I guess we know where the White House legal team stands on the War Powers Act:
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 [to us] and if they issue a press release, they’ll send that to us too.”
The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration’s response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.
The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions.
More details here.
I realize it drives Lefties crazy to ask, "What if George W. Bush had said this" ... BUT come on, folks. If the Anti-war Left doesn't get off its duff quickly, whatever credibility it may have had is gone forever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey can't sidestep the 60-day time limit because this war does not even come within the War Powers Act in the first place. 50 USC 1541:
"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation.
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."
The Libya War is not in response to any attack upon us. And Obama has never claimed that it is. Obama unilaterally used the US military to attack Libya purely for humanitarian reasons.
Not only it is not even within the War Powers Act, it is not even within the Constitution, as the comments by the Framers at the time make unmistakably clear, nothwithstanding the flimsy legal arguments of advocates for an imperial presidency.
We need more Senators and Congressman like Rand Paul to show some backbone and defend our Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I recall, while many previous Presidents have SAID that they consider the War Powers Act unconstitutional, they have consistently abided by it all the same. Their submissions to and requests for action from Congress are prefaced with language along the lines of: "While I consider the War Power Act an unconstitutional abridgment of my authority as commander-in-chief, nevertheless I am complying with it anyway, but that doesn't mean I agree that I have to."
This seems to be to be a step further than any previous President has ever taken it. I don't understand why. I mean, the odds of Congress actually curtailing the operations is very small. So why wouldn't the Secretary of State tell Congress something like: "I'm not going to address hypotheticals of unlikely things that Congress might do. As every previous Presidential administration has maintained, the President believes the WPA to be unconstitutional. In the unlikely event Congress were to take action to try to curtail this important military mission, we would consider that only if and when it happens and takes steps as the President, in his authority as commander in chief, deems appropriate.
Or perhaps she did circumlocute like that, and whoever is leaking what she said in the classified briefing in a more summary way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason Obama hasn't gone to Congress for authorization is he does not want to be in the position of deriving most of the support for the Libyan action from Republicans. Imagine who it would look to the nation if he was not supported by his own party, and imagine the effect on Democrats as a wedge is driven into the party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlay Emperor of the Earth (tm) all you want, Mr. Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter 60 days, the carpet - and your funding - will be pulled out from beneath you, regardless of how imperial you proclaim yourself to be.
Obama has been bypassing congress all he wants. He created umpteen czars to get around congress, even when he had full control of both houses. He really does think he's a monarch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure this drives Andy McCarthy nuts, but Obama is right -- the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it endeavors to constrain his power and authority as commander in chief of the armed forces. Telling Congress to pound sand is one of the most honest positions the man has taken since 1/20/09. Doesn't matter that he's a hypocrite, what matters is he has Stopped Clock Syndrome and this is one of those times he's actually right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHen Hawks are great people. Hil, Sam and Suz are 3 babes I want in a bar brawl. Laws? What laws?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmmmm. Wouldn't this be an impeachable offense?
While the War Powers Act may well be unconstitutional, it has not been declared so by SCOTUS and therefore remains the law of the land.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBack in 2008, my libtard friends told me that if I voted for John McCain we'd soon be fighting another expensive, unpopular war in a Muslim country flouting the will of the American people and Congress.
And they were right! ;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe War Powers Act may well be unconstitutional, but it's unconstitutional because it delegates too much Congressional power to the executive and not because it infringes too much on executive power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Obama is right -- the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it endeavors to constrain his power and authority as commander in chief of the armed forces."
The power of the commander in chief of the armed forces covers conducting wars started with the permission of Congress. It does not extend to starting wars with other countries at the Presidents whim while telling Congress to "pound sand".
If the President can start a war with any country any time he wishes, then the Congressional power to declare war is reduced to an inkblot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Monk is quite correct. There has been a very long debate over Executive authority in this area, and arguments have been made on both sides. Conservatives in the first half of the last century tended to take a restrictive view, liberals expansive, while since WWII the sides have generally changed.
PatHMV hesitates, but the fact is EVERY President since the War Powers Act was passed has taken the position it is unconstitutional, but no President OR Congress has taken the matter to the Courts - mainly for fear that a loss would handicap their branch in the future, so both prefer to leave the matter unresolved, as is the specific meaning of "declar[ing] war" or limiting the C-in-C's ability to mobilize.
