IMO, he's in clear violation of the law

[werepossum]

I disagree with this one. In todays day and age we can very quickly call Congress into session for an emergency declaration or at least a limited authorization to use troops. I bet it took quite a few days just to get our ships and aircraft into position and ready for combat operations which is plenty of time to ask for Congressional approval.

That is the entire point of limiting power and checks and balances and I applaud you for seeing that even though your team is in office. It isn't relevant if you think this action was just or if you agree with the reasons for going to war. Eventually someone who you disagree with will have the exact same power and Obama is setting precedent for that person to enter us into an "unjust" engagement.

Consider the Georgia/Russia situation a few years back, do we really want the President to have the power to start bombing Russia without any Congressional approval at all, basically just because he says so? Hell no we don't. Hell the exact same argument for Libya can be used to start bombing China tomorrow.

That's a fair point, but remember that the War Powers Act dates from the sixties or seventies, in which we had practically the same capacity to quickly assemble Congress. I suspect that as much as anything, the delay was built in to allow Congress to study the issue and see how it is playing out before they have to choose a side.

 

[BoberFett]

That's a fair point, but remember that the War Powers Act dates from the sixties or seventies, in which we had practically the same capacity to quickly assemble Congress. I suspect that as much as anything, the delay was built in to allow Congress to watch cable news polls and see how it will affect their bid for re-election before they have to choose a side.

Fixed

 

[werepossum]

Fixed

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Most Congresscritters are good, earnest men and women who'll do what they perceive is best for the country, and their foremost perception of what's best for the country is their own re-election and preferably ascension in greater power.

 

[Zargon]

Perhaps it wasn't the original intent but imo it sure as hell should be now. Without that intent the president has the sole power to get another country to declare war on us, by dropping an assload of bombs on them, which completely removes Congress from the picture.

exactly.

how many cruise missles did we fire? 200+? we got planes in libyan airspace(one got shot down).....and none of it was considered 'an act of war' that requires congressional approval?

I am not familiar with the Vietnam reference(I know about Nam, but not the politics)

 

[CallMeJoe]

I for one would prefer that the president overtly challenge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act reather than employ this extremely strained logic and definition of "hostilities" to circumvent the Act. Allow the Supreme Court decide the limits on the Commander in Chief in re Congressional responsibility for declaration of war.

It's a damned good thing he continuously tells us how smart he is, else we'd surely think he's a perfect idiot.

I must disagree. I doubt any member of the Forum considers our pony fetishist "perfect" :biggrin:

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes woolfe we aren't committing acts of war..... you aren't serious right?

I offered no opinion on the subject. Not yet anyway. And yes, I'm quite serious about providing facts and source material to make this a informed discussion, which is a rarity on this discussion board.

 

[Craig234]

I offered no opinion on the subject. Not yet anyway. And yes, I'm quite serious about providing facts and source material to make this a informed discussion, which is a rarity on this discussion board.

Given that was the spirit you made those links, thank you for providing those references. Now, can you make people click them?

 

[Fern]

IMHO, the war powers act did not give him the authority to start waging war against Libya so the 60 day thing is moot.

This^

And contrary to some remarks here, the President had more than adequate time to consult Congress. Those of us without a hyper-short remember Obama dragging his feet and HRC getting frustrated with it.

At this stage I see only two real options for Obama:

1. Get into compliance with the law. This is a normal course of action, if you start out in violation you correct it and get into compliance. This seems to me easily done; I do not forsee Congress denying him his Libyian adventure. Heck, many big name Repubs want him to do more.

And Congress, for numerous reasons, must fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities and force Obama to comply.

2. Keep up with the bluff. The WH memo on why the WPA is not applicable is weak sauce. Remarks about how this is authorized by the UN council action are drivel. It's as though this admin is arguing the UN is a higher power than the US Constitution. Remarks about "well, I spoke with this or that Congressman" are also drivel, it looks like some weasel way of saying "I kinda almost, but not really complied". I'm also unimpressed that they make an effort to create some new artificial distiction about what "hostilities" means. The "nobody is gonna die" and "we don't have boots on the ground" (which I dob't believe for a NY minute) is entirely unpersausive. We're not lobbing a cruise missle into an aspirin factor thinking it's terrorists; we're attacking official forces of another country. Moreover, Obama has stated a goal of overthrowing Qaddafy and has refused talks aimed at a cease fire.

