Cyrenaica Conflict Causes Constitutional Crisis
The Speaker of the House yesterday sent a ‘warning letter’ to the President concerning the United States’ participation in NATO’s ongoing military adventure in Libya. The political fight now is about the War Powers Resolution, a law of debatable constitutionality and a consistent source of debate and concern. The core of the challenge is this:
Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: 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.
So there you have it — the Constitutional crisis a-brewing. High stakes political poker. Let’s add some context here:
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973, during the war in Vietnam. You can read the whole thing at 50 U.S.C. sections 1541-1548, but in essence it boils down to this: the President can commit the military to armed action unilaterally. However, he must notify Congress of his having done so within 48 hours of that activity. The military may not continue active military activity for longer than 60 days, plus an additional 30 days in which to withdraw, without a declaration of war or its equivalent from Congress.
Here’s the timetable, as I see it, focusing on U.S. military, political, and diplomatic activity relating to the Libyan civil war:
- February 15: Peaceful protests against Gaddafi break out across parts of Libya.
- February 17: The “Day of Revolt,” held on the anniversary of protests five years previously against the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Gaddafi’s grip on power breaks as protests spread throughout most of Libya.
- February 24: The beginnings of the National Transitional Council are formed with a claim to a new government, to be based in Tripoli but temporarily headquartered in Benghazi.
- February 25: Most of Libya except for Tripoli and two other western cities under the control of rebel forces.
- February 26: President Obama and Secretary Clinton urge Gaddafi to resign and end the violence. NTC, not directly responding to Obama and Clinton, says that the “liberation” of Libya will be accomplished by the Libyan people themselves, not by foreign intervention.
- February 27: Secretary Clinton offers “any kind of assistance” to Libyans opposing Gaddafi, does not refer to National Transitional Council specifically. Gaddafi begins using airstrikes to fight rebels.
- February 28: US Navy begins positioning warships off the Libyan coast but no action is taken at this time. Secretary Clinton responds positively to suggestion by UK Prime Minister Cameron to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. US Government seizes thirty billion dollars in Libyan national assets.
- March 5: US, UK, France, and Australia jointly call for imposition of no-fly zone over Libyan airspace.
- March 7: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman jointly call for no-fly zone.
- March 16: United Nations calls for immediate cease fire at a time that Loyalist forces seem to have recaptured much of the territory that had been under the control of the NTC only a week previously other than the immediate area around Benghazi.
- March 17: United Nations Security Council issues US and UK authored resolution 1973, imposing no-fly zone and authorizing member states “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas.” China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, and India abstain; other 10 members of Security Council back the resolution.
- March 18: Gaddafi’s government announces that it will obey the March 16 ceasefire resolution; however, ground fighting continues.
- March 19: Operation Odyssey Dawn begins, as the US military begins shooting cruise missiles into Libya, targeting Loyalist air assets to prevent air strikes against Rebel forces. First shots are fired by French plains. Military activity by the United States remains daily thereafter through today.
- March 21: President Obama issues a formal notification to Congress of US involvement in military activity in the Libyan theater of operations, stating “I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”
- March 24: Formal command of naval operations transferred to NATO.
- March 25: Formal command of aerial operations transferred to NATO. A theater commander from Canada named to head the re-named “Operation Unified Protector,” proving that NATO comes up with even less imaginative code names for its military operations than does the US. US aircraft participate in daily or near-daily sorties across Libya.
- April 20: US (the Pentagon) announces it will give rebels $25 million in “non-lethal assistance” like uniforms, boots, rations, medical supplies, and radios.
- April 25: President Obama authorizes release of the $25 million in “non-lethal support” for rebel forces.
- May 5: Secretary Clinton requests authorization from Congress to unfreeze some of the seized $30 billion in Libyan assets to further fund rebels, who are fast running out of money and other supplies.
- May 11: Non-lethal support equipment arrives in Benghazi.
- May 23: Leaders of both parties in the U.S. Senate announce they have agreed on language to authorize continued US military activity in Libya.
- June 3: House of Representatives votes to rebuke President Obama for pursuit of ongoing military activity without consultation with Congress.
- June 4: UK and French begin using Apache gunships to support rebel ground operations, moving NATO a step closer to “boots on the ground.”
- June 9: US announces that it recognizes the National Transitory Council as the “legitimate interlocutor” of Libya, but stops short of extending formal recognition of the NTC as Libya’s legitimate government.
- June 14: Speaker Boehner sends President Obama “warning letter,” throwing down the globe on the War Powers Resolution.
