The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Obama Is Breaking The Law

    By Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:53pm | Politics

    What I hate about war is that it makes good people do bad things.  Also, that people have their lives cut short for bad reasons, that money is wasted and that generally only the world's worst people are any better for all the sacrifices made.  But also that it makes good people do bad things.

    Like, right now, Obama has U.S. forces engaged in a military adventure that requires congressional approval.  The War Powers Act gave him 60 days and they've now expired.  If you support our intervention in Libya, I don't expect that this will change your mind about anything.  I can see a reasonable person dismiss this as a technicality, given that the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act has been challenged in the past and that Congress is largely to blame for not seizing the powers (and responsibilities, and risks of being wrong) that the Act grants them.

    I think that sometimes technicalities are important.  Our military has to be used in a letter of the law way and it even seems that Obama could get Congressional approval if he thinks that it's important to do so.  If the Republicans hold it up and demand that in exchange for approval we also kick everyone off Medicaid, then Obama should say no, summon our troops home and tell the world the truth, which is that our system is broken right now that we can't do much of anything.  Let the Republicans deal with that.

    Because no matter what I think of the Congressional Republicans, I do not believe that UN authorization is enough to justify the use of the U.S. military.  It has been argued that our treaty obligations might make such actions necessary, whether or not Congressional approval can be obtained.  But I think this puts things in the wrong order.  Say a treaty requires that the U.S. goes to war.  I would argue that in order to fulfill its treaty obligations, the U.S. government would have to go through whatever legal mechanisms are required of it.  If it fails to do that, it will simply fail to meet its treaty obligations.

    Say I owe you money.  It's a real debt, we all agree.  I have an obligation to you.  But that obligation doesn't empower me to pay you by any means necessary.  I don't get a pass if I rob a liquor store to pay you back.  It's expected that I will do everything legally within my power to pay you back and that if I fail, I fail.  I view a treaty the same way.

    U.S. participation in the Libya war is illegal now.  Not too many people seem to care, but it is.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Good-o, Destor.  But it turns out Obama did send Congress a letter to authorize it.  Apparently it won't come to the House floor since Republicans are so peeved he 'didn't consult' with them earlier.

    But an amendment barely lost that would have forced Obama into an accelerated troop withdrawl in Afghanistan (damn!) BUT in another amendment that passed, prhibited Obama from putting 'boots on the ground'; maybe no huge deal, depending how you parse it.

    What IS funky to me, if Emptywheel is right (can't swear she is, but...) Mark Udall and Ron Wyden are trying to change language in the NDAA that apparently the administration has written to widen the definition (or cloud it so much as to have the same effect) for data collection on pretty much anyone they want, i.e. no proof needed of culpability or evidence of ties to crime.

    I was going to write it up and see what people thought; if true, I sincerely don't like it; closer and closer to Total Information Awareness to me (over-the-top maybe, but bad).

    Oh: and you do owe me money, pay it back by any means necesary please.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:39pm

    I think you should definitely write that up.  I don't know if Emptywheel is right or not but that recent Jane Mayer piece in The New Yorker has me convinced that the NSA is pursuing TIA whether it's legal or not.  And since there's no oversight, why not?


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:04pm

    I hadn't seen Mayer's piece; I'll look it up.  She's one dogged journalist.  I will write it if I have time, but then the voting may be all over by the time I can get to it.  Fast-tracking these things is the order of the day it seems.

    I saw a brief bit on teevee with Cameron and Obama about Libya, Cameron wanting to double-down on doing 'whatever it takes' to get 'it done'.  The voiceover indicated that Obama demurred, but then he also knew that the House hadn't done anything about his letter.  I guess you may be right that he'll just move on past it, and not many will care.  The 'no boots on the ground' seems to be the deal-breaker here at dagblog, but I've never quite gotten why.

    (Cripes; someone's shooting an automatic rifle near here.  Arrrggh!  Like 42 shots already.  Asshat.)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:14pm

    Where are you that asshats have machine guns?


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:22pm

    Dipstick County, SW Colorado.  I phone the sheriff last year about it: not illegal, even in the freaking dark.  I've phoned every neighbor, noboy knows nuffin'.  Shoot, this county's so redneck that last year some church had a drawing and the prize was an auto or semi-auto rifle.  Yaarggh!

    The local Teahadists are so big here now that the SPLC came down to do some interviews, and ended up putting either Cortez or the County on an extremist category on their site.

