Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    MSM, Left, Yawn As The War In Libya Becomes Increasingly Illegal

    MSM, Left, Yawn As The War In Libya Becomes Increasingly Illegal

    (by Matthew Knee)

    As the mainstream media strained its resources and even brought on amateurs to power through Sarah Palin’s old emails for the scandal that wasn’t there, a slow-motion constitutional crisis has been unfolding.

    The War Powers Resolution clearly states that president can authorize military action for 60 days without seeking congressional approval. In the absence of congressional approval, the war in question must be wrapped up by the 90 day mark. For the war in Libya, that deadline is Friday.

    The Obama administration claims that the war in Libya is too small to count as a war, and that it is not an US action but a NATO action. Congress disagrees. Speaker Boehner informed Obama yesterday of the upcoming deadline, and today 10 congressmen announced their intention to file a lawsuit.

    That there is so little coverage of the fact that the president quite likely ignoring both the law and Congress to fight a war of choice is a testament to how far professional journalism has fallen. That the so much of the left is suddenly not that interested in the legality of wars or checking out-of-control presidential power is a testament to the hollowness of their ideals.

    ——————————————–

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    I'm waiting for one president, of either party, to take this to court.

    I'm not. In fact that would be the exact opposite of what I'm waiting for, which is for a president to stand up to the judiciary and put it in its place, reversing the silent coup that it has executed. The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is none of any court's business. The executive branch is not subservient to the judicial one, and does not take orders from it. The president is entitled to his own view of the constitution, and to act on it without approval from anybody else.

    First of all, the "war" is not illegal from the standpoint of the United Nations.

    Who the hell cares about the United Nations? What has it got to do with anything? The USA is a sovereign country, not a division of the UN; and the legality of any action by its president depends entirely on USAn law. The UN doesn't get a say in the matter.

    You should concentrate solely on this aspect.

    Nobody has mentioned any other "aspect", because no other "aspects" exist.

    since March the role of the USA has been minimal. There are no USA boots on the ground (maybe some CIA agents), but there are no Marines. The Air Force is not involved in the sorties except to refuel the British, French and Canadian aircraft.

    How is this relevant? Is the USA at war with Libya or not? If Libya were to bomb New York, would that be a legitimate military attack, or an act of unlawful aggression? It's clear that, under the law of nations, it would be legitimate. The USA and Libya are now at war, and Libya now has every right to attack us in whatever manner it chooses, anywhere in the world. And Obama initiated that state of war, contrary to the constitution.

    As for the WPA, it may indeed be unconstitutional, as every president since it was passed has said, but so what? Let's suppose it is unconstitutional and void; it still remains the case that the president has no power to declare war. The fact that the constitution reserves for Congress the power to declare war must mean something; according to those who claim the Commander in Chief has an inherent power to conduct military operations without Congress's approval, how is the Declaration of War clause not a dead letter?

    Whether the War Powers Resolution WAS unConstitutional is kind of moot don't you say? If all the Presidents since its adoption have abided by it, it becomes settled Law until someone has the cajones to risk their position as POTUS. So IF the law suit by the group of 10 bipartisan legislators is successful, Obama has literally set himself up for impeachment. I'd say this is a small price to pay to rid ourselves of this lawless man. The fact that NO POTUS since the adoption of the WPR has challenged it in court speaks to how dicey the proposition that its unConstitutional. Yes, that's circular reasoning however, politics does have a corrupting influence on the application of the Law. So if Obama wants to play chicken, I'm all for it.

    What's really going on here is Obama is testing the boundaries of how far he can usurp the Law and IF anyone in Congress can stop him. Given his track record of thumbing his nose at the Law, the Libyan adventure is perfectly consistent with his behavior. One only needs to look at his refusal to prosecute the racist New Black Panther Party when they were caught red handed intimidating voters to see that Obama has no regard for the Rule of Law, he believes in the arbitrary application of the Law for political purposes. In other words, its only illegal IF he says so depending if you are his buddy or not.

    BTW- Who's to say the WPR isn't what the Founders had in mind with they gave Congress the right to declare war but the POTUS the responsibility to conduct it? All it really does is to codify the unwritten understanding that in order to wage war you must have solid backing from your constituents by presenting your case. 60 days, 90 days, 6 months are totally arbitrary timeframes to come to that understanding. But no one likes the idea of decisions by fiat so the WPR is a reasonable limitation on a right no different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is no such thing as total freedom, no matter who you are, all actions are bounded by limits otherwise we have chaos.

    Whether the War Powers Resolution WAS unConstitutional is kind of moot don't you say? If all the Presidents since its adoption have abided by it, it becomes settled Law

    No, it absolutely doesn't. Just because you refrain for years from calling your neighbour a pig, that doesn't magically make it illegal to do so. If the WPA was unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional and will always be unconstitutional, and therefore not a law. And every single president since it was passed has reiterated the official opinion of the executive branch that it is unconstitutional. The fact that they've all (until now) carefully avoided violating it is neither here nor there.

    So IF the law suit by the group of 10 bipartisan legislators is successful, Obama has literally set himself up for impeachment.

    What has one thing got to do with another? Each branch is independently charged with upholding the constitution, according to its own understanding of it, not according to that of another branch. If Congress believes he has broken the law then he's already set himself up for impeachment. And if it doesn't then no court's opinion can change that. No court has any business ruling on this, and no court will rule on it.

    The fact that NO POTUS since the adoption of the WPR has challenged it in court speaks to how dicey the proposition that its unConstitutional.

    No, it speaks to the fact that no court has any business pronouncing on whether it's constitutional or not.

    The thing is, though, that the constitutionality of the WPR is a red herring here, because if the WPR is unconstitutional then we return to the legal status before it was passed, which is that only Congress can declare war. So what authority did Obama have to go to war with Libya? His only fig leaf is that we're not really at war with Libya, which is too ridiculous to consider. Bombing the place is an act of war; supplying others who bomb it is also an act of war. Under the law of nations, Libya has every right to strike at us whenever and wherever and however it pleases. So how are we not at war?

    What has one thing got to do with another? Each branch is independently charged with upholding the constitution, according to its own understanding of it, not according to that of another branch. If Congress believes he has broken the law then he's already set himself up for impeachment. And if it doesn't then no court's opinion can change that. No court has any business ruling on this, and no court will rule on it.

    This is statement absurd on its face, everyone is subject to the Law otherwise no branch of government is liable for breaking it much less upholding it.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend