It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House defeats Libya authorization measure

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
House defeats Libya authorization measure


The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military operation against Libya, a major repudiation of the commander in chief.

While the congressional action had no immediate effect on American involvement in the NATO-led mission, it was an embarrassment to a sitting president and certain to have reverberations in Tripoli and NATO capitals.


Well it's about time! While this is mainly a symbolic gesture, it sure as heck gets the point across: Mr. Obama's war is illegal. I hope the measure to de-fund it passes, too.

/TOA




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


This is good news to say that the house isn't full of just wartime leaders. We'll see if the POTUS listens however. If I remember correctly there was a bill put in place that allowed him to basically do what he wanted with America's Military.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HellstormRising
reply to post by The Old American
 


This is good news to say that the house isn't full of just wartime leaders. We'll see if the POTUS listens however. If I remember correctly there was a bill put in place that allowed him to basically do what he wanted with America's Military.


Hmmm...I'm unaware of this bill. If you could find a link or reference to it, that'd be great. Thanks for your comments!

/TOA



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I thought Obama was hiding behind NATO on this one. That the forces had been supplied to NATO per treaties (and a UN resolution no less) and that a non US commander was in charge of the NATO mission, therby obsolving the President of the need for congressional consent.

I could easily be wrong, but it would explain how a Canadian was put in charge
.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

WASHINGTON — Hours after rejecting a resolution to authorize the U.S. military operation in Libya, the House on Friday voted down a measure that would have cut off funds for the mission's hostilities.


I'll say again, Congress has ZERO authority to tell the President what he can and can't do with the military, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief. The only power Congress has regarding our military is financial, they control access to the defense budget.

So while mouthing the words that they feel the US supporting NATO in Libya is wrong and Obama is oh so bad, they voted down a measure to cut funding for the Libya mission.


The roll call vote exposed splits in both parties. Over 30 Democrats voted to defund the NATO-led mission, while 89 Republicans voted against the measure backed by GOP leaders.

The final vote was 238 to 180.


MSNBC.com

In other words Congress did absolutely nothing.


edit on 24-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



edit on 24-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.


Wiki

If you don't like wiki, here is from Cornell University Law School


(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


Source - 1544.b

Just because this president (and previous presidents) have ignored it does not mean that it is not on the books.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

WASHINGTON — Hours after rejecting a resolution to authorize the U.S. military operation in Libya, the House on Friday voted down a measure that would have cut off funds for the mission's hostilities.


I'll say again, Congress has ZERO authority to tell the President what he can and can't do with the military, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief. The only power Congress has regarding our military is financial, they control access to the defense budget.

So while mouthing the words that they feel the US supporting NATO in Libya is wrong and Obama is oh so bad, they voted down a measure to cut funding for the Libya mission.


The roll call vote exposed splits in both parties. Over 30 Democrats voted to defund the NATO-led mission, while 89 Republicans voted against the measure backed by GOP leaders.

The final vote was 238 to 180.


MSNBC.com

In other words Congress did absolutely nothing.


edit on 24-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



edit on 24-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Yet again, you refuse to understand law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the supreme law of the U.S., not just a set of mutable guidelines, spells out that ONLY Congress can declare war. There are many definitions of war, and they all say the same thing: it is overt hostilities between nations.

The War Powers Act is another layer of protection from taking the U.S. into an ill-advised war. It CLEARLY lays out EXACTLY WHAT authority the President has to enact hostilities against another nation.

Sorry Kali, but wishing it wasn't so doesn't make it so. Legal scholars, even ones working directly for him, including the head legal dude himself, Eric Holder have said that the President is in violation of the War Powers Act. Meaning: this is now an illegal action.

I've already, in other threads sparring with you, said that I agree that the WPA gives Obama the authority to enact hostilities without consent of Congress. I think that Everyone with a brain agrees that, whether it needs to be abolished or not, while the WPA is currently in effect the President can do that. What he absolutely cannot do legally is what he is doing now, which is ignore the law's directives to cease hostilities if he has not formally requested permission from Congress to continue, which he has not, by his own admission. The President, and especially the President, is not above the law.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The above is of course why the POTUS called this a "KINETIC ACTION" (sic) and ignored the two top lawyers in the country in this issue...

Obama rejects top lawyers' legal views on Libya

www.salon.com...

give me control of the issuence of currencie and I care not who is ($)elected...

To bad, but as we saw the other day when Netanyahoo trounced the potus in public...
re Israels return to pre '67 borders
the potus runs nothing, he is just a "mouth piece" as the Chicago mob would say


edit on 24-6-2011 by Danbones because: link quote



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Yet again, you refuse to understand law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the supreme law of the U.S., not just a set of mutable guidelines, spells out that ONLY Congress can declare war. There are many definitions of war, and they all say the same thing: it is overt hostilities between nations.
Article I Section 8 cl. 11 says Congress “shall have the power ... to declare war.” To “declare war” has a specific meaning. Your interpretation, however, is that whenever the President uses the armed forces in hostilities he must get consent from Congress.

If the United States is under attack from invading forces does the President have to get Congress’ consent to order troops to retaliate?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by The Old American
Yet again, you refuse to understand law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the supreme law of the U.S., not just a set of mutable guidelines, spells out that ONLY Congress can declare war. There are many definitions of war, and they all say the same thing: it is overt hostilities between nations.
Article I Section 8 cl. 11 says Congress “shall have the power ... to declare war.” To “declare war” has a specific meaning. Your interpretation, however, is that whenever the President uses the armed forces in hostilities he must get consent from Congress.

If the United States is under attack from invading forces does the President have to get Congress’ consent to order troops to retaliate?


No, he doesn't. If the U.S. is attacked directly, war has been declared by an invading force. The President has the authority then to use the military as needed without consent from Congress.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
No, he doesn't. If the U.S. is attacked directly, war has been declared by an invading force.
So you’re saying the actions of outside forces can determine the scope of what the President is allowed to do without Congress’ consent?


The President has the authority then to use the military as needed without consent from Congress.
And where is that in the Constitution?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


By your definitions, Congress is now funding through the defense budget, a "war" they hours before declared violated the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by The Old American
No, he doesn't. If the U.S. is attacked directly, war has been declared by an invading force.
So you’re saying the actions of outside forces can determine the scope of what the President is allowed to do without Congress’ consent?


The President has the authority then to use the military as needed without consent from Congress.
And where is that in the Constitution?


To your first question, If an invading nation directly enters into hostilities with the U.S., a formal declaration of war by Congress is not warranted as war has been declared by an aggressor. All that is then required is that the President decide to use U.S. military personnel for defense of the nation as Commander in Chief. This is about entering into hostilities, not about anything else, and I think you know that.

To your second question, it's not written into the Constitution, and it doesn't have to be. The oath of office requires all three branches of government to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. Defending the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, as a document that represents the nation and its people, means that, by extension, the three legislative branches are required to protect and defend the nation's borders and its people as well. As Commander in Chief, the President can defend the U.S. at any time against direct hostilities from a foreign nation.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by The Old American
 


By your definitions, Congress is now funding through the defense budget, a "war" they hours before declared violated the Constitution.


Not by my definition. By my definition, the President is continuing an illegal war, and Congress is illegally funding it. I never said Congress was right. I said the President is wrong.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
So the House pulled a so-called "John Kerry?"

I was for it before I was against it?

Or in this case, Against it before they were for it?

LOL...it doesn't matter anyway. This didn't change anything.

Just political theater...nothing more.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
So the House pulled a so-called "John Kerry?"

I was for it before I was against it?

Or in this case, Against it before they were for it?

LOL...it doesn't matter anyway. This didn't change anything.

Just political theater...nothing more.


Sadly, you're right. The left supports Obama no matter what, and the right supports war no matter what. Whomever lines their pockets is OK with them.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

The purpose of my questions were to get your opinion and rationale on the President’s unilateral authority.

You infer and interpret the President’s unilateral authority and power to order US forces to retaliate against invading forces, even though, as you admitted, that is nowhere in the Constitution, but in any other circumstance you make a narrow interpretation of that authority.

Article I Section 8 cl. 11 says Congress has the power to “declare war,” and you’ve interpreted it, it seems, as having the power to “authorize the President to engage in hostilities, except in cases of self-defense, where no authorization is required.”

To “declare war” had a specific meaning, and today the use of military force in those terms would be considered a war of aggression.

Whether you like it or not, the United States, and practically the whole world, has endorsed the United Nations Charter. Under it, and other relevant legal instruments, military action authorized by the United Nations Security Council is not war but police action.

I am not, with this, saying we are not engaged in war-like actions in Libya. We obviously are. I am talking about the legal qualifications and by those terms what is happening in Libya is different from what war means in the context of Article I Section 8 cl. 11.

If we were talking about something along the lines of the Iraq war, where the UN didn’t authorize the use of military force, then I would be on your side of the argument. Provided there wasn’t Congressional authorization, contrary to what happened in 2003.

The context of the military operation in Libya is not unimportant. The President ordered US armed forces to participate in an international police action, pursuant to a treaty we ratified over 50 years ago, to stop a dictator who opened fire on and bombed his own people.

Disagree as you may with our membership in the United Nations, but it won’t change the fact that we are members, and all these factors are relevant to the legal and constitutional questions.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


The U.N. has never, does not (sadly we can't say "will never"), nor can it override a nation's Constitutional authority over its own military, resources, or citizens. Any nation that is a member of the U.N. has the authority to opt-out of missions they deem not in the best interest of their nation and people.

NATO, under which these hostilities have been enacted, has the same restrictions as does the U.N. NATO cannot compel any nation to enter into hostilities with another, nor does it have the authority to require such.

This action is voluntary among its members, and our President's volunteering of the resources, funds, and lives of the U.S. is now illegal under the War Powers Act.

/TOA
edit on 24-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
We shouldn't even be in Libya.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
We shouldn't even be in Libya.



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join