    Here it is; I dug it up.  The militia sites are going crazy over it, of course.  I don't always agree with Morris Dees, like when a great transexual Navajo teen was brutally murderd, they wouldn't list it no matter how many times I sent them the coverage, but some weird crap happens around here.

    Plus, I apologize; I mixed up Patriot Act and NDAA, both of which are in the pipeline now.

    And here's Spencer Ackerman at Wired Danger Room, calling out Harry Reid for dubbing foes of the bill as "Friends of Osama'. 

    "Remember back when a Republican was in the White House and demanded broad surveillance authority? Here’s Reid back then. ”Whether out of convenience, incompetence, or outright disdain for the rule of law, the administration chose to ignore Congress and ignore the Constitution,” Reid said about Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. When Bush insisted Congress entrench that surveillance with legislation in 2008, Reid turned around and demanded Bush “stop fear-mongering and start being honest with the American people about national security.” Any claim about the detrimental impact about a lapse in widespread surveillance were “scare tactics” to Reid that ”irresponsibly distort reality.” (Then Reid rolled over for Bush.)

    That’s nowhere near the end of Reid’s hypocrisy here. When the Senate debated renewing the Patriot Act in 2006, Reid, a supporter of the bill’s surveillance procedures, himself slowed up the bill’s passage to allow amendments to it — the better to allow “sensible checks on the arbitrary exercise of executive power.” Sounding a whole lot like Rand Paul, the 2006-vintage Reid registered his “objection to the procedural maneuver under which Senators have been blocked from offering any amendments to this bill” and reminded his colleagues, ”the hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate.”

    Another case where I start finding the political labels entirely useless, as in: Remember when Democrats __________?


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:40pm

    I don't understand how people like Reid get away with such outright hypocrisy.  Very frustrating.  As for your neighborhood situation, I was raised in New Mexico where gun laws were also very lax.  You can basically carry them anywhere, if they're in plain sight.  You can't discharge a firearm within some city and town limits but every New Year's Eve somebody gets hit by a falling bullet some moron shot into the air.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:50pm

    Yep, and yep.  Here the sheriff gives conceal permits out like...water, too.  And he doesn't mind the Teahadists picketing the Forest Service office with signs about 'second amendment remedies'.  Glad our son is outta that ranger district. 


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 6:00pm

    On one hand, you've got the NSA demanding access to every corporate and personal bit of information on everyone that's electronically storable and these guys are worried about park rangers.  First, they came for my fishing permit...


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 7:04pm

    And the extent to which most Dems are okay with it baffles me blue, Destor.  We used to be adamantly the party supporting The Rule of Law.  What's happened?  Bin Laden's dead, but not much has changed...still...The Fear Factor Rules.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 7:51pm

    The Patriot Act just passed the Senate 72-23; ; all done.  It's a bit good that these folks voted nay:

    Akaka (D-HI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Begich (D-AK)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Durbin (D-IL)

    Franken (D-MN)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Murkowski (R-AK)

     

    		 Murray (D-WA)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Tester (D-MT)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:53pm

     EVerify law will allow Big Brother to track us even more.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/supreme_court_says_arizona_can_punish_businesses_t.php?ref=fpb

    Government allows/creates a problem, so that government can get more control. and be more invasive telling us; it's for our own good

    Our forefathers wanted to keep government in check. Now the Government looks for ways to get around those checks.


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:02pm

    But it turns out Obama did send Congress a letter to authorize it

    Actually, as your Hill link explains, he sent a letter to the House after the Senate drafted a resolution on its own.

    More details from A.P., from May 23:

    Libya Resolution Agreed To By Senate Democrats, Republicans

    So it looks to me like what's really going on is that the Senate was ready to do it but apparently the House just doesn't want to talk about it right now, there's other stuff they'd rather do or somethin'

    So to Destor:

    looks to me like your gripe is with the House and not the president or the Senate.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:15pm

    I agree that my gripe is with the House, which should be exercising its War Powers enthusiastically (no matter which way it decides to act).  But, I still have some gripes with Obama because the War Powers Act says get authorization or get out, not ask for authorization and then do whatever you want if you don't get an answer.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:15pm

    From The Hill link:

    Two senior Democratic aides said the GOP was unlikely to touch the issue.

    “It has been communicated to us that the Republican leadership has no interest in having this come to the floor,” one aide said.

