Speaker Boehner Throws Down the War Powers Act Gauntlet On Libya

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/speaker-boehner-throws-down-the-war-powers-act-gauntlet-on-libya.html

Speaker Boehner Throws Down the War Powers Act Gauntlet On Libya
June 02, 2011 6:33 PM

In the immortal words of the vice president, this could be a big $%^ing deal: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is throwing what one Republican calls “a legal and political hot potato at the President.”

In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:

a) Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or

b) Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.

The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”

Boehner is explicitly and formally stating that the president did not check the box on the War Powers Act before sending the US military to intervene in Libya.

The White House had no immediate comment, though earlier today White House press secretary Jay Carney said “we believe that the policy is working, we believe that the goal the president has is shared by a vast majority of members of Congress, and we have consulted with Congress every step of the way since we have initiated this policy.” Carney went on to reiterate that “our involvement militarily is limited, as the president promised, and will continue to be so, and he has made very clear, for example, that we will not be sending ground troops to Libya; that is off the table.”

Last week we noted that two bipartisan actions in the House of Representatives related to Libya seemed to bode ill for congressional support for the U.S. role in military intervention there. Last month in a letter to congressional leaders, the president suggested that the US mission in Libya is now so limited he didn’t think congressional authorization necessary,

House Republican leaders believe that if the resolution being offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio -- requiring the president to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from participation in the NATO mission in Libya within 15 days – had come up yesterday it would have passed.

Instead the Kucinich bill comes up tomorrow. With the Boehner bill an alternative.

According to a House Republican aide, in the House GOP conference this afternoon, Speaker Boehner said: “The Kucinich measure will express our constituents’ angst, but it will also have long-term consequences I believe are unacceptable. If Kucinich passes, it will have an impact on Afghanistan. From a NATO perspective, we're trying to hold the alliance together and advance a common agenda in Afghanistan. We will have turned our backs against our NATO partners who have stuck by us for the last 10 years.”

Boehner then quoted from a Heritage Foundation paper on the possibility of congressional action on Libya: “’Any action by Congress must have due regard for U.S. responsibilities to its allies. It would be completely irresponsible of the U.S. to presumptively withdraw support from allies that are in harm’s way. Many NATO nations stood, fought, and died with American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing should be done to suggest that America would precipitously abandon its allies.’”

Boehner used the attached PowerPoint slide to make his case against the Kucinich resolution (click for larger version):

-Jake Tapper (@jaketapper)

**biccat**

2 weeks marks the end of the 90 day limit on unilateral Presidential action (60 days to approach Congress, 30 days to withdraw). Looks like Boehner is trying to avoid looking too much like he's supporting the anti-war position of Kookcinich.

Given the position articulated to Congress by the administration that the War Powers Act doesn't apply here, I give a roughly 30% chance that Obama doesn't respond by the deadline. And that's just because he doesn't want to be seen as caving in to Republican demands.

So the next question should be, what is Congress going to do if the President doesn't comply with the law? Is impeachment on the table?

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:2 weeks marks the end of the 90 day limit on unilateral Presidential action (60 days to approach Congress, 30 days to withdraw). Looks like Boehner is trying to avoid looking too much like he's supporting the anti-war position of Kookcinich.

Given the position articulated to Congress by the administration that the War Powers Act doesn't apply here, I give a roughly 30% chance that Obama doesn't respond by the deadline. And that's just because he doesn't want to be seen as caving in to Republican demands.

So the next question should be, what is Congress going to do if the President doesn't comply with the law? Is impeachment on the table?

Congress can defund the operation I believe.

**purplefood**

Is this basically them being annoyed at the President for not asking them for permission?

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:Is this basically them being annoyed at the President for not asking them for permission?

Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war.

**purplefood**

Frazzled wrote:
purplefood wrote:Is this basically them being annoyed at the President for not asking them for permission?

Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war.

I didn't know the USA had declared war...
I thought it was just the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya in patnership with other NATO nations...

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
purplefood wrote:Is this basically them being annoyed at the President for not asking them for permission?

Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war.

I didn't know the USA had declared war...
I thought it was just the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya in patnership with other NATO nations...