I must wonder if the Obama admin is hoping a bunch of weak arguments collectively add up to something of weight, or they're just throwing a bunch of stuff up against the wall hoping something sticks.

Under the Constitution the Congress is the only authority for declaring war or authorizing hostilities. The SCOTUS has noted very limited exceptions: the USA is under attack or in immiment danger. There is no credible argument, nor is anyone even bothering to try to make one, that Libya meets one of these exceptions.

So, essentially we're left with with a President who has decided he doesn't need Congress and can start a war if it isn't 'too big'. And 'too big' gets to be decided by him.

(How about one of us decide we can rob a bank, cuz as long as we don't take too much money it really isn't bank robbery?)

IMO, this would be a terrible precedent to allow unchallanged. President Obama has committed unauthorized acts of war against another country. When we commit acts of war against another country, they are justified in attacking us back. If permitted, this allows the President in his judgement to commit us to war - that's exactly what the Constitution and the Founding Fathers forbid; one man - the President - should NOT be the one to commit us to war.

Congress really must take this to court.

BTW: The 'War Powers Act' isn't called the 'Vietnam War Powers Act' for a reason. Congress failed to do it's duty, fearing political repercussions, and carved out a handy set of instructions for when we're not involved in full blown war such as WWI/II. To watch a President come along and later push the limits of those instructions (the WPA), if not flaunt them, brings to mind a couple of phrases: "slippery slope" and "give an inch and take a mile".

Any talk about the intentions behind WPA is moot because the Constitutional limits apply. If the WPA doesn't apply, you're then left soley with the Constitution and it's limits must be adhered to.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

I offered no opinion on the subject. Not yet anyway. And yes, I'm quite serious about providing facts and source material to make this a informed discussion, which is a rarity on this discussion board.

I don't disagree with you that source material is good, but by your post it seemed like you were championing the White Houses position. I guess I assumed you assumed I haven't read those things already. Sorry about that, you know what they say about assuming.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't disagree with you that source material is good, but by your post it seemed like you were championing the White Houses position. I guess I assumed you assumed I haven't read those things already. Sorry about that, you know what they say about assuming.

No problem. I saw this thread before going to bed last night and I noticed legal opinions were being proferred but it wasn't clear if anyone had read the relevant text. So I linked them for edification, but I had not read them myself as it was time to hit the sack. I do now have an opinion of my own, which is pretty grey, that I'll offer in response to one of Craig's posts.

 

[werepossum]

I for one would prefer that the president overtly challenge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act reather than employ this extremely strained logic and definition of "hostilities" to circumvent the Act. Allow the Supreme Court decide the limits on the Commander in Chief in re Congressional responsibility for declaration of war.


I must disagree. I doubt any member of the Forum considers our pony fetishist "perfect" :biggrin:

Agreed, on both counts.

For that matter, it wouldn't hurt to have a national debate on how much latitude the President should have in initiating hostilities. Perhaps it's time to significantly revise the War Powers Act.

 

[woolfe9999]

If your point was, here are two documents it's good to have for this, fine.

If your point was, 'these two documents contradicts your post, and imply you haven't read them', then say specifically how you think they change my post. I think they support it.

I'm reasonably familiar with the War Power Act, but had only seen excerpts of the White House document.

The document appears to support my position, both of why it's a good idea to intervene, and the argument the on the WPA that I'm saying doesn't appear valid:



I'm sympathetic to the White House position, to an extent, but that doesn't make it correct. It's hardly the first time Presidents have pushed their authority to get things done around Congress, and a lot less egregiously and illegally and for a lot better cause. This isn't Ford signing a secret agreement, and lying about it, allowing Indonesia to use US Weapons Congress restricted to defensive use to invade East Timoor and kill 250,000 people to gain favor with Indonesia with Kissinger's 'realpolitik' crap.

If the War Powers Act defined hostilities in ways the White House tries to argue, great, they'd be correct. I don't see that in the Act.

The White House seems correct in saying this isn't 'the type of conflict they were thinking of when they created the act' - it was passed in the context of Vietnam. And Libya is no Vietnam. But that doesn't change what the act says. If the President sent one lone soldier into a country to fight, that also wouldn't be the thing they had in mind, but it would also be subject to the act anyway.

As I have now mentioned, I did not have any opinion on the legal issue you raised when I provided the links. I now have an opinion of sorts.

