Is Kucinich correct in saying that Obama approving air strikes in Libya is an impeachable offense?

Joe Biden apparently had a strong opinion on this topic. I wonder how he feels today?

I certainly hope so.

Horseshit. The guy’s an ass.

He did say the same thing about Bush, so at least he’s consistent on his ideas. One difference is Bush had Congressional approval. Besides that, big kudos to the Congressman for not changing opinions because the political party is changed to his.

@Cruiser

Excellent post! That says it all.
What happens if a Koch-sponsored President tries to use this on WIsconsin or Michigan?
Where does it end?

In the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress gave the President blanket approval for future actions without specific Congressional approval.

Within 48 hours, the President must notify the House and Senate and explain the action.

Unless otherwise allowed by Congress, the President must end the action within 60 days.

One can argue the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act, but unless the Supreme Court knocks it down or Congress repeals, it is US law.

Wikipedia

Is he right? No not really. Over the last 100 years or so Presidents have been given the authority to engage in what is essentially war for ever-increasing periods of time without congressional approval. The original reason for this was so that the President could act on an emergency situation without having to assemble congress (thankyou @jaytkay I didn’t know the actual resolution… War Powers Resolution of 1973). Furthermore by being members of the UN and NATO, which are both treaties that congress has signed off on, we are “legally” obligated to carry out their resolutions… Both of which are currently requesting we attack Libya.

It would have been nice though if Obama had put it to vote in congress… But honestly, it was probably going to pass anyways, its got pretty solid support with the American public and definitely with the senate.

IMO he has done great with this situation so far, not throwing us into it without any world support, not devoting mass ground troops, and saying he’s going to be pulling us out as a main element within a few days/weeks. So long as he keeps that promise and we are merely in a support role within a few weeks…. I’d say A+/A- job on the issue.

(and if Bush/Cheney can get a pass on Iraq, Obama should definitely be getting a pass on Libya)

Kucinich dreams. The President has the power to take immediate action when he judges it necessary. Shoot now. Ask questions later. The Congress would have passed it anyway. Kucinich just wanted a pulpit.

~ Well gawd knows that if Bush had done the same thing folks would be crawling out of the woodwork screaming impeachment.

@YoBob It all comes down to justification. I don’t think the reaction towards Bush would’ve been so bad had it been a situation closer to the Libya one. I mean did you see people calling for Clinton’s impeachment because he got us involved in Bosnia? No, instead that was the most successful military operation our country has carried out since the first Gulf War.

Bush didn’t attack Iraq based on Saddam actively, publicly, and currently (though he had in the past) killing his people. He did it based on the accusation that Saddam was harboring terrorists and building WMD’s (both of which turned out to be false). Not to say Saddam was a nice guy or anything, the world is far better off without him, but its trying to compare apples to oranges… they’re just not the same.

@tedd Having said that was it justified for Obama’s action? I think not and if so why are we not in all the African countries where astrocities are going on as well?

@Summum Was it justified? That’s more a matter of opinion. I personally, as well as apparently most of the world since it passed the UN, think yes it was justified. Ghadafhi is using tanks bombs and jets on civilians who are armed at best with small arms, and at worst innocent bystanders. Though I don’t doubt for a second oil may be in the backs of the minds of many world leaders behind this, stopping that atrocity and genocide is most definitely a justification in my eyes.

As far as other African countries, thats where the US (and Obama) look bad. We probably should be helping in Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or Ethiopia, or any number of other spots where people are being exploited, killed, or genocide is taking place… but we’re not. The reasons vary. With Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Yemen its a combination of them not being nearly as brutal as Ghadafhi (yet at least) and the fact that they’re our military allies and we more or less “need” them. With countries like the Sudan or Ethiopia or Syria… I would suspect its more of a lack of concern for our own interests in the area. We simply have no interests in them frankly. It doesn’t help that none of those fights are even half as publicized as the events taking place in Libya either (not to mention their lack of international support like there is with Libya).

In short though, yes I think Obama was justified. Just like I think Clinton was justified in Bosnia, or Bush 1 in Panama and Iraq, or Bush 2 in Afghanistan… or any number of other simple military actions by any number of presidents.

