A Deo rex, a rege lex. by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Thursday, June 16, 2011
President Barack Obama's White House issued a statement and 32-page report today asserting the bombing of Libya does not require congressional approval and that the executive branch is in full compliance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Obama's defiant measures follow a successful amendment to House bill HR 2055 by Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) to ban the use of military expenditures to support the bombing of Libya. Sherman's amendment was soundly supported by both parties, Republicans by a score of 138-93, and Democrats by 110-70. However, House leadership for both parties voted against the Sherman amendment.
The War Powers Resolution was intended to authorize Presidents to commit acts of war to defend the country if there is no time for a formal vote and declaration by Congress. Title 50, chapter 33, section 1541(c) of the US Code clearly states the President can commit acts of war only if one of three conditions exist - a constitutional declaration of war, a "specific statutory authorization," or "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Smelling like Donald Rumsfeld or John Yoo under the Bush II regime, the Obama administration contest the bombing of Libya is not only somehow constitutional but not really subject to the War Powers Resolution on page 25/32:
"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 Resolutions 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."
While the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the Constitution specifies Congress must not only declare war, but approve all military expenditures under Article II, Section 8. Throughout the 32-page document, Obama has zero (0) references to the U.S. Constitution, one (1) lame reference to the War Powers Resolution (above), and fourteen (14) references to United Nations resolutions. As the UN resolutions were not reaffirmed by the Congress, one may ask who exactly is in charge of the President? A Deo rex, a rege lex.
The White House report further stated that the Libyan war is expected to cost taxpayers $1.1 billion through September 30 of this year. From March until June 3rd, the war has cost the military $716 million, of which $398 million was spent on munitions. An additional $81 million has been spent on humanitarian aid as of June 3rd. Nowhere in Obama's report or statement is any reference to the latest covert American bombing campaign in Yemen as covered by the New York Times.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: June 16, 2011 12:23:26 PM
Jake, The Champion of His Navel Lint.
How many times do you need to be told that a declaration of war is irrelevant? People have made this same argument for over 200 years and the Supreme Court has never, ever, ever, ever, ever bought it. Not once.
You may think it's a good argument; hell, I may think it's a good argument. But the courts don't. And at this point the only thing that'll make the courts accept it as a superior argument is to change the Constitution.
Until that happens, you're beating your head against a wall. And while it's uproariously amusing to me on a personal level, on a political one it's quite annoying. We shouldn't have to continually go back and reinvent the War Powers Wheel every time we flex our national muscles; it's a waste of time.