Let me start off by saying that it is important to distinguish a personal opinion, ideology, or feeling about something from a question of what is or isn't legal. You expressed a legal opinion in the thread, so an examination of the law is in order.

However, I will say this to clarify: it is my personal opinion that any time military force is used - and by that I mean we're firing our weapons, not refuelling our allies or providing support - Congressional approval should be sought after a certain short period of time. This IMO is an important check and balance which *ought* to be part of our system of government.

Now, the War Powers Act. It was enacted in the Vietnam era to rectify a then extant problem: the US Constitution requires a vote of Congress for a declaration of war, but does not say that a formal declaration of war is necessary for use of military force, and in any event, doesn't define the term "war." That left open the opportunity for various administrations to pursue military adventures that looked an awful lot like war but were labeled as "police actions" or some such thing, without getting approval.

So in comes the War Powers Act, intending to rectify the problem. Instead of "war," the act repeatedly (23 times to be precise) uses the word "hostilities." Actually, the precise phrase is "into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (There is a second requirement under section(4)(a)(2) which is clearly met here and not controversial.)

The trouble, of course, is that the act does not define "hostilities." We can certainly ascertain that it is intended to be broader than "war." Beyond that, the scope of this term is ambiguous. To illustrate the point, consider a standard dictionary definition of the term hostile (the definition of hostilities is referrential to hostile):

1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an enemy: a hostile nation.
2. opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism.
3. characterized by antagonism.

According to this definition, harsh language and bad feelings would seem to apply. Are the "hostilities" referred to in this statute an attitude, state of mind, or behavior? Is it bilateral or unilateral? Is there any degree of physical "force" - however slight - which doesn't qualify? Tear gas? Rubber bullets? We can be reasonably certain that "hostilities" is broader than "war" but probably narrower than a garden variety state of animus. However, does it encompass any degree of physical force no matter how slight? That is debatable. "Hositilities" in common parlance can mean a lot of different things.

The basic rule of statutory interpretation under our legal system is that you look first to the plain language of a statute to ascertain its meaning. If a word is more or less self-defining within the four corners of the statute, then you need go no further than the language of the statute. If a word is ambiguous, meaning subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, then you have to go outside the statute to clarify its meaning. That typically means legislative history. It is often legislative comments that are published in archives and available for review.

I am bit confused in that - unless my skimming of the memo missed something - the administration's legal argument is more or less contained in that one paragraph you quote. The remainder of the memo is a factual summary of what is going on with our Libya policy right now. While those facts are relevant, the legal argument ought to be citing legislative history or at least something more. Ultimately I do not know how this plays out on strict legality. While in the absence of more information I am wishy washy on the legalities, I will close with 2 firm opinions:

1. I am very disappointed in the Obama administration for using the ambiguity of this statute to press the broadest possible interpretation of executive power. I feel that ideologically this administration should err on the opposite side, regardless of whether they may technically have cover here.

2. The War Powers Act fails to provide the clarity necessary to achieve its objective of limiting executive power in the context of the use of military force. It invites this sort of exploitation. It needs to be amended, either to provide a definition of "hostilities" or else use a word or phrase that is self-defining.

- wolf

 

[DominionSeraph]

Dominion, clearly, the use of US forces for hostilities means against people, not grass or fish. You are arguing the moral issue, not the legal one.

Meaning comes from people, so the interpretation of the laws (and the foundation of such) can be affected by the perspective. "War" is a compound concept, giving multiple avenues by which a shift in direction can change the relative drift of the concepts being measured.

Gadaffi is no longer governing by the consent of the people. He is instead using the concentrated extract of their power (military arms) to coerce the people into continuing to give him material aid. So he is enslaving the Libyan people.
For us to disagree with this enslavement and to act accordingly does not put us at war with Libya. We are not fighting the self-actualizing power of the People, we are simply throwing a monkey wrench into the works of an individual. His force is now predicated on him having force. Take that away and he cannot rebuild.

"War is an act of force to compel an enemy to do our will."
We need no such compulsion, for Gadaffi is not a self-actualizing force on a level that we care about. Take away his military arms and the Libyan people will deal with him -- we do not need to compel him to do anything.
To say we, the United States of America, are at war with a single individual is kinda silly. He is no threat to us.

So this is just a game. Congress is not enumerated the power over games, other than through sub-mechanisms like funding. So Congress does not have the Constitutional backing to put any force into any law that disallows the Executive from engaging in such games. The Supreme Court would instead have to undermine it directly by declaring that the Executive was never granted the power to engage in such at all. I don't think they're about to do that.