Previously, trial balloons had been floated sugesting that because the command of the operation is under NATO, the President does not need to comply with the War Powers Resolution. Rather, he is bound to see to it that the US honors its treaty commitment to participate in NATO activities, and the ongoing military adventure in Libya is authorized by both NATO and the UN.In the wake of Speaker Boehner’s warning resolution, however, the tune sounds a little different as sung by a National Security Council spokesperson:
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 … Since March 1st, Administration witnesses have testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya and participated in over 30 Member or staff briefings, and we will continue to consult with our Congressional colleagues.
If the U.S. military activity is determined to have begun at the start of Operation Odyssey Dawn, then hostilities were commenced on March 19. Today is June 15, which is two days before the 90-day deadline by which the President must cease military activity without a declaration of war or its equivalent from Congress. Speaker Boehner is right that if the US continues military activity in Libya after Friday, the President will have violated the War Powers Resolution.
The President unquestionably attempted to comply with the War Powers Resolution on March 21. And he’s right to have abandoned the trial balloon that having swaddled our own activity in the vestments of NATO and UN resolutions, our forces can still be involved in ongoing military operations. The crisis is upon us at last – is the War Powers Resolution a constitutionally appropriate use of the exclusive power of Congress to declare war, or is it an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s prerogative as the commander in chief of the military?
I cannot help but think that the Speaker is in the right here. The Constitution gives to Congress, and not the President, the power to declare war. The President has the power to command and exercise day-to-day control over the military. That’s different than saying what it is that the military is going to be doing or attempting to achieve. If the allocation of the power to declare war to Congress means anything, it means that Congress can override the President’s decision to go to war. Otherwise, the President sending the troops into battle is effectively declaring war on his own, and that is not a power given to the President as a unilateral matter.
To be sure, it is facile to suggest that the White House and the Pentagon have not been in communication with Congress. Speaker Boehner should not base his actions on the lack of a formal letter requesting a declaration of war, similar to the notification of military activity which President Obama issued on March 21. But at the same time, he is right to note that while Congress has had all of the facts available to it, there has not been even an informal request for Congressional approval of what is going on in Libya.
The Framers envisioned a government wherein Congress would be the primary branch of government, the first among the three co-equal branches. In our modern era, we have seen a substantial delegation of rulemaking authority from Congress to the President. We have seen that the vagaries and pressures of the modern world require that the government respond quickly to threats and this means relying on the President and the military to act without immediately consulting Congress.
We have also seen that Congress can assemble, on its own, very quickly in response to events. America was struck by terrorists on September 11, 2011, and by September 14, 2011, Congress had met and written the USA PATRIOT Act. Whether you think that the PATRIOT Act was a good idea and an appropriate response to the shocking events of the previous few days, or an ill-conceived, hasty, and panicked response that should have been allowed to sunset out of our laws, it does prove that Congress can react to things very quickly when it needs to do so.
But at the end of the day, the Constitution does say that the power to declare war lies with Congress, not the President, and that means Congress has to get involved.
Both President Obama and Speaker Boehner can avoid this showdown. President Obama can avoid it by issuing a declaration that says something like this:
I request that the Congress of the United States consider issuing a formal resolution authorizing and endorsing the ongoing military activities in Libya. Pending Congress’ action on this issue, I will exercise my authority as commander-in-chief of the military to continue our military’s contribution to those activities in fulfillment of our obligations under the treaties entering the United States into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a law previously adopted by the Senate. Nevertheless I urge Congress to debate this issue and to, as soon as is practicable, authorize the ongoing use of military force in fulfillment of UN Resolution 1973 and NATO Operation Unified Protector. Because of the urgency of this situation, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you please bring this matter to a vote as soon as possible.
See, he could comply without saying he has to comply and at the same time claiming legal authority to continue operations on his own authority as commander-in-chief. He could also invoke a treaty, which would trump a statute like the War Powers Resolution. I personally don’t think that wins if the War Powers Resolution is constitutional, but it’s at least not a laughable argument.
Speaker Boehner could defuse the situation as well, by having someone introduce a declaration of war, or to use the contemporary phrase, an authorization for the use of military force, against the Loyalist government in Libya. It’s not like Congress doesn’t know what’s going on and can’t act on its own. Boehner doesn’t have to wait for Obama to act before he takes action on the issue himself. However, Boehner at least seems to want a confrontation, to turn this into a political victory and an enshrinement of the tug-of-war between the two political branches of government. This is unfortunate, and it will be unpleasant, but it is probably necessary.
I say that, despite the fact that I think the real problem here is that we dithered for too long before getting involved in Libya at all. If we were going to do some good, we should have intervened back when the rebels had the upper hand. Instead, we f—ed around for weeks while Gaddafi got his act together and re-took most of the country. Until and unless we get ground forces in there to fight side by side with the rebels, it’s a desultory battle for villages, and if it turns into a war of attrition, I’ll bet that works out in Gaddafi’s favor. Given where we are, though, we need to at least get our own legal house in order and reach some kind of a political consensus about what we’re going to do. That’s why this confrontation is necessary — we need to have that debate, reach that consensus, and act, because we can’t stay in limbo this way forever.
