10 Congressmen sue Obama over strikes in Libya

AP

A bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers is suing President Barack Obama for taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress.
The lawmakers say Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize military force.

I guess this is a little added grandstanding considering that the deadline for the President to ask Congress for their approval of the Libya actions arrives soon.

Speaker of the House Boehner, has set a Friday deadline, which is interesting since it was reported that Boehner has a Saturday teetime with the president this weekend.. FORE!!!

The administration's position is that it has complied by giving the Congress notice of the action as well as hearings and briefings given to Congress..

The one thing missing is Congressional approval, guess we'll see how this unfolds.

Here's the list of 10 plaintiffs in this suit..

The plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tim Johnson and Dan Burton of Indiana, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Ron Paul of Texas.

Good for them!

Im not surprised one bit to see Ron Paul's name on there... In my eyes, hes a true patriot!

About time some of our elected officials stand up to the unconstitutional/undeclared wars

Well, despite the idea of grandstanding with an election cycle coming up, I say it's a good start.
Nothing like Obama banging the Anti-War drum and then turning around and pushing the same Bush agenda.

What deadline?

He had 60 days from the start to seek approval. He is in felony breach and has been since those 60 days expired.

He falsely swore to congress that US conflict was winding down and we were pulling out as an excuse for not obtaining approval before the 60 days ran out and then in a felony act sent in attack helicopters within 48 hrs of the lie.

What part of the grey bar hotel does Obama not fit into?

This is good but, is this the proper way to handle this situation? If the President oversteps his authority and bypasses congress, isn't that an impeachable offense. What will come of a law suit?

Grandstanding for sure.

So how long does the legal process take to go through? Long enough for Obama to continue as he's innocent until proven guilty and of course can continue his actions until a judgment is reached.

So is this maybe just a stalling tactic that goes in his favor?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the plan all along.

Originally posted by Shadowalker
What deadline?

He had 60 days from the start to seek approval. He is in felony breach and has been since those 60 days expired.

He falsely swore to congress that US conflict was winding down and we were pulling out as an excuse for not obtaining approval before the 60 days ran out and then in a felony act sent in attack helicopters within 48 hrs of the lie.

What part of the grey bar hotel does Obama not fit into?

No, he actually has 90 days total.

Congress hasn't authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn't attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

www.npr.org...

he has 60 days to attain authorization. If authorization is not given, then he has an additional 30 days to halt.

Anyone who supports the Constitution should be commended for their acts; anyone who does not needs to pack their bags and find a new home...

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Sensationalism, just to get their faces in the paper. Congress authorised the US entrance into the UN as did with NATO. It is no the US attacking Libya but NATO backed by a UN treaty.US resources are being used as part of NATO which is authorised by all its members and by its members respective political system, when the original treaty was signed to pass its mandates.

The UN has in its membership, China and Russia both of which would have Veto'd the arse out of this resolution should they feel they even had valid grounds to oppose. They took the cowards way out and abstained, which is evidence enough that this military action is just and right. Obama got something right for once.

Originally posted by macman
Nothing like Obama banging the Anti-War drum and then turning around and pushing the same Bush agenda.

The Bush agenda was to "spread democracy" via force, invasion and occupation absent NATO approval.

Pres Obama's agenda clearly differs in as much as the USA is supporting native democracy movements without invasion, occupation and in keeping with the NATO alliance.

No small distinction.

Put another way...

US death Toll in Iraq: 4,780
US death toll in Libya: ZERO

It is a topic worthy of debate, but painting Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush with the same brush seems an afront to logic and the facts or trading idealogy for rational thought.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by macman
Well, despite the idea of grandstanding with an election cycle coming up, I say it's a good start.
Nothing like Obama banging the Anti-War drum and then turning around and pushing the same Bush agenda.

That is such a politically loaded reply.

Bush is gone. When does Obama become responsible for Obamas actions?

Are some here in Denial?

reply to post by michael1983l


It could be an effort to get this plastered in the weekend news shows? If this suit is ruled on in favor of the plaintiff's, it will be appealed, and appealed and months, years will pass..

Congress already has the power to check the Executive branch.. that is how it should be done. I just hope that these 10 Congressmen are footing the bill for this suit.

I disagree with the Russia, China abstaining because it's a justified NATO action.

I wonder what backdoor deal was approved for their interests.. They didn't abstain for nothing..

Just like the US didn't get involved for nothing.. speculating here for sure but I wouldn't be surprised that the US secured some behind the scenes support for the next move, one that does have some vital US corporate interests.