    Boehner’s office declined to respond..


    by artappraiser on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:27pm

    So, then... we should be withdrawing, right?  The absence of a no vote (or any vote) can't be equated with authorization.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:35pm

    It's an interesting question.  It takes two to tango, or in this case three.  If one of the partners in the check and balance system refuses to participate in the dance after given an opportunity, then this could be interpreted as giving the other ability to go about as they see fit.  I might be wrong but the Constitution doesn't address the issue of elected officials playing politics with matters such as this.  Life (and global politics) goes on even if the system is broken.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:59pm

    It could be as you say.  But that's not the way things work in most walks of life.  Usually if the law says you need affirmation to do something, you don't take silence as a consent.  Like, if you apply for a passport and they never answer you, you can't just assume it's fine and fly internationally, right?  It might be their failure, but it's still on you to get what's required.

    But then we get into the issue of whether the War Powers Act is Constitutional at all, and I don't know the answer to that.  If it isn't, then it seems like only Congress can declare war but that the President can still use the military for whatever (and that to stop him, Congress would have to defund the operations specifically).


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:11pm

    and then we get into what is technically a war, and what is a police action, and what is just a military operation or intervention, and so on.  I would posit there will never be a definitive definition which will have some kind of practical consensus. If one agrees with the action in Libya, for instance, it will be seen as something not-war (at least in regards as it applies to constraints on the president) and it one disagrees with the action, then the opposite.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:41pm

    While that is an interesting question (in a trite sort of way), it is irrelevant to the question of the War Powers Act which requires authorization, which would be:

    In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
    (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
    (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
    (3)     in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

    It seems legislature has long been aware of the semantics relativists try to use to absolve themselves of accountability and didn't actually use the word "war."

    I dunno. Presenting a fluid definition of war based on how one feels about a specific conflict seems sort of like a willingness to lie to order to achieve political advantage (or do something that wouldn't be justified if words maintained a consistent definition). I totally agree with the action in Libya. It is still totally a war. NATO is dropping bombs within the borders of a sovereign nation and sinking their ships and killing people and stuff. I don't know what you consider to be a war ... but out here in the world where we assign meanings to words so that communication can be facilitated, that sure as hell looks an awful lot like war.

    Regardless the semantic, he should be required to follow the law vis-a-vis the War Powers Act. If the act itself is unconstitutional the way our system provides to determine such is to challenge it before the supreme court and get a ruling. Until that happens, it is law. And the law is pretty explicit that absent further authorization by congress the president is legally required to cease the action.

    ...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...

    President Obama certainly appears to be breaking the letter of the law if he maintains military assets in a configuration based on deployments pursuant to the NATO action unless he presses the issue and demands congressional authorization. Agreeing with the action in Libya doesn't change it.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:23am

    And most people I believe deep down believe / feel that doing the right thing overrides the law.  So whether it is something mundane as a spouse speeding 30 mph over the speed limit to get his partner to the hospital or a president using the military, if someone views that action as the right thing to do then one can talk about the "letter of the law" until the cows come home and it won't mean much at all. 

    And in the case of something like Libya, if one has to point to some Act passed by Congress because the Constitution doesn't clarify the matter, then all you will have in the end is political junkies hammering back and forth over nuances most people don't care about.  The only question that has resonance is "should we doing it?", not whether the corrupt politicians in DC have given their blessing.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:37am

    Yes, the big criticism of Obama early on was that he wasn't decisive enough--people were dying and he was fiddling. Later, it became clear that he put the whole thing together pretty quickly AND has gotten other nations to take the lead for once.

    WPA does allow for swift action and then congressional approval later. But "later," the people were still in danger and getting congressional approval out of THIS congress--one half of which wants Obama to fail no matter what--is utterly unwieldy. Getting a SC ruling even more so.

    So yes, he's breaking the law...and he's helping to save lives.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 2:57pm

    I just can't imagine, the framers of the Constitution, would grant the ability to impeach a whacked out President, Then allow a whacked out President, to usurp the authority given by the people, that being, only the peoples Congress, could take us to war.

    The people and not a President, should have the say on such a life and death matter.

    It isnt the President on the front line, it's the people.

    If the people say no way are we giving away our rights, without our voices being heard, thats why we have representatives.   

    The President and members swore an oath to defend, we didnt give them the ability for offensive action, without our deliberation, then consent, THEN we bestow upon the Commander to take us from a defensive posture to an offensive one  but not until it has been granted by the people. 

    Why would the framers who feared, what government could do; put checks and balances in place?

    King George was rebuked for taking American Colonists to fight in the kings Navy and Army, 

    We as a people found it deplorable, that a King would decide and not the people.  