This is probably a good thing, too. We don't necessarily want to force the President to delay reacting to foreign crises by consulting the slow-moving Congress on every decision, but neither do we want to give him a blank check. The ambiguity suits our national interests.
If Congress doesn't like what Obama's done in Libya, they can refuse to give him the extra money he's spent on deployment, or force him to transfer the appropriation from other areas, and specify future appropriated funds may not be used to pay for this adventure.
Arguing the whole thing is a mistake is fine, but arguing Obama lacks constitutional authority to do it is not based in the law as it exists today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@The Monk
"I'm sure this drives Andy McCarthy nuts, but Obama is right -- the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it endeavors to constrain his power and authority as commander in chief of the armed forces."
Is it your position that the Posse Comitatus Act is also unconstitutional? It constrains the CinC. Think of all the lives and property that could have been saved in New Orleans if that pesky Posse Comitatus Act hadn't kept the federal troops out. What about the Uniform Code of Military Justice? By making certain acts illegal, it constrains the CinC's power to order those acts. Even the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions constrain the CinC's power.
All those laws are, of course, Constitutionally valid--either under the Article VI Supremacy Clause, or one of several clauses in Article I. The War Powers Resolution also appears valid on its face, under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nothing in the Constitution places the command, even supreme command, outside the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Command, whether exercised by a company commander or the commander-in-chief, is not absolute power. It is a power that is defined and limited by the law. To declare any law that limits the power of command unconstitutional is to give unlimited power to the President. It is about as un-republican as you can get.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't get it ...
The guy flaunts the law ... and it's NOT news ... anywhere except a small article in here National Review. I'm NO fan of the War Powers act for many good reasons, but this is abuse of power plain and simple. The rule: Democrats may freely and sanctimoniously and without consequence do whatever they accuse Republicans of doing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEstragon, that Obama has clear constitutional authority to initiate a war is incorrect.
Let's be clear what we are talking about here. There is no ambiguity with respect to the nature of the action we are discussing. Launching a blitzkrieg of missiles and bombs at another country’s key military installations, destroying its air force and its air defense systems, bombing key army regiments, destroying or attempting to destroy any and all exposed tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers, among other things, all within the territory of that country, is not a gray area. It cannot be disputed that these are, collectively, an act of war sufficient to invoke a state a war with that country.
The question, properly framed, is does the president have the legal authority, in the absence of obtaining a declaration of war or other authorization from Congress, to order United States military forces to attack another country and thereby initiate a state of war between the United States and such other country in circumstances in which (1) such other country is at peace with the United States and there is no claim by the president that such country represents a threat to the national security of the United States and (2) there is no claim by the president that such attack is required to be made pursuant to the terms of a valid treaty by which the United States is bound.
Let’s set aside the War Powers Act and deal only with the constitutional question.
One simply cannot say that the law as it exists today is that the president does have such authority. That is just not correct. To the contrary, the stronger legal case is that the president does NOT have such authority.
The strongest evidence as to the intent of the Framers is the statements of the Framers themselves. It is clear they did not believe they had given the president the power to initiate unprovoked wars.
Yes, various legal arguments have been put forward as to why the president should be considered to have the power to initiate hostilities, including the case of a state of war against a country that has not engaged in hostilities against us, has not declared war against us and does not represent a threat to us. However, upon examination and taken together these arguments do not have nearly the same persuasive weight as the clear intention of the Framers themselves as evidenced by their contemporaneous statements. I understand there are those who disagree with me, but it cannot be said that the law as it exists today is that the president clearly has this authority.
Look, I would like to see the president have the widest possible latitude as commander-in-chief to unilaterally take any and all military actions that he believes in good faith are necessary to DEFEND the United States and its citizens. But that is NOT the situation at hand. It is not even a gray area.
I can’t imagine anyone who cherishes our constitutional republic and the fundamental principle of limited government who would wish to give the president such unchecked power.
If it proves necessary that we must even go to the lengths of amending the Constitution to place beyond doubt in the minds of all that the president does not have this power, then that needs to be done.
Ex post application of the appropriation power of Congress is NOT an adequate substitute for the requirement for prior approval before initiating wars, given the possibly severe and even existential consequences to the United States that could result from the president’s action in a particular case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Anti-War Left never had any credibility. And neither does Obama, Hillary, Gates, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the House Republicans do not begin offering articles of impeachment against Obama every day until he is impeached, I am done with the GOP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fundamental transformation of our Representative Republic continues apace . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse