Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

The White House is expected on Wednesday to deliver to Congress a much-anticipated report detailing military activity in Libya.

According to Kuchinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration’s “circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad.”

It also will ask a judge to prohibit the White House from conducting a war without congressional approval.

Kuchinich has scheduled a press conference at noon in front of the D.C. federal courthouse.

The suit comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent Obama a letter claiming that military action in Libya will violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution if it does not end by Friday, 90 days after it began.

The Kuchinich-Jones group also includes Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republicans Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Ron Paul of Texas, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Dan Burton of Indiana.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1PMhAZsuj

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html

Next thing to do is impeach the dictator.

[Sphere]

This will probably be taken up by the Supreme Court in a hurry. The Constitutionality of the War Powers Act has been an outstanding issue since its passsing. Though it is rather ironic that it is being challenged in this context.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

hopefully the war powers act will be struck down as unconstitutional. Obama has until Friday to give a reason for the war. Pretty weak on Boehner's part who is supposed to be the leader of the Congress who has sole authority to declare war but whatever.

[Doge Domenico]

hopefully the war powers act will be struck down as unconstitutional. Obama has until Friday to give a reason for the war. Pretty weak on Boehner's part who is supposed to be the leader of the Congress who has sole authority to declare war but whatever.

Just a question, did you want Bush impeached too?

[Litoralis]

This will probably be taken up by the Supreme Court in a hurry. The Constitutionality of the War Powers Act has been an outstanding issue since its passsing. Though it is rather ironic that it is being challenged in this context.

It probably won't go to the supreme court, and if it does then the supreme court will dismiss it under the political question doctrine or say that the Congressmen do not have standing/ no case and controversy.

The declaration of war issue first came up in Bas v. Tingy in 1800 and was about the "quasi-war" with France. There, Justice Chase said that there are two types of war "perfect war" where Congress declares war and the President is then Commander-in-Chief governed only by jus belli, or the law of war as defined by the law of nations and then there is an "imperfect war" or an undeclared war where the extent of operations that the President can engage in is limited by domestic law, or to what Congress approves either overtly or impliedly. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that Congress continuing to appropriate funds to the military and financially supporting the defense department during the Vietnam Conflict was implicit authorization for the President to fight in Vietnam. The President can resort to whatever force and means against a country with which we have declared war: that's why Truman didn't need congressional approval to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan.

DimeBag, it's not the level of hostilities that governs what permission the President needs but the type of specific activity being carried out. So, Obama's argument is that we are only providing support functions, such as refueling, etc... and therefore are no longer engaged in hostilities. This raises another question about "direct participation in hostilities," and how refueling and providing maintenance can oftentimes be participation in hostilities according to international law (IHL).

The argument that Congress has already authorized this is that the Senate ratified the NATO agreement. Therefore, the US's obligations as a member of NATO actually override domestic statutes (because the order of governing law in the US goes like this: Constitution, treaties, Statute, etc..). The President has a duty to make sure the laws are faithfully executed and that includes US obligation under NATO. Therefore, if NATO acts within its charter then the President not only can act without Congressional approval but must act. The problem here is that NATO's charter only calls for collective self defense in case of armed attack. Unless you can characterize what is happening in Libya as part of the defense of a NATO member after an armed attack, the US has no obligations to NATO.

There is a similar argument that the President is obliged to follow the UN Security council resolutions even if Congress disapproves, because the UN Charter was ratified by the Senate and the President has a duty to make sure the UN Charter is "faithfully executed." This argument is generally rejected, though, because Security Council Resolutions are not really binding.

[Tiberius Tosi]

War Power Act is one of the biggest jokes of a legislation ever passed, it will never be enforced. If Congress really wants to end our involvement in Libya then they will cease the spending, they more than have the power to do so. They could do it in Iraq or Afghanistan too, but no one wants to be that Congressman or Senator that has to explain next election that a ton of soldiers just died because they wouldn't supply them and the President kept them there... This is a lame excuse to try to bypass the legal way to end a war (Congress cutting the funds or the President withdrawing the forces) to use the courts so that a minority of Congress can attempt to get their way over what the majority supports.

It also will ask a judge to prohibit the White House from conducting a war without congressional approval.

The President can't conduct a war without Congressional approval (Declaration of War), hence why we don't call them or declare them as wars anymore

[Sphere]

Interesting tidbit, the War Powers Act has never been acknowledged as contitutionally binding by any President. There are several constitutional issues in the act.