The genocide in those African countries are dying in the millions and the wars we are in are dying in the thousands so pick your justifications wisely. Exactly our interests is what is at heart in these other conflicts.

Constitutionally, Kucinich would probably be right: the constitution gives the Congress the explicit right to declare war. Of course, things like precedent and the War Powers Act really muddy the waters in this area.

Regardless, nobody reads the constitution anymore. Republikans still cared about the whole war powers thing about 12 years ago when Clinton was doing what Bush ended up doing a lot more of, and now Obama is doing a lot less of, but I doubt even they’re hypocritical enough to oppose it now.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and speculation going on here. The ‘War Powers Act’ gives the President authority but only in very specific circumstances:

“Section 2© states the policy that the powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities or imminent hostilities “are exercised only pursuant to—

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no imminent threat, it is hard to use this as an authorization. Also people keep bringing up the NATO Treaty. Our obligation is not to support whatever they decide to do but rather to defend member states. There is nothing that would apply to Libya.

The truth is there is nothing in the Constitution, nor the War Powers Act that gives the President the authority to do this. Whether you applaud the action or not is a different issue than whether it is constitutional. It is not.

The general argument, one that I actually kind of agree with, is that the original intent of the constitution’s separation of powers was to have the Congress declare offensive (probably defensive too) war explicitly. Of course, even that’s vague. Regardless, whatever the exact limits of its power, Congress probably, in theory, can’t delegate that power away – as the WPA arguably does.

Of course, the impeachability of the offense is another matter. Congress did delegate these powers by force of law, so it’s hard for it to turn around and say it’s now impeachable. At the very least, Congress would need to rescind the act to credibly impeach him.

@Jaxk is correct, the 1973 War Powers Act is more limited than I thought when I posted above.

We’re not at war, are we? This is a UN activity; we’re not doing this alone. There are other kids in the sandbox with us.

@BarnacleBill Is it not war when you jump in the middle of a civil war and start shooting missiles that kill people.?

@BarnacleBill The other kids in the sand box have packed up their pails and shovels and are leaving in droves. China and Russian are shaking fingers at US now too….why? Because we are protecting the oil….not the people. There isn’t even a reliable alternative governing entity to Ghadafi to even take over so don’t be surprise when the missiles stop launching that Ghadafi is still in charge.

@Jaxk Wonder of wonders. We’re on the same page on this. I don’t think there’s any chance a Democratic Senate would ever sustain an impeachment even if the Republican House pushed one through. But the Constitution is pretty clear and per it, even the War Powers Act of 1973 is unconstitutional. Congress was given the sole responsibility to declare war, not the authority to out-source that job. But truth be told, Congress has shirked their responsibility and Presidents have overstepped their war-making authority ever since the Lewis and Clark Expedition—and I am glad Thomas Jefferson sent them to survey the Northwest Territories.

I’m also glad Obama didn’t wait for a divided Congress to dither while Qaddafi’s MIGs and tanks cut Benghazi and other rebel held towns to shreds. There are over 1,000,000 people in those towns. Qaddafi announced he would show them no mercy and would exterminate them like germs. While he’s a notorious liar, this was one threat I think he fully intended to deliver on.

This action was almost a day late and a dollar short as it was. Congress takes too damn long to do anything right especially in a emergency, hell, every damn one of them wants to talk, and talk, aaaaand talk. While people are getting creamed over there. Ever notice how much wind those in congress have? It’s never ending.

@ETpro
While I don’t want to detract from the singular nature of our agreement, I find the idea of using a million deaths as a bit over the top. I have no love for Qadaffi but I’m concerned about who we are supporting in all this. In the fifties we withdrew our support for Batista which gave rise to the Castro regime. Whether we actively supported Castro is in question but the withdrawal of support for Batista definitely gave the government to Castro. Is that happening again. Or is it another Ayatollah Khomeini against the Shaw type of move. We have no idea. Frankly the rebels could be Al-Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood, we simply don’t know. So are we doing good or bad? Who will kill the most people? Who will do the most good? Without some idea of what we’re doing and why, I can’t understand why we would support this.

