How can anyone justify President Obama saying through Clinton that he'd

[cali]

ignore a Congressional Resolution constraining the administrations actions in Libya?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/clinton-tells-house-obama-would-ignore-war-resolutions.php

How is this substantively different than Governor Walker's administration ignoring the courts?

[Mass]

1. I was going to post the same thing. I wonder too what the explanation is.

[razorman]

15. It is worrisome. We cannot castigate Walker for ignoring the court decision if we meekly accept

President Obama doing the same sort of thing. Just because I agree with the president's position on the Affordable Care Act and the drilling moratorium does not mean that I can overlook his disregard of court orders in these matters. I am less certain about Libya, but congress and the courts are co-equal branches of our government. The system must be respected. It is not perfect, but it is all we have.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. I question the messenger.

[razorman]

46. You have a point. But what ulterior motive could she possibly have?

[Autumn]

2. WTF

He can't do that.

[cali]

4. well, he likely won't have to, but it's of great concern to me that he

delivered this message to Congress. I mean he's a Constitutional lawyer for god's sake.

[Autumn]

6. It's in the Constitution.

He can't ignore a resolution constraining the administrations actions in Libya. And why in the hell would he say that. It makes no sense to me.

[northoftheborder]

9. Well, why would the Senate, after passing a resolution unanimously approving...

......authorizing actions in Libya, pass another one forbidding it?

[Tx4obama]

11. The Senate probably wouldn't but the GOP House might.

But unless it is a 'joint resolution' (by both the senate and house) it is nothing more than a piece of paper ;)

[paulk]

49. the Senate resolution

is also nothing more than a "piece of paper"

[cali]

12. there has been no resolution authorizing any action in Libya

though Senator Levin is trying to garner support for one.

http://www.congress.org/news/2011/03/30/sen_levin_pushes_libya_resolution

[Tx4obama]

14. But the U.S. Senate did pass S. Res.85 by unanimous consent regarding Libya on March 1st.

More info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717373
and the full text of the resolution is posted in comment #10 on that link.

[northoftheborder]

22. Yes. That was what Rand Paul was being nailed for by Laurence, for voting for...

that resolution, then stating on Fox that he would absolutely not vote for intervening in Libya.

[Dokkie]

34. A Paul supporting a war?

do you have a link for the resolution in question? and is it one of those non binding useless resolution or not?

[Autumn]

13. Read the article. It explains it and

Rep. Brad Sherman's question.

[truedelphi]

41. When he voted for the ability to let the phone companies & others

Spy on us, he showed us what he thinks of the Constitution.

And that was back in summer of 2008. I admit to being one of many who thought that was just a "slip" on his part.

[Tx4obama]

3. Becaue 'resolutions' are not binding and they are not law. n/t

[cali]

5. non-binding resolutions are not law

but sorry, a Congressional resolution can have the force of law.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401803581.html

[Tx4obama]

7. The House did not pass the resolution. It was not a joint resolution. n/t

[cali]

8. that's not the point. the point is that he sent a message to Congress

saying that if they did pass such a resolution he'd ignore it.

[Tx4obama]

10. And he would have the right to ignore it if it is passed by only one branch of Congress.

And hell why not? The Congress ignores most of what Obama says ;)

[jaxx]

16. You got that right!

:thumbsup:

[Mass]

17. Except this was not what the article is about. Read it rather than stopping at the title.

Titles often do not reflect what this is about.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing, said Clinton and the administration are sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a 60-day time limit on any military action.

"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. "She said they are certainly willing to send reports and if they issue a press release, they'll send that to us too."

[karynnj]

21. One slight possibility

This is Sherman repeating what was said in a classified hearing - and it is NOT a direct quote. (I know nothing of Sherman - so I have no insight into his typical accuracy.)

[Clio the Leo]

18. The way in which we accept reporting against the President as the gospel never ceases to amaze me...

.... which is not a slam at Talking Points because they're awesome .... but we second guess the President and follow blindly the press?

Weird.

[frylock]

26. the converse applies..

i suppose it all depends on one's POV.

on edit: i'm curious to know who you think is being truthful here; is it sherman, the writer, or the OP?

[Clio the Leo]

27. I'm saying some are accused of blindly following the President....

... and those who make that argument often blindly follow the press.

Works both ways.

[frylock]

32. that may be true, but i don't see the relevancy as it applies to this story..

earlier today we were told it was bullshit as it was attributed to an anonymous republican. now sherman has spoken and it appears to be legit.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Okay, so IF this is true, do you support it? What would you say if a Republican did it?

Seriously.

The term "high-handed" simply isn't ugly enough for this sort of domineering.

[tekisui]

45. First off, 'the press' is not a monolithic singular body.

There are a wide range of people and organizations making up 'the press'. Second, where else are we supposed to find information? Are we to rely solely on WH press releases and comments from the press secretary? That's ridiculous.

It is our duty to gather information from wherever we can get it. And, it is our responsibility to analyze, question and verify the information. One of the best ways to do that is to bring it to more eyes, who can separate the wheat from the chaff.

It isn't blindly following 'the press'. It is seeking the truth.

[cali]

47. I don't blindly follow the press, nor do I accuse others of blindly following the president.

[Mass]

43. There is an easy fix. The WH can say this is not true. They have not!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Not sure Obama was pulling the strings on that one.

[karynnj]

20. You can't - they are over reaching

There have always been questions on the War Powers Act, but this completely negates any authority of Congress. I was against unitary President under Bush and still am - and that is what this is.

[amandabeech]

23. This is exceptionally troubling. This is not the time for Obama to be setting up a possible

Constitutional crisis. The country is in crisis and it is not the time to play chicken with the Constitution. Professionals should understand this.

The only explanation I can think of is that some people with unfinished business from a prior administration and enormous egos together with Obama and his people who may now realize that they are in real trouble with their decision to go in and their ridiculous double-speak about it have far too much invested to let little things like Congress and the Constitution make them look bad. My experience with intellectual, doctrinaire liberals is that they tend to be authoritarian and put policy ahead of any kind of reasonable process when it suits them.

I am a non-practicing attorney, but I did go to one of those fancy law schools like Obama and Clinton many, many years ago if that counts. At my law school, you could walk through the main hall and hear huge egos banging into each other and the walls and ceilings when many of the students walked by. There simply wasn't enough space for all of them. I suspect that two of the principals here were exactly like that.

None the less, I was sickened when I read of Clinton's reputed statement. I hope to hell that the congressman did not understand Clinton, because if he understood her, we have another lawless administration. The country deserves better.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. The President may not send in forces by himself UNLESS ATTACKED

This is another cheapening of the law through repeated abuse, and it's shocking to see yet another seemingly competent source so very, very wrong on this issue. The President may only send forces into "hostilities" or areas were they're "imminent" if Congress Declares War, Congress Authorizes it, or we're attacked. That's ATTACKED, too, not in imminent danger or anything.

The ticking clock for notification and getting out are applied if there's no Declaration of War in effect, and are in no way to be construed as a "free trial period" or anything of the like.

Here's the actual document:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

This, by itself, is extremely disturbing. Add in the disregard for any limitations, and it's very dangerous.

The whole operation is illegal: the UN Participation Act of 1945 forbids ANY forces to be sent unless the President makes a special agreement with the Security Council that gets authorized by Congress. The language (Section 6) is a bit clutzy, but it's obvious: upon an Article 42 call-up, the President doesn't have to get authorization from Congress

PURSUANT TO

an agreement that's already been authorized. Obama broke the law here, too. The UN Charter also confirms in Article 43 that all special agreements are subject to ratification by member states according to their constitutions.

As an attorney, you should appreciate the flagrant nature of the violations.

[amandabeech]

37. Yes, I absolutely do recognize the problems, and did so from the start.

However, you and others have posted extensively on this issue, and my thought was not to reiterate your posts, but to make some additional points.

I agree with your argument. It is essentially what Prof. Bruce Ackerman from Yale stated in his recent article. Ackerman's a very smart guy and you must be as well.

[Vattel]

24. Some people mistakenly believe

that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional attack on the war powers of the President. I suspect that Obama and Clinton mistakenly believe that, but I could be wrong.

[geek tragedy]

30. Every President has taken that position. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Every President since Nixon has taken that position and it's not tested in court

I suspect it's constitutional and that the framers didn't intend for the President to be using military force without the consent of congress. That said, I'm not a lawyer and thus only understand the constitution in the manner that a layperson would. The courts need to rule one way or another on this, because it's probably not something we should be leaving grey area over.

[bornskeptic]

25. Here's how he can do it.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

United States Constitution, Article I:Section 7

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

If Congress wants to oder the President to do something he chooses not to do, it takes 2/3 of both chambers.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. No; that's overriding a veto, which has already been done

Here's the deal: the Congress has the power to craft and pass a law to enact powers listed in the Constitution as functioning laws; it's called the "necessary and proper" clause in Art.1, Sec.8, and it is what Congress cites at the beginning of the War Powers Act. Congress has the power to clarify powers, even as they pertain to members of the other branches. They did this, and Nixon vetoed it, which they overrode.

People can bellyache about this, as they have, but they're sniveling, chickenshit snipers who are wrong, or they'd have challenged it 38 years ago.

What you refer to is the Presidential Veto, which has already been done to this Act. Congress overrode it, and it's the law.

Besides all this, the UN Participation Act of 1945 says that the President makes "special agreements" with the Security Council regarding making forces available, but that these have to be authorized by Congress, and that's both houses. The wording is a tad sloppy, but when the UN calls out the dogs with an Article 42 Resolution, the President may act with out Congressional Authorization PURSUANT TO an agreement that's already in place and WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED. Period.

There is no situation where the President may make forces available to the UN without statutory authorization by Congress. He didn't get that.

It's just breathtaking what a flagrant abuse this is. It's worse than any President has EVER DONE. Clinton's close with Bosnia, but there's a wobbly leg of NATO justification to sleaze by with. Panama and Grenada are close, but those are merely War Powers violations; this is a UN and War Poers violation. This is monumental. This is arrogance beyond mere illegality. It's dangerous: the goal is to destroy Congressional oversight and force the monarchic Presidency down our throats. The Republicans are twisting in their evil hate-filled glee, because they thirst for this kind of executive power for themselves. I'm just disgusted at the duplicity and complicity, and those who justify this for our President are morally corrupt and beneath contempt. Sadly, this encompasses literally millions of our fellow citizens, and that's depressing.

[Runework]

39. THis bears repeating

"Besides all this, the UN Participation Act of 1945 says that the President makes "special agreements" with the Security Council regarding making forces available, but that these have to be authorized by Congress, and that's both houses. The wording is a tad sloppy, but when the UN calls out the dogs with an Article 42 Resolution, the President may act with out Congressional Authorization PURSUANT TO an agreement that's already in place and WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED. Period.

There is no situation where the President may make forces available to the UN without statutory authorization by Congress. He didn't get that."

[Vattel]

48. I can't vote for Obama in 2012

because I can't vote for an executive who is willing to usurp the powers of another branch, or who is willing to violate rights contained in the Bill of Rights. He has proven willing to do both. His remarks in his campaign suggested that he would respect the war powers of Congress. In general he positioned himself to the left of Hillary on issues pertaining to executive power, but that seems to have been a mere political tactic to win the nomination.

[slay]

28. Don't you get it man?? It's ok as long as a Democrat does it!!

:sarcasm: yeah.. i don't get it either.. :(

*on edit: ("man" being short for woman in your case cali. didn't you used to be super pro-obama everything - or maybe i'm thinking of someone else? at any rate - nice post)

[Tx4obama]

29. Here's a link to the segment of The Last Word regarding S.Res.85 & Rand Paul

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42350498#42350498

EVERYONE should see that video!

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I'd respond by saying that it's probably time to test the War Powers Act in court

The constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but it doesn't expressly forbid the President from entering what Sarah Palin refers to as squirmishes. The courts need to make it clear that either the congressional power to declare war means that the President is expressly forbidden to use military force without congressional authorization or if it simply means that congress has the power to make formal declarations of war and that the President can use whatever military force he or she wants without a formal declaration of war.

This isn't an easy issue and it doesn't help things that the constitution was written at a time when war was declared with parchment and calligraphy.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harmony Blue]

44. I believe that...

if it reaches that point, it would be fair to discuss the implications of such action, and the precedent it sets. From my point of view, it appears that it is simply tough rhetoric more so than being backed by substance IMVHO.