1.) Can congress get away from its obligation to formally declare war? (It probably can, the Supreme Court doesn't like getting involved in such details, it would probably defer to Congress to set the rules as to what is specifically required in terms of Congressional approval.)

2.) Are statutes/acts of Congress (like say a mutual defense Treaty?) alone enough for the President to carry out military operations sans any other congressional approval (This is a very contentious point, it is unclear on how the SCOTUS would rule as it brings into conflict different parts of the constitution.)

3.) Does the War Powers Act violate the seperation of powers? (This is also contentious, but recently the Court has not been friendly to Executive authority arguments. The court might strike down the reporting requirements but at the same time leave the rest intact.)

[Pyrich]

Congress: Dude, you know we have the power here. This is our turf.

Whitehouse: Yea... so?

Congress: It's just... well... We feel left out is all...

WH: We'll see what we can do, wanna discuss this further on the golf course?

Congress:

[justicar5]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html

Next thing to do is impeach the dictator.

But Bush isn't in the White House anymore so it would be impeach the former dictator surely? (Mind you with the renewal of the Patriot act any president can become a dictator) Where was this 'bi-partisan group' when Iraq was kicking off?

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

But Bush isn't in the White House anymore so it would be impeach the former dictator surely? (Mind you with the renewal of the Patriot act any president can become a dictator) Where was this 'bi-partisan group' when Iraq was kicking off?

We should hang the former dictator for war crimes and treason.

The bi partisan group was there all along, silenced by the hysteria created over wmd's and Iraq's connection to Al Qaeda. Al Qeada which is being used to justify propping up Yemen's government and killing their rebels but is not being used against Libya's rebels who probobly have AlQaeda amongst them. As a matter of fact alot of Libyans were insurgents in Iraq.

[Exarch]

would they do the same to a republican president doing the same thing?

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Who democratic rep. Kucinich? It's 3 dems 7 Republicans. Republican Ron Paul amongst them was an outspoken critic of Bush aswell.

Difference between Bush and Obama was that atleast Bush went to congress for authorization even though it was still not a formal declaration of war he still went to congress.

[kentuckybandit]

Obama just released a packet to the House stating that he has authority for intervention in Libya because it is not a 'real war'. This is a lot of controversy and military expenditure for Obama to be taking personal and soul responsibility for, could bite him in the ass if anything goes wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43414648...ew_york_times/

[Pyrich]

would they do the same to a republican president doing the same thing?

Yes actually. Its common knowledge that the president is not allowed to pick a fight. That is congresses job. Hence much anger towards Clinton when he bombed several countries without approval. Hence why Bush made 110% sure that congress gave him permission before he launched anything that killed. Emergancy aid aside. President can issue emergancy orders.

It is political non-the-less, with a majority of Dems and reps approving at least in their minds, but hey, lets milk this cow from some re-election brownie points till she dry's up completely.

Some are legitamite as well, Ron Paul being one of the few up their. Doesnt mean he isnt crazy in other ways though.

It's interesting how we have to pick and choose between the madnesses of different people to use their sane ideas to build a sane political machine while hindering their insane ones, but im thinking more and more Ron's sane parts need to be put more into the political animal.

[mrmouth]

What could go wrong?

[kentuckybandit]

What could go wrong?

A lot in a combat zone. A major reason Obama gives in his packet to Congress is that "US forces are not in harms way". He already dodged a bullet when the crew of that F-15 ejected safely, but he has basically said "no it is OK because we can't get hurt". That is a stretch to say in any military endeavor.

[(s)AINT]

Does the situation in Libya count as a 'war'?

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Would 100 tomahawk missiles falling on your country make you think you're at war?

[saglam2000]

Obama decides to help out a struggling group fighting for democracy. Takes lead of the operation for a couple of weeks then passes it off to NATO. Congress got confused because A) Why is a democrat doing this and B) He didn't promise us any oil. This angered congress so much they decided to sue for their Libyan oil and "exporting democracy" shirts.

At least that's how I'm assuming it went down.

[kentuckybandit]

Obama decides to help out a struggling group fighting for democracy. Takes lead of the operation for a couple of weeks then passes it off to NATO. Congress got confused because A) Why is a democrat doing this and B) He didn't promise us any oil. This angered congress so much they decided to sue for their Libyan oil and "exporting democracy" shirts.

At least that's how I'm assuming it went down.

He put our men and women in harms way for a prolonged period of time (still there), in a combat zone, without seeking congressional approval. Don't get me wrong, I am all for helping out people. I think we should do that stuff just for the morality of it. But you gotta get permission from the body of people elected to represent us.