House Adopts Resolution On U.S. Role In Libya...

Which in reality means I whole bunch of nothing. :doubt:

I hear ya. But it's a start. Checks & Balances need to be respected. The U.S. Congress needs to stand up and demand Checks & Balances. This Resolution does not get us out of Libya,but it's a start. I'll take what i can get at this point.
 
Which in reality means I whole bunch of nothing. :doubt:
Yep.
The nonbinding measure insists that Obama provide Congress with details on the scope of the mission and its costs within 14 days.
I hear ya. But it's a start. Checks & Balances need to be respected. The U.S. Congress needs to stand up and demand Checks & Balances. This Resolution does not get us out of Libya,but it's a start. I'll take what i can get at this point.
Dennis Kucinich had a better one but it was withdrawn.
 
Which in reality means I whole bunch of nothing. :doubt:
Yep.
The nonbinding measure insists that Obama provide Congress with details on the scope of the mission and its costs within 14 days.
I hear ya. But it's a start. Checks & Balances need to be respected. The U.S. Congress needs to stand up and demand Checks & Balances. This Resolution does not get us out of Libya,but it's a start. I'll take what i can get at this point.
Dennis Kucinich had a better one but it was withdrawn.

Yea i like the earlier Resolution much more. They passed a more watered-down version in the end. But like i said,i'll take what i can get at this point.
 
Granny says, "Dat's right - he's the President, so he oughta know if its legal for him to whup up on Khaddafi...
:clap2:
Obama: War Powers Act doesn't apply to Libya
15 June`11 - 'We are acting lawfully,' says State Department legal adviser
WASHINGTON — The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities. In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.

In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.

Boehner: Explain rationale

The report came one day after the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, had sent a letter to Mr. Obama warning him that he appeared to be out of time under the Vietnam-era law that says presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue. Mr. Boehner had demanded that Mr. Obama explain his legal justification for passing the deadline. On Wednesday, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said he was still reviewing the documents, adding that “the creative arguments made by the White House raise a number of questions that must be further explored.”

The escalating confrontation with Congress reflects the radically altered political landscape in Washington: a Democratic president asserting sweeping executive powers to deploy American forces overseas, while Republicans call for stricter oversight and voice fears about executive-branch power getting the United States bogged down in a foreign war. “We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

Supporting role
 

Forum List

Back
Top