 

[bfdd]

Consent of what portion of the population? How many AQ infiltrators and antagonists into the rebels have we had to weed out? They won't release those numbers because early estimates were 1/3rd or more were AQ. This is an act of war. Blowing people up is an act of war and has been for quite some fucking time. Oh well talking to DominionSeraph is useless, they are far smarter than us.

 

[DominionSeraph]

By that logic, we should be shooting up 60% of the globe simply because it's not illegal to do so.

So lack of proscription is now prescription? Just when, pray tell, did that change?

Here, let me fix that for you to reflect your actual process:

By that, through my logic, we should be shooting up 60% of the globe simply because it's not illegal to do so.

Get better logic.

 

[Craig234]

Meaning comes from people, so the interpretation of the laws (and the foundation of such) can be affected by the perspective. "War" is a compound concept, giving multiple avenues by which a shift in direction can change the relative drift of the concepts being measured.

Gadaffi is no longer governing by the consent of the people. He is instead using the concentrated extract of their power (military arms) to coerce the people into continuing to give him material aid. So he is enslaving the Libyan people.
For us to disagree with this enslavement and to act accordingly does not put us at war with Libya. We are not fighting the self-actualizing power of the People, we are simply throwing a monkey wrench into the works of an individual. His force is now predicated on him having force. Take that away and he cannot rebuild.

"War is an act of force to compel an enemy to do our will."
We need no such compulsion, for Gadaffi is not a self-actualizing force on a level that we care about. Take away his military arms and the Libyan people will deal with him -- we do not need to compel him to do anything.
To say we, the United States of America, are at war with a single individual is kinda silly. He is no threat to us.

So this is just a game. Congress is not enumerated the power over games, other than through sub-mechanisms like funding. So Congress does not have the Constitutional backing to put any force into any law that disallows the Executive from engaging in such games. The Supreme Court would instead have to undermine it directly by declaring that the Executive was never granted the power to engage in such at all. I don't think they're about to do that.

The constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress.

That comes from a time where there was no standing military to speak of, when the President wasn't dealing with short-notice military action.

Back then, the situation was pretty much if the federal government was going to be in combat with another nation, it would be a 'war', and raise an army to fight it.

So now, we get into definitions based on new circumstances. Instead of war - we can talk 'acts of war', given the US has killed millions of people since WWII without a single declared war - including Vietnam, which was the action that led to the Congress passing the War Powers Act.

Now, you seem to be talking about "war", but that's not what the War Powers Act says.

"...this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. "

So, this isn't about whether Qaddafi is a legitimate leader or saying we're 'at war'; it's about whether the President ordered U. S. armed forces into action abroad.

I'd say ordering the US Air Force to drop bombs on a foreign military qualifies.

About the definition of 'war' in terms of the constitutional empowerment, we have Congress' answer - it says when the President can use force.

It seems to me that Obama's argument that his actions in Libya do not "send U.S. armed forces into action abroad" in the way the War Powers Act says, is incorrect.

Now, you can play legal games - the Act talks about forces "remaining" 60 days. That sounds like ground troops, which are not involved.

Why can't the President just say every day the planes leave Libya after a bombing run, is a new event and the clock restarts - no forces "remained".

He might even have a better argument on that, than on the first clause about initial use of force.

"this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Send U. S. armed forces into action abroad? I think Libya bombing qualifies.

Do any of the allowing conditions apply? I don't see one.

"National emergency" created by "attack on the United States" - no - "its territories or possessions" - no - "or its armed forces" - no.

We agree on the compelling case for intervention in Libya - the law however is an issue.

 

[Doppel]

Craig, do you always make a new thread just to shout above others in a thread that already existed and 100% was on topic with this one?

AKA repost, surprised the mods allowed it to be honest.

It's good to see you are willing to chastise Obama, though, on what is his version of Bush's "It's not torture".

 

[Craig234]

As I have now mentioned, I did not have any opinion on the legal issue you raised when I provided the links. I now have an opinion of sorts.

Let me start off by saying that it is important to distinguish a personal opinion, ideology, or feeling about something from a question of what is or isn't legal. You expressed a legal opinion in the thread, so an examination of the law is in order.

However, I will say this to clarify: it is my personal opinion that any time military force is used - and by that I mean we're firing our weapons, not refuelling our allies or providing support - Congressional approval should be sought after a certain short period of time. This IMO is an important check and balance which *ought* to be part of our system of government.

