard Law Review, Obama isn't exactly a legal neophyte, or a lawyer "advertised on the back of a bus".

Were US activities in the Iraqi no-fly zone from 1991-2003 "hostilities"?

Yes.  It amazes me how the President can just declare such military acts for extended periods of time without Congressional approval.  I think the President is screwing himself on this one.  On top of that, the Speaker and other House Republicans make me laugh because they're doing exactly what the democrats did to Bush now.  When they have a Republican back in the White House, I hope this move comes back to bite them.  Furthermore, indulge me by looking at this picture I found amusing;

It is ridiculous that we have not formally declared war in unison with other countries since WWII.  Declaring war and the war powers act are a complete joke.  Even the part of the Constitution dealing with declaring war has effectively been turned into a joke.

I'm sorry to bring this up yet again but when Republicans are screaming about Clinton lying about sex I'm always amazed.  Because to me that is one of the most insignificant things that has happened during my life time.  Multiple White Houses have taken a full dump on the Constitution and I'm left scratching my head wondering where is the outrage?  If Republicans had as much outrage about unauthorized wars as they did about unauthorized BJs, this country would be a far better place.

Think about it.

PS This is in no way a defense of the current unacceptable situation otherwise known as The Libyan Kinetic Action.

[J. J.]

The bad news is, those two lawyers are probably right.

The good news is the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm rather curious how having helicopters invade a foreign country without their knowledge, teams come out of those copters and blow a hole in a residential complex, and invading the complex and killing many of the inhabitants does not qualify as "hostilities". Or having predator drones shoot missiles at targets on Earth in attempted targeted killings doesn't qualify as "hostilities" either.

[DrScholl]

Really, the right-wing has no room to say anything on this, they spent so much time defending Bush's actions in Iraq that they're points on this are null and void. Bush obtained permission from Congress on wrong information, which was very illegal. At least be consistent.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm rather curious how having helicopters invade a foreign country without their knowledge, teams come out of those copters and blow a hole in a residential complex, and invading the complex and killing many of the inhabitants does not qualify as "hostilities". Or having predator drones shoot missiles at targets on Earth in attempted targeted killings doesn't qualify as "hostilities" either.

Is this serious? 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32267.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The unit taking out Bin Laden wasn't in a situation long enough to warrant reporting to Congress.

And he certainly didn't need Congressional approval as they weren't there longer than 60 days.

Your analogy is severely lacking.  (If you were joking... my apologies for taking you seriously... I honestly can't tell if your post was a joke or not).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I also mentioned US actions in Pakistan not involved in killing bin Laden but in killing other al Qaeda figures. There were also reports of US activity in Somalia against the Islamists there.

And what about Iraq from 1991 to 2003?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And personally, I agree with Phil.  I think it was the right thing to go into Lybia, but he needed Congressional approval to stay after 60 days.  And I think he would've gotten it if he'd have gone to Congress and simply asked.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I also mentioned US actions in Pakistan not involved in killing bin Laden but in killing other al Qaeda figures. There were also reports of US activity in Somalia against the Islamists there.

And what about Iraq from 1991 to 2003?

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Or having predator drones shoot missiles at targets on Earth in attempted targeted killings doesn't qualify as "hostilities" either.

Probably because this wouldn't fall under the definition of "hostilities".  Although there's no clear definition, hostilities gives an implication of fighting going on from both sides.  If it's a drone strike, it's not ongoing warfare - it's an in and out thing where only one side is doing any action.

[MJM58]

Yeah, I think it's funny as well that the Republicans are so opposed to the war in Libya, after being so supportive of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know how many Americans don't see through the blatant partisanship.

Looking at the War Powers Resolution, I would say that it's unconstitutional in that it violates the separation of powers. If the WPR is unconstitutional, then does the president have a responsibility to adhere to it? I don't think there's any question that President Obama has gone against the WPR, but does he have an obligation to abide by it if the WPR is in violation of the Constitution?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Looking at the War Powers Resolution, I would say that it's unconstitutional in that it violates the separation of powers. If the WPR is unconstitutional, then does the president have a responsibility to adhere to it? I don't think there's any question that President Obama has gone against the WPR, but does he have an obligation to abide by it if the WPR is in violation of the Constitution?

Of course not; as long as what he's doing agrees with the Constitution (this is coming from the perspective that SCOTUS will agree that it's unconstitional.  If SCOTUS said it's constitutional and he disobeyed, that'd be a different story).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yeah, I think it's funny as well that the Republicans are so opposed to the war in Libya, after being so supportive of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know how many Americans don't see through the blatant partisanship.

Looking at the War Powers Resolution, I would say that it's unconstitutional in that it violates the separation of powers. If the WPR is unconstitutional, then does the president have a responsibility to adhere to it? I don't think there's any question that President Obama has gone against the WPR, but does he have an obligation to abide by it if the WPR is in violation of the Constitution?

     He could be a modern day Andrew Johnson, flauting an obviously unconstitutional law & getting flak over it, though I don't see impeachment proceedings against him happening. With that said, I think the WPR is quite a good law, & am rather saddened that it probably would not stand up in court.

     Also, welcome to the forum.

[tpfkaw]

The War Powers Resolution is "obviously unconstitutional" in that it presumes the President has any unilateral war-making powers whatsoever.

[MJM58]

The War Powers Resolution is "obviously unconstitutional" in that it presumes the President has any unilateral war-making powers whatsoever.

But the Constitution states that he's the commander-in-chief. Doesn't that mean that he can order the troops wherever he pleases?

[tpfkaw]

The War Powers Resolution is "obviously unconstitutional" in that it presumes the President has any unilateral war-making powers whatsoever.

But the Constitution states that he's the commander-in-chief. Doesn't that mean that he can order the troops wherever he pleases?

http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/

[Cincinnatus]

The bad news is, those two lawyers are probably right.

The good news is the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional. 

Fortunately, it's not the Presidents responsibility to determine that.  When, and if the Supreme Court determines unconstitutionality, it will no longer be a factor.  As of now, I expect them to abide by it

Really, the right-wing has no room to say anything on this, they spent so much time defending Bush's actions in Iraq that they're points on this are null and void. Bush obtained permission from Congress on wrong information, which was very illegal. At least be consistent.

No, they really don't have room to speak here.  However, this does not absolve President Obama from his current gaff and flip-flop. 

The War Powers Resolution is "obviously unconstitutional" in that it presumes the President has any unilateral war-making powers whatsoever.

I like this.  The idea that one man can actually determine our military future is detrimental, and has proved to be so throughout our history. 

I'm sorry to bring this up yet again but when Republicans are screaming about Clinton lying about sex I'm always amazed.  Because to me that is one of the most insignificant things that has happened during my life time.  Multiple White Houses have taken a full dump on the Constitution and I'm left scratching my head wondering where is the outrage?  If Republicans had as much outrage about unauthorized wars as they did about unauthorized BJs, this country would be a far better place.

You once again solely criticize Republicans, without putting any blame on a democrat.  I guess it's far to much to ask for a little bit of moderate debate with you.  Yes, you're right.  Most Republicans have also screwed them-self's here.  Besides a few Taft-like Republicans, the neo-con controlled party has basically attacked Obama, without previously acknowledging the same for Bush.