madfranks
15th June 2011, 09:06 PM
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!
Link Here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0615/White-House-Limited-Libya-operation-didn-t-require-approval-of-Congress)
White House: 'Limited' Libya operation didn't require approval of Congress
Citing “important US interests,” the White House (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+White+House) on Wednesday claimed constitutional authority for ongoing US military (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces) operations in Libya (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Libya), now estimated to cost US taxpayers $1.1 billion through Sept. 30.
The claim was made in a report released as lawmakers converged on the White House for an annual picnic. It is the Obama administration (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama)’s response to a House resolution on June 3 calling for the release of documents providing a legal justification for the president’s decision to commit US forces without authorization from Congress.
Stepping up the pressure on President Obama, Speaker John Boehner (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+Boehner) (R) of Ohio (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Ohio) on Tuesday warned that the president will be in violation of the War Powers Act (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/War+Powers+Resolution) if he does not obtain congressional approval by Sunday.
Just hours before release of the White House documents, 10 House members, led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Dennis+Kucinich) (D) of Ohio and Walter Jones (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Walter+Jones) (R) of North Carolina (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/North+Carolina), filed suit in a federal court challenging the legality of US operations in Libya.
“Where in the world is Congress when an administration decides we want to bomb a country? For goodness sake, there’s a Constitution!” says Congressman Jones, in a phone interview.
“I think those who drafted the Constitution would probably be standing with us today and applaud the action we’re taking,” he adds.
The White House justification for the use of force in Libya without congressional authorization came down to three key points:
• US forces are playing a “constrained and supporting role” in a multinational coalition. “At no point did the US act alone.”
• The operations of that coalition are “legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+Nations+Security+Council) Resolution.”
• If the US military were to cease its participation in the NATO operation, “it would seriously degrade the coalition’s ability” to protect civilians and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
“The United States (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States) is providing unique assets and capabilities that other NATO and coalition nations either do not posses or possess in very limited numbers,” the report concluded.
Early responses from House GOP (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party) leaders signal that that explanation did not satisfy congressional concerns.
'Creative arguments' by White House
“The creative arguments made by the White House raise a number of questions that must be further explored,” said Brendan Buck (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Brendan+Buck), a spokesman for Speaker Boehner.
“We will review the information that was provided today, but hope and expect that this will serve as the beginning, not the end, of the president’s explanation for continued American operations in Libya,” he added.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R) (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Scott+Garrett) of New Jersey (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+Jersey), who chairs the Constitutional Caucus (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Constitutional+Caucus), said that Wednesday’s “progress report from the White House is no substitute for congressional authorization.”
More at link...
Link Here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0615/White-House-Limited-Libya-operation-didn-t-require-approval-of-Congress)
White House: 'Limited' Libya operation didn't require approval of Congress
Citing “important US interests,” the White House (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+White+House) on Wednesday claimed constitutional authority for ongoing US military (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces) operations in Libya (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Libya), now estimated to cost US taxpayers $1.1 billion through Sept. 30.
The claim was made in a report released as lawmakers converged on the White House for an annual picnic. It is the Obama administration (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama)’s response to a House resolution on June 3 calling for the release of documents providing a legal justification for the president’s decision to commit US forces without authorization from Congress.
Stepping up the pressure on President Obama, Speaker John Boehner (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+Boehner) (R) of Ohio (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Ohio) on Tuesday warned that the president will be in violation of the War Powers Act (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/War+Powers+Resolution) if he does not obtain congressional approval by Sunday.
Just hours before release of the White House documents, 10 House members, led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Dennis+Kucinich) (D) of Ohio and Walter Jones (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Walter+Jones) (R) of North Carolina (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/North+Carolina), filed suit in a federal court challenging the legality of US operations in Libya.
“Where in the world is Congress when an administration decides we want to bomb a country? For goodness sake, there’s a Constitution!” says Congressman Jones, in a phone interview.
“I think those who drafted the Constitution would probably be standing with us today and applaud the action we’re taking,” he adds.
The White House justification for the use of force in Libya without congressional authorization came down to three key points:
• US forces are playing a “constrained and supporting role” in a multinational coalition. “At no point did the US act alone.”
• The operations of that coalition are “legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+Nations+Security+Council) Resolution.”
• If the US military were to cease its participation in the NATO operation, “it would seriously degrade the coalition’s ability” to protect civilians and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
“The United States (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States) is providing unique assets and capabilities that other NATO and coalition nations either do not posses or possess in very limited numbers,” the report concluded.
Early responses from House GOP (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party) leaders signal that that explanation did not satisfy congressional concerns.
'Creative arguments' by White House
“The creative arguments made by the White House raise a number of questions that must be further explored,” said Brendan Buck (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Brendan+Buck), a spokesman for Speaker Boehner.
“We will review the information that was provided today, but hope and expect that this will serve as the beginning, not the end, of the president’s explanation for continued American operations in Libya,” he added.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R) (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Scott+Garrett) of New Jersey (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+Jersey), who chairs the Constitutional Caucus (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Constitutional+Caucus), said that Wednesday’s “progress report from the White House is no substitute for congressional authorization.”
More at link...