Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, others sue President.

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
Lawmakers File Suit Against Obama Administration Over Libya Operation
Published June 15, 2011

A group of lawmakers filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration, questioning the constitutional and legal justifications for military action in Libya.
The bipartisan group is being led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C., and includes GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News, the group is seeking "injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from a stated policy of defendant Barack Obama, president of the United States, whereby a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without the declaration of war from Congress required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution."
The suit says the lawmakers are also seeking a judge to rule that the president may not commit the U.S. to war under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or under the authority of the United Nations, or in violation of the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force.
It also calls for a ruling that the president may not use "funds, previously appropriated by Congress, for unconstitutional and unauthorized wars in Libya or other countries."
Kucinich said the intent of the lawsuit was to "correct an imbalance."
"This is an opportunity to rectify a direction that America has been going without the support of the Constitution," said Jones, who appeared with a group of lawmakers at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
The White House has argued for months that NATO is not leading the way in Libya and so the president doesn't need permission from Congress to keep American forces fighting in the battle to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime.
White House spokesman Jay Carney has also argued at multiple press briefings that the administration is working within the parameters of the law.
The suit, however, offers examples that the plaintiffs say demonstrate all the hallmarks of American engagement in war, including the use of U.S. military forces, equipment and money in a bombing campaign against a sovereign nation and with the aim of taking out its leader.
It notes that Libya is not a part of NATO, whose treaty permits military action only in the course of self-defense in the event that a NATO member in Europe or North America is attacked.
The suit comes ahead of a deadline by the House of Representatives, which asked the Obama administration to detail its justification for military action in Libya and explain the endgame there. The complainants want to file the suit ahead of the Friday House deadline.
On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner blasted President Obama for not giving Congress any sense of whether the Executive branch will comply with federal law requiring congressional approval for war operations.
In a letter to the president, the Ohio Republican said Sunday marks 90 days since the March 19 start of military operations in Libya.
Boehner asked the president to explain to Congress how the operation is outside the scope of the War Powers Act, which requires congressional approval for military action, and if he can't, Boehner warned the White House to get on the right side of the law.
"On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the administration has not asked for, nor received, congressional authorization of the mission in Libya," Boehner's letter reads. "Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission."
Several White House aides told Fox News on Wednesday a "package of materials" will be delivered to lawmakers on Capitol Hill "this afternoon" though the precise timing was not clear.
On Tuesday night, NATO planes bombed Tripoli, Libya's capital and Qaddafi's stronghold. NATO has been conducting the aerial campaign in an attempt to help a loosely assembled group of rebels operating under the banner of a "National Transitional Council" to take over the country. The rebels have started to advance on several towns outside of Tripoli, though they are not yet close to seizing the capital.
for length.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...istration-over-libya-operation/#ixzz1PMdDndOu
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...e-president-obama-over-illegal-libya-war.html
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#8
so, what about bush and that iraq thing? :trollol:
I see the troll icon there, but Bush did receive a vote from Congress authorizing the Iraq war (this is coming from an Iraq war vet who is against the war). The War Powers Resolution dictates that the President can go to war for up to 90 days (60 if it is not an "emergency" situation), but after that 90 days, if Congress has not voted to authorize it, he must pull out. Sunday is the 90 day mark and still no vote or a plan to pull out. Also, no one knows how the President is paying for this war, since Congress has not authorized any funds for it.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#9
War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.

On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.

“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”

It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House’s response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Weednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.

The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a “war” in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.

Link/More
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#10
Obama is above the law, nothing will happen and idiots will still vote for him and they will vote for him because they believe hes anti war and is fighting the man.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,635
27,395
898
Seattle
#11
Ah, the "nuh uh" defense.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#13
so, what about bush and that iraq thing? :trollol:

I seem to remember the Congress including Hilary Clinton voting to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan & Iraq.

I think the War Powers Act its self is unconstitutional, that said only the Congress can declare war and everything since WWII has not been a declared war. Its time for the Congress to start doing their job, if they don't want the responsibility for casting votes then they shouldn't be in office.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#14
Yeah, I see how this could be confusing:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1542

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1543

§ 1543. Reporting requirement

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1544

§ 1544. Congressional action

(a) Transmittal of report and referral to Congressional committees; joint request for convening Congress
Each report submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


This is one of those rare cases where a law is really easy to understand. They spell out everything in fucking kindergarten language and lawyers still try to find a way around it. FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#15
Yeah, I see how this could be confusing:

This is one of those rare cases where a law is really easy to understand. They spell out everything in fucking kindergarten language and lawyers still try to find a way around it. FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
But what about the U.N. Charter's Articles 41 & 42? Everybody knows this is a UN operation and therefore American laws don't apply. :trollol:
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,435
8,604
693
Silverdale, WA
#16
But what about the U.N. Charter's Articles 41 & 42? Everybody knows this is a UN operation and therefore American laws don't apply. :trollol:
Someone finally gets it.

Maybe Congress doesn't agree with our ratification of NATO and UN Treaties. Let's start there. Or even better, let's see Congress man up and cut off all funding to soldiers. Put their money where their mouth is.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#17
Someone finally gets it.

Maybe Congress doesn't agree with our ratification of NATO and UN Treaties. Let's start there. Or even better, let's see Congress man up and cut off all funding to soldiers. Put their money where their mouth is.
Well that would be nice, too. Although I don't think they should cut off funding to "soldiers"; they should cut off funding for the war, keep paying the soldiers.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,435
8,604
693
Silverdale, WA
#18
Well that would be nice, too. Although I don't think they should cut off funding to "soldiers"; they should cut off funding for the war, keep paying the soldiers.
Never gonna happen, you know we live in the era of "cut off your nose to spite your face" politics.

How would you separate the two anyway? Isn't soldier's pay drawn from the general fund provided to the armed forces for all expenses? How would they earmark money for salaries as planes come crashing down for lack of jet fuel?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#19
Never gonna happen, you know we live in the era of "cut off your nose to spite your face" politics.

How would you separate the two anyway? Isn't soldier's pay drawn from the general fund provided to the armed forces for all expenses? How would they earmark money for salaries as planes come crashing down for lack of jet fuel?
I believe that each branch of the military has a budget that is outlayed by Congress. I don't think they just give a billion dollars to the Airforce and say "Don't spend it all in one place". I would imagine that the troops pay comes out of one fund, and then specific projects and money for wars etc come from a separate fund. Or they could just write a law saying that the troops still get paid but no new money goes to anything else; they are Congress after all, writing laws is what they do.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#20
This is a valiant effort, but in the end it will prove to be a waste of time.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#21
What some (like Mayr) doesn't seem to understand is that in the United States of America, international law does not take precedence over American law.

On our soil, our law rules. Period.

Alright, here's the situation in a nutshell: NO President, of either party, has ever recognized the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Not even Presidents that are former Congressmen/Senators who believed in the War Powers Resolution when they were in Congress.

So, on principle, President Obama isn't doing anything different from his predecessors.

But here's the thing: EVERY President (other than President Obama) has gone to Congress for an authorization for his military actions over 90 days. By going to Congress for authorization every time, all previous presidents since 1973 have been avoiding this test. Every previous president has recognized that, even if the War Powers Resolution isn't Constitutional (which is up for debate), if it loses a SCOTUS test it will severely damage the office of the President of the United States of America. Every previous president has been prudent enough to seek that authorization and to do what was necessary to get that authorization. It's both politically smart (it spreads the blame if things go wrong, it protects the office of the President, etc., etc.) and it's a practical necessity since the money has to come from somewhere.

And President Obama is risking this test, a test that every President from Nixon to Bush v2 has assiduously avoided... for Libya? LIBYA? This "I don't have a fucking clue" abortion of a fucking campaign? This Keystone Kops I Started Trying To Topple A Dictator Half A Month Too Late To Do It Right waste of billions of dollars?

For LIBYA?????

Holy fucking shit. He either didn't see this coming, which is utter failure that he hasn't gotten his grown up boy britches in his two years in office (so far...) AND that President Obama didn't think this entire Libya thing through to the point where he needed Congressional approval, or he WANTED this to be the seminal test of the War Powers Resolution which shows that he's a fucking moron who's starting shit when shit doesn't need to be started. Because it's not like we don't have enough on our fucking plate these days that we can have a full blown Constitutional crisis just for the fucking hell of it.

Look: IMO, yes, the War Powers Resolution is unConstitutional. It also doesn't matter, because unless the President has a shitload of money sitting around he can't prosecute a war for very long without Congress' approval. You need money to make this shit happen.

The truth is, this is just President Obama not thinking through the Libya campaign and fucking it up from beginning to end. He started the war to late, he didn't think it through to the end, it wasn't planned from the beginning, there's no clear leadership of the entire campaign, and he's delegated all regional authority to the Brits and French while using all of our equipment and munitions.