We launched cruise missiles and drop bombs to kill people. Thats war. The President needs at least some measure from Congress.

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:2 weeks marks the end of the 90 day limit on unilateral Presidential action (60 days to approach Congress, 30 days to withdraw). Looks like Boehner is trying to avoid looking too much like he's supporting the anti-war position of Kookcinich.

Given the position articulated to Congress by the administration that the War Powers Act doesn't apply here, I give a roughly 30% chance that Obama doesn't respond by the deadline. And that's just because he doesn't want to be seen as caving in to Republican demands.

So the next question should be, what is Congress going to do if the President doesn't comply with the law? Is impeachment on the table?

Congress can defund the operation I believe.

Hypothetically, sure. But it's ultimately a nonjusticiable issue, since the President could (again, hypothetically) redirect other defense money to the operation in Libya. See e.g. the recent use of a signing statement against prohibiting funds being used to pay for certain "czars."

I suppose it's an escalating issue, and depends ultimately on how far each side is willing to go. The ultimate power lies with Congress' ability to impeach, the President has no such ultimate recourse against Congress.

**purplefood**

Fair enough then...
So the President has overstepped the bounds of his authority which is bad...

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:2 weeks marks the end of the 90 day limit on unilateral Presidential action (60 days to approach Congress, 30 days to withdraw). Looks like Boehner is trying to avoid looking too much like he's supporting the anti-war position of Kookcinich.

Given the position articulated to Congress by the administration that the War Powers Act doesn't apply here, I give a roughly 30% chance that Obama doesn't respond by the deadline. And that's just because he doesn't want to be seen as caving in to Republican demands.

So the next question should be, what is Congress going to do if the President doesn't comply with the law? Is impeachment on the table?

Congress can defund the operation I believe.

Hypothetically, sure. But it's ultimately a nonjusticiable issue, since the President could (again, hypothetically) redirect other defense money to the operation in Libya. See e.g. the recent use of a signing statement against prohibiting funds being used to pay for certain "czars."

I suppose it's an escalating issue, and depends ultimately on how far each side is willing to go. The ultimate power lies with Congress' ability to impeach, the President has no such ultimate recourse against Congress.

Yep.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:Fair enough then...
So the President has overstepped the bounds of his authority which is bad...

Thats the argument. Usually the other side rants and raves about the War Powers Act until the President does some sort of piffle or the next election. Its normal.

**purplefood**

American politics is kinda weird...
Then again the British system isn''t particularly easy to figure out either...

**Frazzled**

Its all about the he said she said baby!

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Congress can defund the operation I believe.

That would mean taking money from the military, money that's already been given to them.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Congress can defund the operation I believe.

That would mean taking money from the military, money that's already been given to them.

Congress has the authority to direct funding. How effective that is may be up for debate. Although if you could find someone with standing to challenge the spending they might have an argument in court (it's not really a political question).

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Congress has the authority to direct funding.

Right, but my point is that a bill which will inevitably be derided as anti-military isn't likely to earn much support from the Republican side of the House.

Boehner won't move to defund the operation, if he really wanted to kill this then he would support the Kucinich bill (he didn't because it would hurt him politically). If the administration notifies Congress then the action in Libya will probably be authorized, and if it doesn't then some noise will be made, but no serious effort will be undertaken to move further. Some will call the operation illegal under War Powers, others will call it legal, and yet others will simply claim that War Powers is a joke because of the need to notify under "imminent threat."

**Kilkrazy**

Who is the enemy in this war?

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Congress has the authority to direct funding.

Right, but my point is that a bill which will inevitably be derided as anti-military isn't likely to earn much support from the Republican side of the House.

That is the truth of the matter. While I agree that the Congress should do its job and ensure that the President doesn't overstep his bounds, I doubt they will muster the political will to see it through. Indeed, doing anything that might be seen as hurting the military is a serious political taboo for the GOP especially, which has been reflected in their inability to suggest a cut of the military budget to a more realistic level.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the enemy in this war?

Frazzled

**agnosto**

The house approved Boehner's bill and rejected the Kucinich measure just a bit ago.

I don't think Obama's worried. Republican ethics don't allow for a withdrawal from an active engagement without being able to say "See here, we're winning." And the Dems will mostly go along with Obama. They may grumble but nobody will tell him no.

