Did Obama violate the Constitution with Libya attack?

[Col. Flagg]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... ary-action" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did Obama violate the Constitution with Libya military action?
From NBC's Pete Williams and Jonathan Hutcheson

Did President Obama violate the Constitution or federal law when he ordered the U.S. military to take part in coalition attacks on forces loyal to Moammar Khaddafy in Libya?

The Constitution itself doesn't answer the question, because it gives Congress authority "to raise and support Armies," "to provide and maintain a Navy," and "to declare War." But it also provides that, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

Congress has formally declared war only five times in U.S. history -- for the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World Wars I and II. But presidents have approved dozens of military actions with no such declaration, including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam.

Well over 100 military operations were ordered without any advance Congressional authorization at all. Recent examples include actions in Grenada, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, and intervention in civil wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.

A federal law, the War Powers Act of 1973, requires the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before deploying U.S. forces. An exception was made for emergencies created by attacks on the U.S. or its armed forces.

Some legal scholars conclude that President Obama violated the law's requirements, when he failed to seek congressional approval.

"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.

While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.

But one former official who advised President George W. Bush said that while the decision to deploy U.S. forces in the Libyan operation was a political and strategic mistake, it's entirely legal. =))

Constitution...what's that?

[tribrac]

I think the better question is " Does any care that Obama Violated the Constitution?"

I'm pretty surethat with this act he has sealed his fate as a one-termer.

[cayenne]

is it true if a world war were to start, and the USA in danger, Obama could stay in office due to war? bypass the election like whats his name....

[lundbaek]

There should be no legitimate reason for cancelling or postponing an election due to a war. U. S. involvment in WW2 did not prevent FDR from having to run for re-election. Nor did the Korean War or the Vietnam War postpone elections. However, a nuclear attack on the U. S. might well be so much more disruptive to our country that it would be impossible to hold an election. But a foreign war, I don't think so.

[Toto]

Constitution...what's that?

It seems like a long time ago…. things are moving at such an accelerated pace right now my head is spinning, but I think it was January of 2008 when the Constitution was dissolved. Let me check….Nope, it was actually February 10, 2008 when the last thread of constitutional government was cut.

It went relatively unnoticed. The Constitution is still there, it’s just that the People aren’t using it anymore.

Memo to Pete Williams and Jonathan Hutcheson


Obama did not violate the Constitution because he is not the President of the United States of America.

DUH!!!

Anyone who has done even the most preliminary of investigation knows that office is presently vacant. The CORPORATION in question, however, has been in violation of the Constitution since its inception. If my memory serves me correctly, it was December 23, 1913. Rumor has it the CEO is currently away on business in Brazil. If I were in his position, given the current situation, I’d be on the run myself, but I’m sure he is grateful to have guy like you running cover for him.

[Col. Flagg]

You have to remember… Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) isn’t even a legitimate U.S. citizen since he was born in Kenya – he has absolutely no authority to do anything as Commander-in-Chief because he shouldn’t even be in the White House. He despises this country - all of his actions are indicative of someone who is out to destroy the nation economically and financially and remember, for 20 years, he attended the church of a Pastor who loathes the United States and then had the audacity to say he never knew he was anti-U.S. ) But he was groomed by the establishment to be where he is today as he does their bidding – he is nothing but a yes man for big money interests and the Constitution means nothing to him, so people can balk all they want – the Constitution has become nothing but a hindrance to what scheming men in Washington want to do. If we had a legitimate government and Congress, all hell would have been raised when Obama made the decision himself to lob 120 missiles into Libya without going through Congress or formally declaring war against the country. But what has Libya done to the U.S. to justify us attacking them? Nothing. Same with Iraq, Afghanistan and even the first Gulf War. Everything being done right now militarily is being done in the name of big business and nothing more. As such, we have a ‘government’ and military that is out-of-control, unconstitutional and illegitimate, not to mention corrupt.

[Col. Flagg]

You have to remember… Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) isn’t even a legitimate U.S. citizen since he was born in Kenya (his mother could not have transcended U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth and his Father was a dual citizen of two countries) – he has absolutely no authority to do anything as Commander-in-Chief because he shouldn’t even be in the White House. He despises this country - all of his actions are indicative of someone who is out to destroy the nation economically and financially and remember, for 20 years, he attended the church of a Pastor who loathes the United States and then had the audacity to say he never knew he was anti-U.S. )

But he was groomed by the establishment to be where he is today as he does their bidding – he is nothing but a yes man for big money interests and the Constitution means nothing to him, so people can balk all they want – the Constitution has become nothing but a hindrance to what scheming men in Washington want to do. If we had a legitimate government and Congress, all hell would have been raised when Obama made the decision himself to lob 120 missiles into Libya without going through Congress or formally declaring war against the country. Same with Bush's attack on Iraq and Afghanistan (no declaration of war and both founded on lies and deception and the fraud that was 9/11). But what has Libya done to the U.S. to justify us attacking them? Nothing. Same with Iraq, Afghanistan and even the first Gulf War. Everything being done right now militarily is being done in the name of big business and nothing more. As such, we have a ‘government’ and military that is out-of-control, unconstitutional and illegitimate, not to mention corrupt.

[lundbaek]

Last evening Arizona Congressional Representative Jeff Flake state that he believes that President Obama was born on Hawaii. It was not clear to me what he based that conviction on, although he did refer to a newspaper announcement of some sort. He clearly ignores evidences of his foreign citizenship. Sorry I did not get more particulars.

[Like]

[pritchet1]

Simple answer, Yes. And he also lied (again) by sending in our Marines as "boots".

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34754" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[iamse7en]

You must read Tom Woods' article on this issue. Mark Levin attacked Ron Paul's constitutional viewpoint, so Woods responded. It's brilliant.

[Obiwan]

Mr. Woods is LYING about Mark Levins beliefs and claims....

Mr. Woods creates a strawman to then tear down. Bush had Constitutional authority, Congress gave it.
Bush's war WAS Constitutional, Obama's war is not.... Bush did not bow to the U.N. to do anything, Obama has.

War against EVIL is NEVER WRONG.... This is why those such as Ron Paul, Alex Jones etc. are so very wrong with their Constitutional arguments. They take the constitution beyond the mark, and then they not only degrade liberals as they should, they misrepresent and degrade other Conservatives who most certain are Constitutionalists also. We believe the same, but we don't believe in your 9/11 conspiracy's, your isolationism, your misrepresentation, etc. We are on the side of right, you are on the side of wrong, just like liberals are, at least in these issues.

[iamse7en]

Mr. Woods is LYING about Mark Levins beliefs and claims....

Mr. Woods creates a strawman to then tear down. Bush had Constitutional authority, Congress gave it.
Bush's war WAS Constitutional, Obama's war is not.... Bush did not bow to the U.N. to do anything, Obama has.

War against EVIL is NEVER WRONG.... This is why those such as Ron Paul, Alex Jones etc. are so very wrong with their Constitutional arguments. They take the constitution beyond the mark, and then they not only degrade liberals as they should, they misrepresent and degrade other Conservatives who most certain are Constitutionalists also. We believe the same, but we don't believe in your 9/11 conspiracy's, your isolationism, your misrepresentation, etc. We are on the side of right, you are on the side of wrong, just like liberals are, at least in these issues.

Hang around here long enough, study the words of the founding fathers a bit more, get exposed to more wars and learn about those who benefit from them... it will take some time, but you'll get there.

[patriotsaint]

You must read Tom Woods' article on this issue. Mark Levin attacked Ron Paul's constitutional viewpoint, so Woods responded. It's brilliant.

That article was brilliant and spot on. I'm always amazed at the foolishness of neocon warhawks that simply believe the Constitution means whatever they wish it to mean at the current moment, taking certain clauses out of their historical and legal context when convenient.

And @ Obiwan.......The "we're good, they're evil" nonsense is really too ridiculous to take seriously. Do you believe we are playing some kind of childish international game of cops and robbers? This article linked by Original Intent yesterday may help you to dispel your clear-cut notions of right and wrong.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=279061

That article explains how Libya provided more insurgent fighters in Iraq than any other nation per capita. These were not supporters of the current Libyan regime according to the article. So the very insurgents warhawks were so anxious to snuff out in Iraq are now part of the rebel forces they wish to protect by spilling American blood. This military action in Libya has far more to do with protecting vital oil supplies for our allies (England and France) than it does with helping Libya. Wake up man!!!

[lundbaek]

President Bush did not have proper Constitutional authority to initiate war because the Congress did not declare war, as is required by the Constitution. I remember very well that our Congress gave the President the authority to make the decision, which it does not have the right, authority, or responsibility to do. Congress does not have the authority to give that decision/authority to the President or anyone else. In personal confrontation I pinned back the ears of two AZ Representatives and they finally had to admit that what the Congress did was constitutionally illegal. It helps to have a pocket copy of the US Constitution when gettng into such confrontations.

[Col. Flagg]

President Bush did not have proper Constitutional authority to initiate war because the Congress did not declare war, as is required by the Constitution. I remember very well that our Congress gave the President the authority to make the decision, which it does not have the right, authority, or responsibility to do. Congress does not have the authority to give that decision/authority to the President or anyone else.

Congress also abdicated its responsibility to coin and regulate our money with silver and gold by 'authorizing' the 'Fed', a private banking cartel, to assume the reigns with their paper fiat garbage and milking the nation for the privelege of using their 'created out of thin air' bogus system (not to mention unconstitutional individual income tax) and nothing I can think of has been worse or more unconstitutional than allowing banksters to control our system of money - it is the primary reason for the money woes in this country, many of which have broken up families. X( As such, Congress allowing the 'president' to make war with another nation by going around the Constitution with no formal declaration of war should come as no surprise - Washington is not run, governed or regulated by checks and balances, the Constitution or we, the people - it is deceptively and criminally run by powerful big money interests.

In personal confrontation I pinned back the ears of two AZ Representatives and they finally had to admit that what the Congress did was constitutionally illegal. It helps to have a pocket copy of the US Constitution when gettng into such confrontations.

Atta boy Lundbaek! I'm thinking about writing a letter to every Senator and Congressman and sending out a mass e-mail to them all asking how they are able to sleep at night considering the criminality going on where they 'work' and not doing anything about it. But most of those guys are cowards and/or bought and paid for, including Orrin Hatch.

[sbsion]

why wouldn't he, he's not American anyhow

[lundbaek]

And for the benefit of Romney cheerleaders,

Perhaps the most egregious comment from Mitt Romney during the 2007 Republican debates came when as the prospect of an Iran war was raised. Romney was asked if he would need to seek authorization from Congress to attack Iran. He responded:
"You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."

What actually happened was that the Congress agreed to leave the decison to the President.

Romney was then asked more pointedly, "Did he need it" [the authorization from Congress]? He replied, "You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."

Then the moderator turned to Congressman Paul with the question. His quick response was: "Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war...."

[Col. Flagg]

And for the benefit of Romney cheerleaders,

Perhaps the most egregious comment from Mitt Romney during the 2007 Republican debates came when as the prospect of an Iran war was raised. Romney was asked if he would need to seek authorization from Congress to attack Iran. He responded:
"You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."

What actually happened was that the Congress agreed to leave the decison to the President.

Romney was then asked more pointedly, "Did he need it" [the authorization from Congress]? He replied, "You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."

Then the moderator turned to Congressman Paul with the question. His quick response was: "Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war...."

That was classic - sad (for Mitt), but classic. Ron was the only one on that stage worthy of the presidency.