This is fucking retarded. And I stand by my assertion that Gadaffi will still be in power a year after that date on that other thread. Because it's looking like the US will be pulling out of this effort soon, and the Brits and French can't do shit by themselves.

MASSIVE failure on President Obama's part, here.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,435
8,604
693
Silverdale, WA
#22
Kucinich, Boehner and Paul have some support in their efforts

Gaddafi writes U.S. Congress a thank you note for chastising Obama on Libya

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Libya's embattled leader Moamer Kadhafi appears to have written to the US Congress to praise its criticism of President Barack Obama over NATO raids on Libya, officials said Friday.

In the letter seen by AFP, Kadhafi comments on growing debate in Congress over whether Obama has usurped his constitutional authority by committing US forces to the conflict without authorization by lawmakers.

The letter, which is not addressed to any specific leader in Congress, says Kadhafi has watched "with great interest" the deliberations on Capitol Hill over US participation in the NATO assault on his forces.

"We are confident that history will see the wisdom of your country in debating these issues," said the letter, signed by Kadhafi as "Commander of the Great Revolution."

A spokesman for House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner confirmed that Kadhafi's letter had been received but said it was not possible to verify that it was genuine.

"If authentic, this incoherent letter only reinforces that Kadhafi must go," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steele.

"There's no disagreement about that. That's why so many Americans have questions -- which the White House refuses to answer -- about the administration committing US resources to an operation that doesn't make his removal a goal."

Jon Summers, a spokesman for Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, also confirmed receipt of a letter but dismissed its contents.

"We're not spending much time trying to confirm authenticity because we don't much care what he has to say unless it includes a resignation," he said.

The letter arrived as senior US Senator Carl Levin emerged from a closed-door briefing with Pentagon officials saying that Kadhafi's armed forces had been "severely degraded" by NATO's relentless military campaign.

In the three-page letter, Kadhafi says Libya is counting on the US Congress for "its continued investigation of the military activities of NATO and its allies" in action he said had killed over 700 Libyan civilians.

"Such unauthorized intervention is inappropriate and illegal interference in what is essentially a Libyan civil war."

"We therefore urge a ceasefire (and) the funding of humanitarian relief and assistance in fostering and furthering accommodation between the internal parties within Libya that are at odds."

Kadhafi said his government, which has been plagued by defections under the escalating NATO assault, was ready to sit down with opposition figures in peace talks led by the United States in order to "stop the destruction."

The White House has been under rising pressure from congressional critics demanding details about US goals in Libya and questioning the likely costs and duration of the campaign, in which Washington now has a supporting role.

The House of Representatives last week passed a symbolic resolution chiding Obama for not seeking congressional approval for US involvement and giving him until June 17 to answer those questions and more.

The White House promised answers this week.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney has, however, sidestepped questions on whether the White House would ask for formal congressional authorization for the US military role in the UN-backed campaign now officially run by NATO.

"We have been in extensive consultations with Congress about our mission in Libya, the goals of which, we believe, are widely shared by Republicans and Democrats and House members and senators," he told reporters.

His comments came as Democratic Senator Jim Webb and Republican Senator Bob Corker, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee, introduced a resolution akin to the House measure that challenges Obama's Libya policy.

Their bill calls for the administration to offer a detailed justification for US operations, forbids any deployment of US ground troops in Libya, and demands a detailed report within 14 days on US goals and means.

It calls on Obama to request authorization for the continuation of US involvement in NATO activities and on Congress to fully debate the request.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/...thank-you-note-for-chastising-obama-on-libya/
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,435
8,604
693
Silverdale, WA
#23
But here's the thing: EVERY President (other than President Obama) has gone to Congress for an authorization for his military actions over 90 days.
What Congressional resolution authorized Truman to send troops to Korea?
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#24
What Congressional resolution authorized Truman to send troops to Korea?
War Powers Resolution of 1973. I made it pretty clear that I was talking about the Presidents from Nixon to Bush v2. Leave it to you to be a douchebag and try to "catch" me on the one time I didn't pedantically lay it out in nice, little bite-sized pieces that even your retarded brain could understand.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#25
MASSIVE failure on President Obama's part, here.

You know the Little Barry though Gadaffi would be gone in a few days, and then he would take the credit for "bringing democracy to Libya."

Hey Barry, you take credit for the rain, then you're going to get blamed for the drought.