Whatever was done, it was for $$$, not for folks seeking freedom.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
Nothing like Obama banging the Anti-War drum and then turning around and pushing the same Bush agenda.

The Bush agenda was to "spread democracy" via force, invasion and occupation absent NATO approval.

Pres Obama's agenda clearly differs in as much as the USA is supporting native democracy movements without invasion, occupation and in keeping with the NATO alliance.

No small distinction.

Put another way...

US death Toll in Iraq: 4,780
US death toll in Libya: ZERO

It is a topic worthy of debate, but painting Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush with the same brush seems an afront to logic and the facts or trading idealogy for rational thought.

Just my opinion.

It is always different for Liberals huh?

War is war. Nice way to cherry pick death stats.

So if Iraq was fought without a single US casualty, you would support it? I think it is safe to say that there were alot of people in Iraq that were oppressed under Sadam and would have started a Revolt of their own.
How about going in with drones to Iran? Revolution there?

Ok, now I'm getting a bit confused...the deadline is Sunday. The WH says it has sent the request for approval upon the 60 day mark. Another source says Congress has it and plans on doing nothing with it. John Boehner is issuing an ultimatum. NATO is leading the mission, not the US. Now democratic lawmakers are filing suit when the deadlines not even up yet? WTF is going on here?

reply to post by Kali74


An out of control Fed Govt, in total. That is what is going on here.

reply to post by Kali74


Sounds about right.. And through all of this madness, have they passed last years' budget yet?

Surreal...

The latest... from the White House:

AP

Facing questions from Congress, the White House is sending lawmakers a detailed report Wednesday outlining the objectives of U.S. military involvement in Libya and making a legal case for continuing the campaign.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the more than 30-page report would answer inquiries posed in a non-binding House resolution earlier this month that chided President Barack Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the Libya campaign. The measure asked the administration to respond to questions on the scope and cost of the mission by Friday.

The real legal question that needs to be answered is what constitutes "War" as opposed to "Humanitarian Defense" or "Support" and unfortunately that will not be addressed by this lawsuit.

The future is here. Airial DRONES. Next robotic ground forces.

In the near future we will have the capability to conduct full military operations, ground and air without putting actual troops in theater. Just joystick jockies on a ship or stateside.

Is war still war if we don't send troops? That needs to be legally defined and quickly IMO.

That is a seperate question than the justification for US involvement with the NATO mission in Libya, but a more important question IMO.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
Nothing like Obama banging the Anti-War drum and then turning around and pushing the same Bush agenda.

The Bush agenda was to "spread democracy" via force, invasion and occupation absent NATO approval.

Pres Obama's agenda clearly differs in as much as the USA is supporting native democracy movements without invasion, occupation and in keeping with the NATO alliance.

No small distinction.

Put another way...

US death Toll in Iraq: 4,780
US death toll in Libya: ZERO

It is a topic worthy of debate, but painting Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush with the same brush seems an afront to logic and the facts or trading idealogy for rational thought.

Just my opinion.

It is always different for Liberals huh?

War is war. Nice way to cherry pick death stats.

So if Iraq was fought without a single US casualty, you would support it? I think it is safe to say that there were alot of people in Iraq that were oppressed under Sadam and would have started a Revolt of their own.
How about going in with drones to Iran? Revolution there?

Cherry picking? Liberal?

I provided facts. You responded with partisan BS. I won't waste another post responding to you unless you choose to rise above the partisan trash and have a grown-up discussion.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
Nothing like Obama banging the Anti-War drum and then turning around and pushing the same Bush agenda.

The Bush agenda was to "spread democracy" via force, invasion and occupation absent NATO approval.

Pres Obama's agenda clearly differs in as much as the USA is supporting native democracy movements without invasion, occupation and in keeping with the NATO alliance.

No small distinction.

Put another way...

US death Toll in Iraq: 4,780
US death toll in Libya: ZERO

It is a topic worthy of debate, but painting Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush with the same brush seems an afront to logic and the facts or trading idealogy for rational thought.

Just my opinion.

It is always different for Liberals huh?

War is war. Nice way to cherry pick death stats.

So if Iraq was fought without a single US casualty, you would support it? I think it is safe to say that there were alot of people in Iraq that were oppressed under Sadam and would have started a Revolt of their own.
How about going in with drones to Iran? Revolution there?

Cherry picking? Liberal?

I provided facts. You responded with partisan BS. I won't waste another post responding to you unless you choose to rise above the partisan trash and have a grown-up discussion.

Is that all you will respond to, just that statement?
How about the other questions I asked? Or are they below your adult conversation level?