And as for a divided congress, Obama had three weeks to put it to congress. He didn’t. He simply took it on his own to deploy assets and begin firing on Libya. I can’t help but wonder if this was a test to see how far he could push his power. I realize this is pure speculation but he is a constitutional lawyer. He has to have some idea where the lines are drawn. And he clearly stepped over them.

You make a good point on the ‘War Powers Act’. But there has been no court ruling to determine the constitutionality. I find it especially interesting to note that the Act was initially vetoed by Nixon (I believe) and then passed over the veto. The president says ‘this is too much power’ and the congress says ‘take it anyway’. Either way the War Powers act is a red herring since it doesn’t apply to Libya.

@Jaxk We do agree that the final outcome is unclear. As to how many of the million plus people involved in some way in the protests Qaddafi would have killed, I agree it isn’t clear. What I think is clear is that the death toll would have neen upwards of 100,000. After the Arab League requesting that we stop the genocide, we would have severly damaged our reputation in the Arab world had we done nothing. But I am sure you will say that if the rebels set up an even more brutal dictator, we will get blamed, and on that we also agree. And finally, you are certainly right that this is a stretch of the War Powers Act.

Time will tell what comes of it.

It is unfortunate that NATO doesn’t seem to have its act together this time.

Whether or not the War Powers Resolution was meant to give the president this much power, the last 5 presidents have all used it to at least the level Obama is right now.

Agree with @tedd. The barn doors are wide open with respect to the expansion of executive branch authority.

@tedd

That doesn’t seem to be the case. Bush 1 obtained congressional approval for the use of force in Kuwait, Bush 2 obtained congressional approval for the use of force in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton however seems to have taken a similar course in Bosnia.

Frankly you assertion that ‘everyone does it so it’s OK’ is false on it’s face. Apparently you merely approve if Democrats circumvent congress.

@Jaxk Did Bush 1 obtain congressional approval to invade Panama??... and btw Bush 1 starter arial bombardment of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq, very similar to whats going on in Libya now, BEFORE congress gave its war approval.. Did Bush 2 obtain approval for the missiles he started firing into Pakistan (that Obama has continued to do)? How about Reagan for the missiles he fired into Libya, or the invasion of Granada?

The only reason I didn’t go further back than that is because I can’t remember something off hand that Carter or Ford before him did… I imagine with very little digging I could find something for both.

And frankly I find your conservative **** sucking to be pretty stupid. Open your eyes and a history book.

@Jaxk Let’s take the broad view of the history of the US since the ratification of the Constitution. If we want to call the level of action in Libya going to war, then the country has gone to war 205 times. Five were with a congressional declaration of war—including the Spanish American War mainly declared to help William Randolph Hearst sell newspapers. Out of the other 200 times, 173 had no prior congressional authorization. In Republican speak, that makes Obama’s actions an unprecedented overreach.

@tedd

You may want to crack open a book or two yourself. The Panama Canal was most certainly our asset, our territory and it was was in imminent danger. As such it falls under the ‘War Powers Act’.

Bush 1 gained approval from congress on Jan 12, 1991 and the air war started on Jan 17, 1991. I see no conflict.

As for missiles into Pakistan, it gets a bit fuzzy. Al Qeada was (still are) definitely launching attacks on our troops from Pakistan. Does that give the president authority to bomb them? I know Nixon got a lot of flack for his venture into Cambodia for the same reasons. Of course we need to analyze whether we needed to declare war on France in order to attack the Germans there in WWII.

Overall there is a big difference whether some action is arguably constitutional and blatantly unconstitutional. Frankly it’s pretty obvious that Obama has overstepped the bounds of the Presidency and the inability of liberals to concede that point is remarkable. And I always love it when you have to revert to name calling in desperate attempt to make your point seem viable. It’s not.

@Jaxk Thats funny that you ignored the Reagan part of my post. And the War Powers Act gave Bush 1 the ability to defend our territory (the canal), not to invade the country. For that he would’ve needed congressional approval by your standard. And you got me I mischecked my dates on the first Gulf War.

And thats funny how it gets fuzzy when a conservative you obviously adore has plainly done something you’re now decrying Obama for.

Nixon was president before the War Powers Act came into power (at the end of his term in 1973), and his orders to attack Cambodia came in the late 60’s.

You need to simply face the fact that every one of the last 5 presidents has abused the War Powers Resolution and gone into some kind of military action without congressional approval first. You also need to realize that for the vast majority of these actions (including the current Libya mission Obama has launched) congress overwhelmingly supports them anyways.

(and this is also ignoring that congress has already signed off on the UN and NATO treaties, which obligate the US to take part in the actions).

And lastly, its not name calling. You very plainly have a gigantic conservative c*ck in your mouth, and you’re sucking it for all the “information” you can get.

@tedd

I didn’t ignore Reagan I merely missed it in my response. Reagan responded to attack in Berlin where Americans were killed. Was it a constitutional violation? argue which ever side spins your spurs.

I love your idea that the UN or NATO has the authority to deploy our troops. That is the most jackass argument I’ve ever heard. Wait maybe the ‘Oh, yeah well they would have approved it anyway’ argument is in contention for that honor.

Frankly I am a conservative and proud of it. Unfortunately most of the conservative leadership supports this action, go figure. The question here is not whether this action is good or bad but rather whether it is constitutional. You have not been able to articulate a single point that would make this constitutional. You need to start doing a bit research yourself instead of merely quoting the Huffington Post as if it had all the answers.

By my count you’re wrong about Desert Storm, You’re wrong about Panama, you offer nothing about Pakistan, and you seem ignorant about Reagan. You do however have an obsession about c“ck sucking. Is that a gay thing?

Reagan:
-Invasion of Granada to overthrow a revolutionary government (1983). No congressional approval and widely condemned by the UK, Canada, and the UN.

-Troops on the ground in Beirut (1983) after UN mandate, no congressional approval. Eventually Reagan withdrew the troops after 241 marines were killed by a suicide bomber and massive opposition at home in the US.

-Fired missiles into Libya. Right or wrong, it was still using the War Powers Resolution to commit an act of war without congressional approval.

Bush 1:
-Invasion of the nation of Panama (not the canal zone which was “technically” US territory). Ironically enough called Operation Just Cause. Congress never gave approval, instead the president and some members of congress fell back on the Torrijos-Carter Treaties which they claimed gave them the legal recourse to invade Panama.

-I’ll cite you the 1st Persian Gulf War.

Bush 2:
-Fired countless missiles into Pakistan, a sovereign nation, to kill terrorists. While a noble cause it violates all of our treaties with Pakistan and international law in general. The Pakistani government has looked the other way because they are supporting our cause and we are paying them money.

All of these actions were done carrying the War Powers Resolution as justification.

I’m not saying any of these actions were wrong. I’m not saying any of the actions of Clinton or Obama are somehow more justified legally. What I am saying, and what is plain fact is that every one of the last 5 presidents, including your high-and-mighty Republicans has used the War Powers Resolution in a manner at least to the level Obama is doing right now.

And as a signatory of the NATO treaty and of the UN charter, we are legally supposed to uphold resolutions passed by those bodies. Whether or not we do ends up being entirely up to us, and more often than not our failing to follow through is generally ignored because we are the f-ing US of A and no one will mess with us. BUT the treaties do exist.

@tedd

Each instance is unique. Granada is probably the closest to what is happening now. There was a superficial case that we were protecting Americans in the medical college but it didn’t hold up to any scrutiny, let alone close scrutiny. So I’ll give you that one.

Beirut is a prime example of how things get ‘fuzzy’. Troops were sent in as non-combatants. There was no attack against Lebanon, nor was there any intention of waging war against Lebanon. If you recall in August of ‘82 Lebanon had elected a new president and the PLO was withdrawing. We went in as part of a peacekeeping force to help with the transition, not to fight. The assassination of Bashir Gemayel changed everything. So the original deployment did not require any congressional approval nor was there any war intent.

That leaves us with Pakistan. I have no problem with either Bush or Obama sending missiles to eradicate Al Qeada or the Taliban. I feel it is covered under the authorization to use force against them. Just as we did in attacking the Germans in France. Pakistan is the only one that could object and they have been reluctant to do so. The last thing I would want is for congress to pas a resolution allowing us to attack Pakistan.

And again, neither the UN nor Nato has any authority to deploy our troops.