It’s politically ironic that it happens this way. The War Powers Resolution was passed by a Democratic Congress to rein in a Republican President. Now it is being invoked by a Repubilcan in Congress to rein in a Democratic President.
Stay tuned.
I can’t help but think of what a terrible precedent this action sets, I mean the neocons are watching for goodness sake. What will they think?
I mean it’s a little sad to look back upon the March to Iraq II and think well at least the President made a case for war and asked Congress for approval and funding. HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED!?!?! It’s such a sad, low bar.
I tend to take an incentive based view of the world and this is the wrong kind of John Foster Dullesism in action. It encourages opponents of bad regimes to escalate situations beyond their capabilities in the hope the “international or more accurately North Atlantic” community will get involved and liberate them. Some will say this is a good thing, perhaps in the long run it will be. However, it also creates an incentive for motivated North Atlantic-types to encourage such uprisings against a dictator du jour. Finally, it means those governments at risk for toppling to angry unemployed mobs – except California – will find less comfort in an alliance with the United States and Europe and more comfort in distracting them with extremist views and/or the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Not to mention this kind of legal brinksmanship will likely invite more delegation of responsibility from Congress and a more militarily assertive executive branch.Report
“Until and unless we get ground forces in there to fight side by side with the rebels,”
We (meaning the US or NATO) could simply provide at lot more close in air support of rebel forces and theater level aerial bombardment of Gaddafi’s forces and infrastructure, which would break any stalemate, and I would even say guarantee rebel military victory. But, for one, that more visibly exceeds the UN mandate, for two, that risks killing *a lot* more civilians, and three, doesn’t do anything to prevent or mitigate Gaddafi loyalists from going to ground and starting an insurgency of their own once the rebels declare victory. And recent history indicates that an accelerated air campaign would probably accelerate that third thing.Report
> I personally don’t think that wins if the War Powers
> Resolution is constitutional, but it’s at least not a
> laughable argument.
Howforso not? Treaties are legally binding, that’s what George famously urged the country not to sign too many of them in his farewell address.
If we’re legally bound to assist NATO (and I’m not familiar enough with the treaty to state with any sort of authority what it says, so take that into account), and NATO engages in military activity, we’ve already ceded to NATO a binding agreement; we essentially allow them to declare war on our behalf.
If we don’t cede them that ability… if that’s not what the NATO treaty says, then I’m really not sure what the hell good a military cooperative treaty is worth. Why would anyone ever agree to be bound to assist us in military matters while simultaneously agreeing that if they call upon us, our Congress can decide *not* to declare war and cut out our obligations under treaty?
I can see lots of incomplete understandings on my part, so I may be wildly off-base.Report
As I understand it, the NATO treaty is one of mutual defense; Libya has not invaded or threatened any NATO member state, so participation in a NATO operation is voluntary on the part of the various treaty members. So if we wanted to opt out of NATO operations in Libya, we could do so without breaking our treaty obligations. Not every NATO member state is participating in NATO operations in Afghanistan, for instance.
Better-informed commenters than I should chime in here.Report
After the Berlin disco bombing and Lockerbie, there were open warrants on Libya. Gadhafi settled up with the European victims but not with the American victims.Report
My understanding is that this is basically correct. The signatories have agreed to mutual assistance in case of attack but have no obligations with respect to offensive actions ala Suez, Vietnam, etc.
As for blaise’s point about victim settlements, even if one were to admit the claims, at best we’d be talking about payments or asset forfeiture, not regime change or bombing assets.Report
We’d be talking about murder and terrorism, I’d think.Report
Seems to me it’s all over but the crying. Congress ceded so much power to the Executive over the last few decades. Now they want some of that power back, fine, let them veto a defense spending bill. Boehner is a petty jackass and so is that old snapping turtle Mitch McConnell. They gave Obama 600 billion for defense and he’s not exactly asking for more now. If ever there was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, it’s the current farts of outrage from the GOP.Report
I miss the anti-war protests.
Whatever happened to those?Report
Americans finally realized the futility of them.Report
The anti war protests dried up after Barry became president. People like Elias give Barry the ok to attack Libya given that it is for the kids and not for oil.Report
Maybe where you live. The same group of 6-8 people hold signs calling for an end to the wars on the same busy street corner across from my office every Friday as they have since at least 2005.Report
Given that our political protest maps into two behaviors: principled people actually arguing that something is wrong (see Plinko’s 6), and Team Players arguing that the Other Team is doing something wrong (see “most political ‘protest’).
Of course, it’s hard for Team Players to credibly criticize the Other Team for taking pretty much the same exact stance that they took when they were in the commander’s seat.
Sure, you can criticize some of the Left for not being actual Doves, Scott. But the anti-war protests aren’t around because the Team Players on the Right feel outright foolish for going out and carrying signs saying “No Blood For Oil”.
What signs would they carry? “It’s Only Okay If Our Guy is President!”?Report
“that old snapping turtle Mitch McConnell”
This imagery made me laugh out loud.Report
Blaise:
It is your old song about those bad Republicans. Do you have another tune? I guess expecting Barry to obey the law is too much to ask?Report
Scott, If possible I would like some links to your complaining when that brain dead bush and his giant dick decided to stop looking for OBL so America could spend a couple trillion dollars looking for non-exist weapons in Iraq.Report
Dexter:
It which fantsay land did Bush gave up looking for OBL?Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0gReport
Scott, “I have no idea where Bin Laden is. I have idea and really don’t care. It’s not our piority.” from an old Buzzflash site 11/13/02. Your ideas don’t bother me near as much as your tone.
Simon K and I had over a thousand words of disagreement last week without once calling each other stupid or living in a fantasy land.Report
Another successful hijacking. Libya has zip nada doodah to do with Bush. This is President Obama’s baby.Report
The idea that we can rebuild the Middle East into a set of Democracies is very much Bush’s Baby.
The idea that we *should* also is one of his.Report
Nice try, JB. Libya is Obama’s baby. Further, so is Egypt. I’m with Lee Smith [below]. I do not think the previous administration would have been so precipitous, even knee-jerk, in support of the street protests.
[And even if it had been, it has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Obama and the current crisis. Which is. His baby. Not Bush’s.]
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/06/13/after-the-fall-of-the-pharoah/
“These scenarios are a result of Mubarak’s having been toppled in the way he was. Had he been allowed to leave after elections and overseeing a transition, as he promised, things might look very different now. The Obama administration could’ve held him to his promise, and pocketed that as a victory for US diplomacy, since this is precisely what the State Department had sought from Mubarak for some time—a successor named to replace him, and a timeline for his exit.
Instead, the White House sided with the protesters and demanded he step down; now the revolutionaries have a veto over the political system by virtue of the fact that they can simply go to the street and cause mayhem. So instead of a transition to democracy, we have the beginnings of a tyranny of a minority, a naïve minority at that which does not understand how its interests may eventually come to heads with the country’s more powerful forces, its armed forces.”Report
Obama certainly should be able to make his own decisions on this. He had the opportunity to do right and he didn’t.
That said, what you state here is absolutely the bizarro world version of things.
The right thing to do was support the protestors in Egypt and Libya and anywhere. If there’s one thing the USA ought to be able to do is say publicly to the world that citizens of all nations have every right to air grievances and to call for their basic human rights to be respected.
The wrong thing to do was to start bombing runs in Libya when we didn’t like how the entrenched powers handled those protests.
The idea that we should be telling the masses to enjoy their gruel and suck up to their dictators is, frankly, sick.Report
Not atall, “Plinko.” By demanding Mubarak abdicate immediately instead of supervise an orderly transition, BHO left a lot more jokers in the deck. It may turn out OK regardless, but that’s the reality, and you calling it bizarro world does not make it so, nor is that any principled counterargument.
Egypt rather is Bizarro World, as is pretty much the rest of this planet. And creating an interregnum in Egypt instead of a transition was imprudent, IMO, and that of many others.
And it has nothing to do with Bush, my primary objection.Report
Oh there are quite a few good Republicans I like. F’rinstance, I’ve always admired Orrin Hatch. Don’t agree with much he says, but he’s an honorable man. I like Lindsey Graham for many of the same reasons. Wish we had a dozen like ’em, to keep the Democrats honest. Every good politician needs another one to keep him in the game, and it’s a great pity there aren’t more Republicans worth more than a bucket of warm bull piss in the Senate.Report
The only Democrat I’ve ever liked and listened to was Patrick Moynihan. McGovern seemed like a very decent, good man, who has been through hell after his daughter committed suicide.
Beyond that, I’m at a complete loss.
It’s not that I have any strong, passionate animus towards Liberals and Democrats, they just bore me to hell and death. Insufferable comes immediately to mind. So does unendurable. So does that character in the movie, “Airplane” who drives everyone to suicide moments after he opens his mouth. Yeah, I could imagine Libs having that kind of effect.Report
Once I thought as you do about Democrats. Y’know who changed my mind about the Democrats? Paul Simon, remember him? He was one of those fiscally conservative Democrats we used to have back in the day. I used to write him letters and he’d write me back, I have at least a dozen letters from his office.
At heart, I think I’m still the old Liberal Republican I used to be. Reagan once said he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left him. That’s how I feel about the GOP. After the GOP welcomed the filthy racist Dixiecrat rats with open arms, I really wanted to leave the party but I held my nose and voted for Nixon anyway. We all know how that turned out. Remember when Nixon put the White House guards in those absurd uniforms? I almost vomited. Nixon was such a disgusting bastard. When the Cambodia invasion went down, everyone in uniform was completely horrified. We knew it would lead to a very bad end and it did. Then came Watergate and nobody I knew was surprised…..
I actually voted for Reagan the first time. Carter really was a decent man and I wanted to like him but he’d micromanaged and mismanaged the country and surrounded himself with idiots. Reagan horrified me. When the GOP evicted its Liberals, and remember, back then there really were Liberals in the GOP, who were actually decent people, well, that was the last straw.
I had a horrible fight with my father over changing parties. Didn’t speak to him for years thereafter. Saddest part of my life.Report
Another Republican I’ve always liked is Bush41 the Wiser. A real mensch. The best part of Dubyah ran down his momma’s leg. He wasn’t a patch on his Dad’s britches. How such a decent, reasonable man could give rise to such a vicious, petty little man-child I’ll never know. It really is perverse, because I like his other son, Jeb, once the governor of Florida.
Bush41 was a man of duty and honor. We’re pretty sure he got some doo-doo on his heel in Iran-Contra, but that’s mostly Reagan’s doing. He was just what the CIA needed at the time he was in charge over there.Report
41 was a pretty all right, yes. Not much of a fan of the 2 other GOPers you cited, though. Unfortunately most of my more favored Elephants are retired or dead.Report
Well, I’m relieved that’s settled, then.Report
Yeah, this generic snark and slander on the GOP uglies up this blog bigtime. And when the colors are reversed, too. Boring.Report
Fact is, this Constitutional Crisis is nothing but a bluff. Going back to Magna Carta and the barons, it’s a question of money. The GOP has already passed a defense budget. There’s nothing more they can do to Obama. It is, as I have said, so much outraged farting, and has nothing to do with generic snark or slander.Report
Blaise:
So the War Powers Act is part of the GOP’s imagination and not the Constitution? It must be a good delusional given some Dems are sharing it.Report
Obama’s made it clear enough: this is a NATO operation. There are no US boots on the ground. And yes, for all practical purposes, the War Powers Act is a figment of the GOP’s imagination.
I just love the idea of the GOP sticking up for Gadhafi. And that payaso, Kucinich, too.Report
Blaise:
That explains it all. I must have missed the NATO operation and the no ground troops exclusion from the WPA when I was rereading it last week.Report
Go on sticking up for Gadhafi. Even St. Ronnie dropped a few bombs on his scruffy ass, not that you’d remember those days.Report
Blaise:
You mistake sticking up for federal law as sticking for up Gadhafi. I remember St. Ronnie bombing him fondly. I also remember learning about the WPA in law school but I guess Barry missed that day or wasn’t paying attention.Report
Bullshit. Yes, you are sticking up for Gadhafi, preferring his wickedness to Obama’s.
This is a naked attempt to attack a sitting president, exactly along the same lines Andrew Johnson was attacked.
Those whom the gods would destroy they answer their prayers. Start impeachment proceedings right away, that this wicked Congress may have its day and be given its richly deserved beating.Report
Blaise:
The “wickedness” starts at home with folks like you giving Barry a pass on obeying federal law.Report
And what shall we make of people like you, using Gadhafi as a battering ram to attack Obama? There is no other possible conclusion: you actually prefer Gadhafi to Obama.Report
Blaise:
Barry is the one ignoring federal law and giving Republicans the battering ram to use on him. Why does Barry think he is above federal law?Report
Gadhafi is a manifestly wicked man on whose orders American soldiers were murdered and airliners blown up over Lockerbie Scotland. How dare you tell me of who is ignoring federal laws when American blood is on this man’s hands? If the GOP had an ounce of decency in them, and they do not, they would have backed the overthrow of Gadhafi. This they will not do. Coprophagous swine, all of them.Report
Blaise:
The blood of many Americans is on the hands of many dictators still in power around the world, so what makes QDaffy any worse or more deserving of breaking federal law?Report
That’s just pitiful. Reduced to tu-quoque and now shinnying up the palm tree to escape the tiger, you may screech and holler at your leisure. It remains true as ever: you prefer Gadhafi to Obama.Report
P.S. … and all the other dictators, too.Report
“Objectively pro-Gadhafi”.
That’s the term we used for those who opposed the operation in Iraq.
The way you make this argument work is that you weigh the absolute best-case, pie-in-the-sky, scenario of intervention against the status quo.
This is because if you weigh the last fifteen or sixteen times we’ve done this against the status quo, you get to a different answer.Report
Blaise:
And you can stick with your phony righteous indignation. What a tear jerker!Report
Okay, are we done with this now, fellas? Flame wars are good for the comments count and all, but this isn’t helping advance the discussion much.Report
…did Barry go to law school?Report
Or maybe Obama’s just wrong on this. Sometimes everything’s not just partisanship and opinion. That’s where the slander and snark comes in.
And it’s fucking boring, Blaise.Report
Yes, it’s a wonderful day in the Land o’ GOP. Proppin’ up that maniac Gadhafi for political points. I’ll tell you what’s fucking boring Tom, it’s the GOP’s taste for swill: there’s no lie they won’t tell, no vicious little dictator they won’t back, no alliance they won’t abandon to score points in their pointless little vendettas. I’ve been witness to this shit for a very long time, going back to LBJ and Richard Nixon.Report
Blaise:
As if no Dem ever propped up a dictator. It must be a nice fantasy land you live in where the Dems do no wrong.Report
Well, now it’s Boehner’s turn to stick up for Gadhafi. Poor, poor Gadhafi, so put upon by that wicked old Obama.Report
Nixon? Predictable. Boring. Leftover left. Interesting: 2011. Democrat Brad Sherman, via Greenwald. Not boring:
“…an amendment sponsored by the Democratic hawk and AIPAC loyalist Rep. Brad Sherman of California — to cut off funds for the war in Libya unless and until the President complies with the War Powers Resolution — passed the House by a substantial majority, with roughly equal support from both parties, though with the leadership of both parties (Pelosi, Boehner, Hoyer, Cantor) in opposition.”
http://www.salon.com/news/libya/?story=/opinion/greenwald/radio/2011/06/15/shermanReport
Cut off war funding? There’s no funding to cut off: the President isn’t asking for any. Try again.Report
You know, this is why when I write about stuff like this, I try to use titles and positions rather than names when I can. Too much of it gets awkward, but the things that I find interesting about this showdown is not that it’s Barack Obama versus John Boehner. What’s interesting, to me, is that it’s the President versus the Speaker. One day, the President will be someone other than Obama. One day, the Speaker will be someone other than Boehner. The personality conflict, the immediate political maneuverings, will be different then, but the basic institutional clash between legislative and executive, will still be there, just underneath the folds of the top-level politics.Report
Well, as you saw, Mr. Likko, it just got threadjacked by Bush Derangement Syndrome anyway—as pretty much fishing usual when it comes to President Obama’s actions—so you might as well just name names.Report
I agree with Burt, but don’t expect that much. Congress has demonstrated decades of spinelessness on this issue, for reasons amply documents by political scientists. In addition, the the mainstream political establishment rarely takes any real actions against the War State. Too many people are happy with a situation where the president can simply order a war. And the right is the side of the establishment which most loves the War State, and the War Presidency.Report
If Congress wants to be spineless and cede the effective power to take us to war to the President without saying so, it can readily do so: Boehner can draft and take to an immediate vote a resolution acknowleding that a state of war exists and ratifying U.S. activity under the NATO and UN commands. Or a declaration of war against the Loyalist rump government of Libya and encourage the President to enter into a military alliance with the Libyan NTC.
Instead, we have legal brinksmanship that, as you point out, will likely change nothing going on out in the Med — but makes it look like we could have to ground our planes Saturday morning, which makes it look like we’re feckless allies becuase we can’t get our political s**t together.
It’s ultimately a political problem and it should have a political solution. The legal, constitutional resolution that I can see (assuming it resolves on principled grounds) reaches that same unacceptable result of Congress pulling the plug on something we maybe shouldn’t have got into in the first place, but now that we are in, we’d be best off seeing it through to completion.Report
I think it’s proper for Congress to call on the administration to observe the proprieties of the WPA. Which is what it’s doing. Such a call is not tantamount to opposition to the Libya thing; if there were a strong current of opposition, then the measures Mr. Likko limns would indeed be taken.
In fact, If we can believe the World Socialist News Website [and who doesn’t?]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/anti-j06.shtml
Boehner tabled Dennis Kucinich’s far more condemnatory resolution out of [prudent?] fear that GOPers would vote for it to stick one up BHO’s wazoo, and turn a legitimate issue into a partisan one.Report
Dennis-the-menace, now that’s the last decent commie-Dem in the House. He doesn’t photograph his penis, and he’s a stay-at-home-mind-your-own-bidness Democrat, and there aren’t many left.Report
I’m digging the bipartisan love-fest here guys, between Blaise’s praises for Hatch and Graham and Bob dropping some serious respect for Kucinich. Gives me hope. Makes me feel all fuzzy and Broderesqe.Report
Heh. I have this theory about politics, a rough analog of the scientific method. When a law is enacted, it’s rather like an experiment, we can made some chalkboard guesses but we’re never really sure, empirically, how things are going to pan out. So we passed the 18th Amendment, the Law of Unintended Consequences took over and we ended up repealing it. Curiously, there are statistics to support the assertion many crimes and social ills were attenuated by Prohibition, as the Temperance folks had said. But politically, it was madness. The War on Drugs seems to obey the same law of unintended consequences.
Hypotheses are a dime a dozen, but until they’re tested, we won’t know. If the Republicans are in charge, it’s because the Democrats screwed up and vice-versa. We let the experiment run for a while, the results come in and we match them to the hypothesis.
No politician is ever going to promise something the folks don’t want. Chickens in pots, cars in garages, jobs, security, oh they’ll tell us what we want to hear. They’ll try to scare us, hoodwink us, make us shit our pants in terror about nonexistent threats and monsters in the lake. These people will say anything. But can they deliver? If they can, we keep ’em. If they can’t, out they go.
High Broderism was always stupid. Both sides can’t be right. Not all hypotheses survive the experiment. Politics is the art of the possible and therefore the empirical. Can the politician deliver on his promises? We’ll never know until he’s had the chance. We can’t rule anyone out because the argument sounds stupid.Report
Burt, you’re beginning to be my favorite. Yes, Dennis is so far to the left he’s popping up on the right.Report
Dennis is so far to the left he’s popping up on the right.
No Roberto, Barry did not attend law school. Anywhere. At any time.
Within the next week or so, Breitbart is going to be releasing damning evidence that shows the Bamster had a body double (paid for by Billy Ayers) attend Harvard Law School. Apparently, the body double was none other than Stokely Carmichael who went through extensive plastic surgery at Harvard Medical School hospitals to pull off this caper. Breitbart says that after the 3rd grade, there is no evidence Barry attended any schools in the United States rather there is an enormous amount of evidence–videos, pictures, interviews showing Barry attending the most radical madrases in Saudi Arabia.
He is also seen in several video clips, riding camels with Ayers, Warren Beatty, and Jane Fonda–all smoking brick size quantities of hashish in his bong with Barry singing a rap version of The Star-Spangled Banner.
I mean, what the heck? Is it believable? Absolutely. Schadenfreude? Insanely so. And why do you suppose he wanted to be photographed wearing Lederhosen, a fake Hitler moustache, and a SS helmut?
Sad, but true. Et tu, Brutus. I guess even Jerimiah Wright is seen in one of the videos condemning “money changing tricky, hook-nosed shysters,” whom the chickens are coming home to “roost and roast”.Report
No Roberto, Barry did not attend law school. Anywhere. At any time.
Within the next week or so, Breitbart is going to be releasing damning evidence that shows the Bamster had a body double (paid for by Billy Ayers) attend Harvard Law School. Apparently, the body double was none other than Stokely Carmichael who went through extensive plastic surgery at Harvard Medical School hospitals to pull off this caper. Breitbart says that after the 3rd grade, there is no evidence Barry attended any schools in the United States rather there is an enormous amount of evidence–videos, pictures, interviews showing Barry attending the most radical madrases in Saudi Arabia.
He is also seen in several video clips, riding camels with Ayers, Warren Beatty, and Jane Fonda–all smoking brick size quantities of hashish in his bong with Barry singing a rap version of The Star-Spangled Banner.
I mean, what the heck? Is it believable? Absolutely. Schadenfreude? Insanely so. Who can’t find humor in Barry riding camels dressed in Lederhosen and smoking a bong doing rap.
Sad, but true. Et tu, Brutus. I guess even Jerimiah Wright is seen in one of the videos condemning “money changing tricky, hook-nosed shysters,” whom the chickens are coming home to “roost and roast”.
The video also shows Barry ridingReport
I’m very much on board with the House pressuring Obama to at least feign adherence to some Constitutional procedure vis-a-vis war-making.
I also think the Libya mission has been woefully incoherent and half-assed in conception and execution. It’s almost everything the Powell Doctrine would advise against. And it neuters any argument one could hope to make for R2P being a relatively limited, non-partisan doctrine.Report
Important update, y’all. The White House has announced that it has decided that the Libyan confilct is not the sort of conflict that was contemplated by the War Powers Resolution, because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
Here’s direct from the official report to Congress: “Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.” That is the totality of the “legal analysis” offered by the White House regarding compliance with the War Powers Resolution.
