Page 1 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

15 Jun 2011, 2:14 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/ ... 1286.shtml

Quote:
CBS/AP)

WASHINGTON - 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 Mr. 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.

The lawmakers want a judge to issue an order suspending military operations without congressional approval. They said they were filing their lawsuit Wednesday against Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

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.

NATO airstrike hits near Qaddafi compound
Rebels claim gains east, west of Libyan capital
Complete coverage: Anger in the Arab World

The suit is just the latest clash between Congress and the White House over the Libya intervention.

Rep. John Boehner, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives urged Mr. Obama on Tuesday to explain the legal grounds for the continued U.S. military involvement and set a Friday deadline for the commander in chief's response.

Ratcheting up the pressure, the Ohio Republican said in a letter to the White House that the administration clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act this weekend. Mr. Obama did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. airstrikes against Muammar Qaddafi's forces.

"Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution," Boehner wrote. "The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made."

Boehner complained that the administration has provided briefings for lawmakers but has not sought formal authorization. Seeking an explanation, he asked Mr. Obama for answers to constitutional and statutory questions by Friday.

This month, the House voted to rebuke Mr. Obama for failing to pursue congressional approval and accused the president of not providing a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan operation. The House measure also required a report from the administration, due by Friday, on the scope of the Libyan operation, its costs and its impact on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your administration," Boehner wrote.

The White House maintains that it has been in compliance with the War Powers Act and has called the resolutions unhelpful and unnecessary.

Initially the White House brushed off the nonbinding House measure, saying it had provided answers at various briefings. But last week it said it would respond to detailed questions on the U.S. mission in Libya within the deadline.

Responding to Boehner's letter Tuesday, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya, including those raised in the House resolution as well as our legal analysis with regard to the War Powers Resolution."

Vietor did not say exactly what form the White House response would take and whether it would be the type of report sought by the House.

NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work.

In the Senate, the fate of a resolution signaling support for the operation was in limbo.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said plans for the panel to meet Thursday and write a resolution would be delayed to allow lawmakers to review the White House report. He left open the possibility of action on a resolution next week.

"We just want everybody to see the information and see how it impacts their thinking," Kerry said.

Among the backers of the resolution is Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a leading proponent of military action against Qaddafi, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and Obama's presidential rival in the 2008 election. McCain warned his Republican colleagues against any steps that would send a positive signal to Qaddafi.

"I caution my friends, both here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, that we don't want to do anything or pass legislation which would encourage Qaddafi to remain in power," McCain told reporters.

Sens. Jim Webb, a Democrat, and Republican Bob Corker introduced a separate resolution last week that presses Mr. Obama to seek congressional consent for continued U.S. military involvement in Libya and requires the administration to provide a detailed justification for the decision to go to war.

McCain said there are continued signs of deterioration for Qaddafi's hold on power, including high-level defections from his regime.

"I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?" McCain said.

On Monday, the House essentially voted to prohibit money for the Libya operation, backing an amendment barring the use of any funds in contravention of the War Powers Act. The vote was 248-163 on a spending bill that still must be reconciled with the Senate.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/ ... z1PNEIQC5H



minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

15 Jun 2011, 2:24 pm

I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced. A referendum must be sent to Congress now.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Jun 2011, 2:26 pm

minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn



HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

15 Jun 2011, 8:24 pm

I am not trusting anything Dan Burton is involved with. I need to do more diving into this.


_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

15 Jun 2011, 8:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


what ever congress say is an impeachable offense is a impeachable offense.
I think that although the congressional republicans are being shifty on this issue
it is a step in the right direction to not just rubber stamp wars.
although the discussion should happen before the bombs drop.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

15 Jun 2011, 8:55 pm

political theater and nothing more.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Jun 2011, 10:56 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


what ever congress say is an impeachable offense is a impeachable offense.
I think that although the congressional republicans are being shifty on this issue
it is a step in the right direction to not just rubber stamp wars.
although the discussion should happen before the bombs drop.


For the record Bush got congressional approval for Iraq, which is something Obama did not bother to do for Libya, and it states in the Constitution that Congress is the one that declares war, not the President.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

16 Jun 2011, 12:26 am

I agree in spirit but if congress had to vote on every humanitarian intervention, we would never intervene on behalf of others like Sweden or Syria. Supporting the democratic freedom of those who don't value it in the western sense is pointless. They will just democratically elect a tyrant who will never concede power peacefully.

Not that I agree, but for what its worth, Obama - in leftist spirit - at least waited for international consensus before involving us. In the end, as blusamstag said, this is all political theatrics.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Jun 2011, 4:27 am

ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


Must be some special clause that exempts democrats from the constitution.
After all, his heart's in the right place so why worry about silly details.
:roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jun 2011, 7:30 am

Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


Must be some special clause that exempts democrats from the constitution.
After all, his heart's in the right place so why worry about silly details.
:roll:


Just because something is impeachable does not mean a bill of impeachment will be formulated and passed.

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 Jun 2011, 8:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


Must be some special clause that exempts democrats from the constitution.
After all, his heart's in the right place so why worry about silly details.
:roll:


Just because something is impeachable does not mean a bill of impeachment will be formulated and passed.

ruveyn


Impeachments are always political (they are voted on in congress).
You get impeached not when you commit crime but when congress does not want you
and thinks it can get away with it.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jun 2011, 11:17 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

Impeachments are always political (they are voted on in congress).
You get impeached not when you commit crime but when congress does not want you
and thinks it can get away with it.


That is why there have only been two presidential impeachments (and no removals from office) in the history of the United States.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Jun 2011, 1:21 pm

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Thursday ripped President Obama while giving credit to former President George W. Bush for asking Congress to authorize the war in Iraq.

The anti-war Democrat, criticizing Obama's handling of the conflict in Libya, noted that Bush formally consulted Congress on the Iraq war in 2002.

"President Bush came to Congress ... President Obama doesn't feel like he needs to come to Congress," Kucinich said during an interview on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program. Kucinich pointed out he was strongly opposed to the Iraq war.


Along with other lawmakers, Kucinich this week filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on the Libyan conflict, claiming the president violated the law by not securing congressional approval.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -to-go-war

Well, I guess we could be looking at a 3rd impeachment.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Jun 2011, 1:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


Must be some special clause that exempts democrats from the constitution.
After all, his heart's in the right place so why worry about silly details.
:roll:


Just because something is impeachable does not mean a bill of impeachment will be formulated and passed.

ruveyn


You know what I meant!



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Jun 2011, 1:37 pm

Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


Must be some special clause that exempts democrats from the constitution.
After all, his heart's in the right place so why worry about silly details.
:roll:


Just because something is impeachable does not mean a bill of impeachment will be formulated and passed.

ruveyn


You know what I meant!


Well we may have an impeachment, depends on what Obama's next move is if Congress simply cuts funding.



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

16 Jun 2011, 1:40 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I personally disagree with the 60-day limit for deploying troops overseas without congressional approval, I fully support the mission in Libya, and I oppose removing the troops from the region.

But, President Obama did violate the law. There is no question about that. And the law needs to be enforced.


Making war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense.

ruveyn


what ever congress say is an impeachable offense is a impeachable offense.
I think that although the congressional republicans are being shifty on this issue
it is a step in the right direction to not just rubber stamp wars.
although the discussion should happen before the bombs drop.


For the record Bush got congressional approval for Iraq, which is something Obama did not bother to do for Libya, and it states in the Constitution that Congress is the one that declares war, not the President.

In point of fact, Bush did not get "congressional approval for Iraq" - Bush got an approval for the use of force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and used various, ah, interesting arguments to justify his attacks on Iraq, a nation which had nothing to do with said attacks. The conflict in Iraq is extralegal, and should have been regarded as an impeachable offense. Since that was let slide, I can't really see the use of a few missiles and bombers in Libya, occurring within the ninety-day window permitted by the War Powers Act, rising to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.