Now, the War Powers Act. It was enacted in the Vietnam era to rectify a then extant problem: the US Constitution requires a vote of Congress for a declaration of war, but does not say that a formal declaration of war is necessary for use of military force, and in any event, doesn't define the term "war." That left open the opportunity for various administrations to pursue military adventures that looked an awful lot like war but were labeled as "police actions" or some such thing, without getting approval.

So in comes the War Powers Act, intending to rectify the problem. Instead of "war," the act repeatedly (23 times to be precise) uses the word "hostilities." Actually, the precise phrase is "into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (There is a second requirement under section(4)(a)(2) which is clearly met here and not controversial.)

The trouble, of course, is that the act does not define "hostilities." We can certainly ascertain that it is intended to be broader than "war." Beyond that, the scope of this term is ambiguous. To illustrate the point, consider a standard dictionary definition of the term hostile (the definition of hostilities is referrential to hostile):



According to this definition, harsh language and bad feelings would seem to apply. Are the "hostilities" referred to in this statute an attitude, state of mind, or behavior? Is it bilateral or unilateral? Is there any degree of physical "force" - however slight - which doesn't qualify? Tear gas? Rubber bullets? We can be reasonably certain that "hostilities" is broader than "war" but probably narrower than a garden variety state of animus. However, does it encompass any degree of physical force no matter how slight? That is debatable. "Hositilities" in common parlance can mean a lot of different things.

The basic rule of statutory interpretation under our legal system is that you look first to the plain language of a statute to ascertain its meaning. If a word is more or less self-defining within the four corners of the statute, then you need go no further than the language of the statute. If a word is ambiguous, meaning subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, then you have to go outside the statute to clarify its meaning. That typically means legislative history. It is often legislative comments that are published in archives and available for review.

I am bit confused in that - unless my skimming of the memo missed something - the administration's legal argument is more or less contained in that one paragraph you quote. The remainder of the memo is a factual summary of what is going on with our Libya policy right now. While those facts are relevant, the legal argument ought to be citing legislative history or at least something more. Ultimately I do not know how this plays out on strict legality. While in the absence of more information I am wishy washy on the legalities, I will close with 2 firm opinions:

1. I am very disappointed in the Obama administration for using the ambiguity of this statute to press the broadest possible interpretation of executive power. I feel that ideologically this administration should err on the opposite side, regardless of whether they may technically have cover here.

2. The War Powers Act fails to provide the clarity necessary to achieve its objective of limiting executive power in the context of the use of military force. It invites this sort of exploitation. It needs to be amended, either to provide a definition of "hostilities" or else use a word or phrase that is self-defining.

- wolf

I mostly agree with that, except with your second point. I think the word 'hostilities' is plenty clear for any practical use of the Act, including the situation in Libya.

I agree that you could find cases where its lines could cause a problem - can your forces defending a castle shout very rude insults to the enemy forces - but they're moot.

However, rather than reply more to the points I largely agree with, I've decided to provide a bit of tongue in cheek spin:

The Obama administration understands, in its desire to prevent a re-occurrence of the Bush administrations abuse of the law for war, that if it merely refrains from such abuse, it does nothing to prevent the next administration from picking up where Bush left off. So, it's taken this approach:

It's decided use Libya as an example where it cites the limit-pushing doctrines of the warmongers - so that they are clearly exposed as flimsy and can be struck down, not only struck down but in a Machiavellian twist using the Republican House's partisan opposition to Obama to do so, such that they will be destroyed and unavailable to future presidents.

Man, he's good.

 

[bfdd]

Craig, do you always make a new thread just to shout above others in a thread that already existed and 100% was on topic with this one?

AKA repost, surprised the mods allowed it to be honest.

It's good to see you are willing to chastise Obama, though, on what is his version of Bush's "It's not torture".

Hey at least he's not being a hypocritical piece of shit with this one. He's ceding the fact his boy is wrong. IMO that's a pretty big deal for Craig and I applaud him for it. Though he does chime in that he thinks some how Libya was justified, but Iraq wasn't like there's a difference.

 

[Doppel]

Hey at least he's not being a hypocritical piece of shit with this one. He's ceding the fact his boy is wrong. IMO that's a pretty big deal for Craig and I applaud him for it. Though he does chime in that he thinks some how Libya was justified, but Iraq wasn't like there's a difference.

On that him and I agree to a point. I thought Iraq was justified but obviously it wasn't. However, I was lied to, like the rest of the country. I also think that the US should have gone into Libya, but they should have been there 1-2 weeks earlier (when momentum was heavily against Gadhafi) and had a clear and specific mission and exercised the fvck out of it from day one with the clear goal to see Gadafi either marched out or dragged out in a body bag--a goal that they still should have.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, do you always make a new thread just to shout above others in a thread that already existed and 100% was on topic with this one?

No, as excellent a suggestion as that is.

AKA repost, surprised the mods allowed it to be honest.

The good mods only read the threads I start, so they wouldn't even have noticed if it were.

This thread is about the argument used by the White House today to defend its Libya actions in regard to the War Powers Act.

I know there's a thread about the general issue; this is to specifically discuss this one argument.

This thread is about a specific topic, and a new event, that happened to occur about Libya, but is about ever future war we have, and the War Powers Act.

It's a different discussion than the Libya situation, it's about the White House's new defense or doctrine regarding the War Powers Act.

It's good to see you are willing to chastise Obama, though, on what is his version of Bush's "It's not torture".

There are similarities, other than Bush speciously defending turning the US into a torturing nation, and Obama speciously defending the saving of thousands of civilians.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Consent of what portion of the population?

The majority. Not that determining that is necessarily easy.

How many AQ infiltrators and antagonists into the rebels have we had to weed out?

When did I mention cost/benefit?
This is about whether an act is war; not whether, considering the particulars of an act, we feel said act is worth engaging in.

I don't feel like rearranging my furniture. That doesn't enter into a discussion on whether "rearranging the furniture" is, itself, war.

This is an act of war. Blowing people up is an act of war and has been for quite some fucking time.

So, when we execute a murderer or child rapist, that is an act of war against the United States?

 

[bfdd]

Determining if the majority is behind the rebels doesn't matter? Pretty sure it does as does the fact we have been weeding out AQ infiltrators who probably weren't Libyan. Your comparison at the end is asinine as well, but so are so many of your posts. Bombing another country or another people is an act of war. It has ever since we've been able to blow shit up.

 

[DominionSeraph]

So now, we get into definitions based on new circumstances. Instead of war - we can talk 'acts of war', given the US has killed millions of people since WWII without a single declared war - including Vietnam, which was the action that led to the Congress passing the War Powers Act.

Now, you seem to be talking about "war", but that's not what the War Powers Act says.

"...this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. "

So, this isn't about whether Qaddafi is a legitimate leader or saying we're 'at war'; it's about whether the President ordered U. S. armed forces into action abroad.

The Supreme Court never stepped in and disallowed the Executive to engage in "adventures". This implies that it has the Constitutional authority to do so. This means that the office does not need Congress' permission. If it does not need their permission, Congress cannot revoke permission.

If the Executive has Constitutional authority to do something, it cannot be illegal to do it.

A law isn't necessarily in full force just because it's passed. If it were, Congress could grab all power for itself simply by declaring all checks on its laws illegal. Any check on that law would be in violation of that law.
The other two branches simply aren't going to obey that one.

 

[Fern]

The Supreme Court never stepped in and disallowed the Executive to engage in "adventures". This implies that it has the Constitutional authority to do so. This means that the office does not need Congress' permission. If it does not need their permission, Congress cannot revoke permission.

If the Executive has Constitutional authority to do something, it cannot be illegal to do it.
-snip-

The reasoning you employ here (and elsewhere for that matter) is faulty.

Because "the SCOTUS never stepped in and disallowed the Executive to engage in "adventures" does not imply "that it has the Constitutional authority to do so". I'm not even sure the underlying assertion is correct.

The SCOTUS has ruled on Presidential power to engage in acts of war/hostilities. The WPA act strikes me a fairly good summary of what the SCOTUS has said is constitutional. IIRC, the SCOTUS has said the President needs Congressional approval unless we are under attack or facing imminent attack.

Check out the Constitution sometime. You've just 'reasoned' yourself into the exact opposite position of it. It states quite clearly the power to declare war etc rests soley with Congress.

The reason the President can act unilaterally is because he is charged with protecting/defending the USA. In times of urgency he may act unilaterally to uphold his responsibility. Some of these cases are quite old, people were still traveling by horse and buggy etc. and it was no quick trip back to Washington DC.

Fern