A new theory entirely! Not that the WPR is unconstitutional, not that the President has complied with the WPR, but rather,this one doesn’t count. I’m going to hit the books and offer a supplemental opinion of this.Report
A valiant effort by the best of the best towards a fundamentally silly and asinine goal.Report
I don’t know if I should be more disappointed at Harvard for failing to teach Barry federal law or more disappointed at Barry for going to Harvard and failing to learn anything.Report
Yeah. Usually US Presidents in the post-War era show such fealty to federal law. I don’t know what to do with myself, this break with precedent is so worrisome.Report
Why do you think that he didn’t learn quite a bit there?
Just as Bush learned quite a bit at the Harvard ‘R*pe and Pillage’ School of Business.Report
I dig in to the statute itself, and tease out the loophole I think the President is aiming at, on my sub-blog.Report
I feel like such a narrow tailoring of the EPA essentially authorizes the president to engage in asymmetric warfare at his pleasure. Surely something inimical to the wpa, if not the constitution.Report
I concur. I doubt the White House wants to go down the “legislative intent” road with this approach to the WPR.Report
Why wouldn’t he? It seems like that is exactly what needs to happen w/r/t this Act, so we can finally figure out what it means in practice.Report
Mr. I, I implore you to set down the snark & get up to speed on this. It’s in The New York Times and everything:
“While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon’s veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980,the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.
Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.
It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House’s interpretation of what “hostilities” means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations.”
http://volokh.com/2011/06/15/a-war-over-war-powers/
There is indeed a break with precedent. And here—Bi-partisan objection, by the rank & file, not the leaders or the bozos, equal numbers of Dems and GOP, according to Greenwald:
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya.
Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163.
A number of members of Congress have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at President Barack Obama’s decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorization.
The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.
Sherman’s text states that “none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act.”
Sherman’s one of my local congresscritters. A straight up dude, Democrat all the way, but not a demagogue or weirdo. “Centrist,” I kid you not.
Pls, do not feed the beast. There’s a genuine issue here. And you know, it’s not that I’m all stoked up on this, but I just hate intelligent and principled discussion getting shouted down on this blog, which is one of the few anywhere that even tries.Report
I can’t fault Elias for expressing cynicism about the White House’s attitude towards the rule of law and the Constitution’s limits on powers. I tend to share that attitude and his profound disappointment with a President who had led us to expect better from his Administration in this arena than what we’ve been getting.
But I do think this is a significant issue, one which warrants sober comment, analysis, and concern. The political ironies of the immdiate situation, the backdrop of a seemingly pointless I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-A-War, and the prospect of the promised-for-forty-years showdown about the Constitutionality of the WPR, leaves me thinking that this will be one of the most significant legal issues of the year.Report
I haven’t shouted down anyone, though. No idea where that’s coming from.
I’m snarking not because I don’t think this is an issue worthy of discussion but more because I feel that this is fretting about the barn door long, long, long after the horses have not only left but engaged in some “limited police actions” along their way.Report
Mr. I, I was referring to the generic snark that’s been clogging the pipes hereabouts when it has absolutely nothing to do with the original post. I’ve found your own recent work praiseworthy.
As to the issue, the Libya thing doesn’t fit neatly into the general skepticism about America and military force. The past two presidents didn’t ignore Congress or the WP Act. There were votes and everything.
Besides the legal/constitutional problem, it’s simply bad governance. A majority of the country thinks this is a bad idea, and although I admire a president doing what needs to be done [say FDR evading the Neutrality Act], there’s simply no grave and immediate threat to the republic in Libya [which the War Powers Act explicitly leaves room for, for the C-in-C to do what’s necessary in a crisis].
Absent such a crisis, we should be making such decisions as a nation. And anyone who’s been on about Congress abandoning its duties to an imperial presidency, well, here’s a legitimate step. It’s not about Bush and it’s not about Nixon. It’s about Brad Sherman.Report
I think it’s almost impossible to argue that Obama has not only continued Bush’s legacy on Executive Power in war and national security policy, but he has furthered and expanded its boundaries and thus made it his own. I think to some degree this is the consequence of a larger political dynamic that renders individual action by politicians somewhat secondary; but Obama has taken the scissors given to him and run with them. It might be a consequence of his insecurity on defense/security matters as a man or as a democrat — or he might just imagine himself entitled to what seems to us a disproportionate purview.Report
Elias:
Didn’t candidate Barry promise to drop the scissors and bring us hope and change from the dark evil days of the Bush administration? I thought so but maybe I misunderstood him.Report
Only if Congress wants it to be; my bet is all sizzle and no steak.Report
Apparently Hillary has stolen Blaise’s line and is asking US lawmakers whose side they are on since they have the nerve to ask Barry to obey federal law and won’t rubber stamp his actions.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110623/D9O1A3VO0.htmlReport