The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Where Is The Congressional Approval?

This Blog post, from Legal Insurrection Blogger William A Jacobson, asks about why there was no Congressional approval of this military action in Libya, and the Supplemental Question, how is this President different from that clueless Neocon, George W Bush?

Be advised that some of the Comments are unkind to our Senior Senator, John Forbes Kerry.

The title of the blog post is "How Long Before John Kerry Is Against The Libyan War That He Was For?"

Maybe the whole thing is unkind.  I will call the Senator's Office in the AM (EMail or Snail Mail will take too long).

And, for those who are wondering; yes, I am hung up over the proper authorization of the use of military force.  Don't they teach about the Viet-nam War in school anymore?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff


Jack Mitchell said...

Huh? Are you acting dumb to set up this trite parallel to Iraq, by conjuring Vietnam?

This ain't Nicaragua. Congress will have their say.

Now, I realize I'm blogging at a full bird, so it strikes me there is a trap in here.

Be gentle, please.

Jack Mitchell said...

That's me above.

C R Krieger said...

I thought so.

Some have suggested that a lack of Congressional involvement let the Viet-nam war drift into trouble.

But, Viet-nam and Iraq aside, the Constitution calls for Congress to declare war.

There is this (I got from two sources), which probably doesn't count:

‎"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
-Senator Barack Obama, 20 DEC 2007

Boston Globe

I will go with this statement I lifted from some expert on the Congress:
Whether one considers it a correct or constitutional matter or not, the War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, gives the President the authority for at least 60 days to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.  The President does not have to get an authorization from Congress for such actions prior to initiation of them.  He is expected to "consult" prior to initiation of actions with the Congress, and to indicate in a report to Congress soon after launching action what he has directed be done and why it is deemed necessary.

In this instance, President Obama did consult with the Congressional leadership (mostly by phone, as Congress is in recess for a week), and presumably at some point, he'll send a report stating what and why he has engaged the U.S. military.  There have always been disputes over whether the President, as Commander-in-Chief has to justify force deployment taken in support of what he deems U.S. interests.  In the most recent earlier situations involving significant uses of the U.S. military, in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., and prior to the attacks on Iraq, the President sought and received a statutory authorization from Congress, in accordance with the intent of the War Powers Resolution, to support his actions.  In both cases, President George W. Bush, "welcomed" the Congressional legistation, but never accepted the argument that he was Constitutionally required to obtain it prior to acting.

Time will tell how this specific situation will play out on this Constitutional dispute regarding Presidential use of military force.  However, given the fact that a UN Security Council Resolution gives a green light for member states to take action against Libya, it seems likely that the President will argue that his use of the military was consistent with the U.S. fulfilling its responsibilities under the UN Charter.  That may be a point of contention among those who believe only a direct and specific authorization from Congress within 60 days after our military was deployed would fulfill the President's obligations under the War Powers Resolution.  But, that is likely a debate that is rather moot for at least 60 days.   Of course, if Congress truly disapproves of the actions taken, they have the option of passing legislation, cutting off any funding for military operations involving Libya.

So, the President gets 60 days, but I think the War Powers Act is a fig leaf for Congressional weakness and a lack of corporate willingness to asset their rights.  I am not a fan of the "Imperial Executive".  That is aside from the question of if this is a Euro-Arab operation with US assistance and the question of where this is going.

Regards  —  Cliff

Craig H said...

If only the right could have been equally exercised about this sort of thing before Dubya ran us off the rails, and forcefully raised the issue in order to force Congress to confirm their role as Warmongers in Chief. Now we have the lefties protecting "their" guy, and the same sort of unconstitutional BS that never ends well. (Even if Libya turns into some sort of "success", we'll still be losers in 3 out of 4, counting Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, with "losers" being defined as "bankrupt with nothing to show for it", and, no, Grenada does not count).

Republicrats are a serious scourge.

Jack Mitchell said...

As much as I admire our Founders, I'll venture to say that it was hard for them to imagine that an enemy could obliterate our nation in the time it took them to saddle their horses.

So, we have the War Powers Resolution. Such a modern "check and balance" should be continually reviewed to ensure America is not recklessly engaged in conflict or needlessly constrained from decisive action.

On Libya, it is unlikely that POTUS will let us get dragged in. But then, I didn't expect him to give the uber-rich a deficit growing tax cut.

Jack Mitchell said...

I guess I'm behind this war, now. Kucinich hates it.

According to Kucinich, Obama's decision "would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," though he questioned whether Congress would ever move forward with a trial in practice.

C R Krieger said...


But, Dennis is correct.  Especially if the President misses the 48 hour notification timeline.  But, in things like this all Presidents get shown a lot of latitude, and perhaps rightfully so.

Regards  —  Cliff

Anonymous said...

The hypocrisy of BOTH parties has reached astronomic heights, and have as a result of their preoccupation with finger pointing, lost complete control of what is important in our nation today. Part of that graveyard spiral is attributable to legions of supporters on both sides of the "aisle" who prefer to pontificate about the sins of the "opposition" rather than find workable solutions for the problems at hand.

This situation is no different. Why on earth does the US feel compelled to take sides in a fight between on bad guy trying to replace another bad guy. The slack jawed MSM and talking heads du jour speak sagely about a fight for an embryonic democratic regime. Huh??? Where on earth did anyone find any evidence to support that wild assertion? Certainly is can't be Egypt where the military is still running the show..hardly a benchmark for establishment of a "peace loving democracy." This is, at best, another chapter in tribal conflict and we are on the precipice of becoming bogged down in it.

The question was posed about VietNam and our other imperialistic excursions in the world. Well, the similarities are striking. First and foremost, all of them are "neighborhood wars" and we are from out of town. We arbitrarily pick a side based on some moralistic rubric that often has nothing to do with reality. For instance, the atrocities committed by ARVN against VC/NVA and imagined supporters were at least as barbaric as those committed by the "bad guys." Leap forward to Afghanistan and all the other stans and Irag.....and we find the same thing. Both sides are brutal..and we want to pick the "right" side. There IS no right side.

David Kilcullen is correct when he asserts that WE create much of the problem by wandering into some guys back yard uninvited, taking over, and then claiming he is "the enemy" when he resists. All the guy is any, "Stay the hell out of my garden."

The ONLY reason that the TOTUS is involving us is political...and for no other reason. The reason that the Congress is not openly incensed and resisting HIS political reason is that they have their own political agendas...both parties.....and a decided, demonstrated lack of backbone to do what they were elected to do.

The whole fetid mess inside the beltway is reprehensible. The swamp needs desperately to be drained.

And now we've lost a valuable Strike Eagle and almost an aircrew. Why? So one gang of camel jockeys can overpower another gang of goat herders?