A no or forced withdrawal would cause some diplomatic problems with NATO and make us look silly to the UN as it would look like we lack the spirit of our democracy pushing convictions.

This article has some quotes from the conservatives that pretty much says what I just did:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/164675-house-approves-boehners-libya-resolution-rejects-kucinich-proposal

From the above article. I have to quote this because it's just full of awesome sauce and cracked me the heck up.

"If the members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's 'one-chamber' resolution, it should add one finding, that we declare ourselves to be one big, constitutionally created potted plant," House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-Calif.) said.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the enemy in this war?

Momi K and the G boys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Congress has the authority to direct funding.

Right, but my point is that a bill which will inevitably be derided as anti-military isn't likely to earn much support from the Republican side of the House.

That is the truth of the matter. While I agree that the Congress should do its job and ensure that the President doesn't overstep his bounds, I doubt they will muster the political will to see it through. Indeed, doing anything that might be seen as hurting the military is a serious political taboo for the GOP especially, which has been reflected in their inability to suggest a cut of the military budget to a more realistic level.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the enemy in this war?

Frazzled

Fear the weinie!

**biccat**

agnosto wrote:This article has some quotes from the conservatives that pretty much says what I just did:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/164675-house-approves-boehners-libya-resolution-rejects-kucinich-proposal

From the above article. I have to quote this because it's just full of awesome sauce and cracked me the heck up.

He's probably going to get a talking to once this all is hashed out. The DNC only has enough tolerance for a few crackpots, and Kookcinich occupies a lot of that space.

The problem is the President has put the Republicans in a tough political spot. On the one hand there's the blatent disregard of the law by the president. On the other is the GOP's need to appear pro-military (more accurately, not-anti-military like the DNC).

Obviously we can all agree that G.W. Bush would never have gotten away with this.

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:
That is the truth of the matter. While I agree that the Congress should do its job and ensure that the President doesn't overstep his bounds, I doubt they will muster the political will to see it through. Indeed, doing anything that might be seen as hurting the military is a serious political taboo for the GOP especially, which has been reflected in their inability to suggest a cut of the military budget to a more realistic level.

A wild general appears!

Welcome back.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:On the one hand there's the blatent disregard of the law by the president.

I wouldn't call it blatant. He notified Congress in accordance with War Powers on March 21st, and doesn't need to notify them that immediate withdrawal would be militarily detrimental.

**agnosto**

biccat wrote:Obviously we can all agree that G.W. Bush would never have gotten away with this.

Yeah, instead he rode popular sentiment into the commandant seat with the passage of AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists). Too bad a Libyan didn't kill a few thousand people in America instead of, you know, in their own country, then 9 years from now we'd still be there. No, Bush got plenty of leeway because we were all busy standing in our front yards crying, beating our chests and waving flags around. Heck, when he wanted to invade Iraq, we even thought that was a good idea too....isn't Iraq close to Afghanistan? I think he said there was some of those terrorists there so I guess we need to go show them what for too.

Actually, off topic, it's always confused me why the Republicans hate Obama so much, he's a closet conservative anyway...

**dogma**

agnosto wrote:
Actually, off topic, it's always confused me why the Republicans hate Obama so much, he's a closet conservative anyway...

Yeah, if you're of the mind that anyone who isn't an obvious socialist and environmentalist is conservative.

**agnosto**

dogma wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Actually, off topic, it's always confused me why the Republicans hate Obama so much, he's a closet conservative anyway...

Yeah, if you're of the mind that anyone who isn't an obvious socialist and environmentalist is conservative.

You really believe that? You've got to stop listening to what he says on the idiot box and pay attention to what he's actually doing. He's all about special interests, rich people and keeping those mean mexicans from stealing our 'merican jobs. Seriously, ICE raids have more than doubled in the last couple of years. The health care thing was almost ver batim what the Republicans tried to push through years ago. He didn't fight too hard to repeal those Bush-era tax cuts that he said he hated... etc.

**Frazzled**

agnosto wrote:
dogma wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Actually, off topic, it's always confused me why the Republicans hate Obama so much, he's a closet conservative anyway...

Yeah, if you're of the mind that anyone who isn't an obvious socialist and environmentalist is conservative.

You really believe that? You've got to stop listening to what he says on the idiot box and pay attention to what he's actually doing. He's all about special interests, rich people and keeping those mean mexicans from stealing our 'merican jobs. Seriously, ICE raids have more than doubled in the last couple of years. The health care thing was almost ver batim what the Republicans tried to push through years ago. He didn't fight too hard to repeal those Bush-era tax cuts that he said he hated... etc.

Keep living the dream Agnosto, someday someone will believe you.

**Kilkrazy**

biccat wrote:
agnosto wrote:This article has some quotes from the conservatives that pretty much says what I just did:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/164675-house-approves-boehners-libya-resolution-rejects-kucinich-proposal

From the above article. I have to quote this because it's just full of awesome sauce and cracked me the heck up.

He's probably going to get a talking to once this all is hashed out. The DNC only has enough tolerance for a few crackpots, and Kookcinich occupies a lot of that space.

The problem is the President has put the Republicans in a tough political spot. On the one hand there's the blatent disregard of the law by the president. On the other is the GOP's need to appear pro-military (more accurately, not-anti-military like the DNC).

Obviously we can all agree that G.W. Bush would never have gotten away with this.

As I understand it, the President used his generally accepted powers and as the 90 day limit comes up he naturally expects Congress to support him.

That doesn't sound like blatant disregard of the law to me.

Doesn't the Boner Bill mean that Congress has supported the President?

**dogma**

agnosto wrote:
You really believe that? You've got to stop listening to what he says on the idiot box and pay attention to what he's actually doing.

Considering that I do this kind of analysis for a living it might be better if you don't assume I get my news from television.

agnosto wrote:
He's all about special interests, rich people and keeping those mean mexicans from stealing our 'merican jobs. Seriously, ICE raids have more than doubled in the last couple of years. The health care thing was almost ver batim what the Republicans tried to push through years ago. He didn't fight too hard to repeal those Bush-era tax cuts that he said he hated... etc.

I don't see how that makes him a conservative. To me it looks like he's a left-of-center President who took what he could get in areas of interest to him, and let the rest unfold as it had previously.

**biccat**

agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:Obviously we can all agree that G.W. Bush would never have gotten away with this.

Yeah, instead he rode popular sentiment into the commandant seat with the passage of AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists).

This thread is about the "how" of the issue, not the "why". If you really want to bemoan the fact that a few thousand civilians weren't killed, please do so in another thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the President used his generally accepted powers and as the 90 day limit comes up he naturally expects Congress to support him.

That doesn't sound like blatant disregard of the law to me.

Doesn't the Boner Bill mean that Congress has supported the President?

The president has 2 days to notify Congress, then can keep troops 60 days without Congressional approval. After 60 days without approval, he is supposed to start withdrawing troops, a period of no more than 30 days.

Or more specifically:

50 USC 1544 wrote: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.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
The president has 2 days to notify Congress, then can keep troops 60 days without Congressional approval. After 60 days without approval, he is supposed to start withdrawing troops, a period of no more than 30 days.

Or more specifically:

50 USC 1544 wrote: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.

I was wrong about the absence of a need to make notification of military necessity, though I imagine the administration will argue that the report from May 20th is tacit to such a statement, so thanks for the correction.

But, your interpretation is incorrect. After 60 days the President is supposed to terminate the use of US forces as stipulated in his initial notification. That doesn't mean withdrawing them per se, it means "stop doing what you said you were doing." This deadline may be extended by 30 days if the President deems it necessary for the safety of military personnel, at which the President must order an end to hostilities; which, again, doesn't mean withdrawing troops per se.

Interestingly, the administration could submit another report to Congress arguing that we are no engaged in a separate military action with the goal of supporting a regime change in order to gain another 60 days.

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:A wild general appears!

Roll initiative?

dogma wrote:Welcome back.

Many thanks. I wish I could participate more in DakkaDakka, but work has been kicking my rear end all over the place...not to mention my 40K hobby. Interestingly enough it was your main man Bertrand Russell that inspired me to make a more concerted effort to participate in Dakka, if only for the stimulating conversation.