    Thats just IMHO 


    by Resistance on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 1:06am

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING HAS AN INNOCENT MAN.

                                                                  JESUS H. CHRIST


    by Richard Day on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:18pm

    I thought the quote must have come from Dylan.    ;o)


    by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:23am

    Here's the video; a nice choreographed dance,with Cameron as the raging tiger....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qn-ZBjrST8

    And TIA in common usage?


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:00pm

    Turns out they talked about it at the House Foreign Affairs Committee Weds.:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/middleeast/26powers.html

    though that article makes it sound like some of them haven't heard about the Senate resolution or the president's letter nor of the House leadership's refusal to answer it. Do they coordinate anything or communicate with each other about what's going on? Did their staff have the day off and they had to wing it without info? Or is it the reporter's fault by not clearly describing their discussion?  Or were some of them just bloviating for the record? (saving in case needed for a campaign ad?)


    by artappraiser on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:38pm

    I think there's a good chance that we'll find that Obama is operating under authorization provided by a legal opinion. I'm not taking a position  that's OK, just saying that there's a missing piece of data/. Seems like the press should be raising that question with Obama's press secretary..

    As someone who ,unrealistically, approved of starting this war but not of continuing it( i.e.limited  to protecting  Benghazi ) I completely agree you're raising a vital issue.  

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:43pm

    I wonder if he thinks he's acting legally or with impunity.

    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 6:42am

    I finally read the letter he sent Congress; this piece demonstrates that in it Obama doesn't so much ask for Congressional action but support.  

    "Administration officials offered no theory for why continuing the air war in Libya in the absence of Congressional authorization and beyond the deadline would be lawful. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, portrayed it as a significant constitutional moment.

    “There may be facts of which we are unaware, but this appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution’s requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress’s support,” Mr. Goldsmith said.

    Multimedia
    Photographs
    Battle for Libya

    Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said that the validity of the War Powers Resolution had been so debated that writings about it “over the years could fill this room, and none of it would be conclusive.”

    Congress enacted the resolution in 1973, overriding President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, in an effort to reassert its constitutional role in making decisions about whether the country would get involved in significant armed conflicts."

    This says "The Obama administration has said it believes it is acting consistently with the resolution, although it has not explained why it thinks so."

    This is the same President who holds that detainees can be held indefinitely, and seems to like massive data collection on citizens who've not even been linked with ccrime or 'terrorists' or whatever.  So a cynic might say that he is acting with impunity; all the critics in the OP AA linked grumbled and griped, but didn't seem to mind; some even thought the War Powers Act could be rewritten to accomodate this stuff.Regulat Towers of Jello, probably imagining their guy (gal) doing it.

    And remember: this isn't like lying to Congress about blowjobs or anything serious like that.

     


    by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:40am

    Carney's language '... consistent with the WPR' is pretty clearly flagging the position that the WPR is unconstitutional (otherwise they'd say 'pursuant to the WPR'). Much like Clinton stated the view that it is unconstitutional, and won the case in federal and appeals court before the Supreme Court downright refused to hear the congressional case against the president. 

    If Congress wants to stop a war, they just need to stop funding it. That is the extent of their constitutiional power, and it is considerable.


    by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:31am

    But please.  In a new round of Orwellian-speak, David Cameron says that he's been informed by MI6 that Gadaffi is increasingly...nuts and paranoid, and is hiding out in hospitals and various residences.  There have been a few Oops! moments when NATO forces bombed buildings in attempts to not kill him.

    But he has gone very public with having given the okay for British and French (after France leaked the story) Apache helcopter gunships to go after him (that'll make him surrender) but French Foreign Minister Juppe says:

    "The implicit threat in the use of the helicopters is that it will be easy to assassinate Gaddafi. But the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, insisted this was not the plan. "We don't want to kill him," he said. "Because we are not killers." 

    Tongue out


    by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:56am

    Wow.  None of that makes any sense?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 10:13am

    Well it  might have had I not forgotten to include the Ooops! link; kinda hard to say how many civilians have been mistakenly killed.  But seriously, if you want sense, don't go to the French, the Brits or... the Americans, Destor.

    The blowback with the Russians and Chinese ain't purty, either.  But we have our eyes shifted on I/P; much better copy, second only to American Idol.   ;oP


    by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 10:30am

    War Powers Resolution struggles for respect
    by Susan Cornwall, Reuters, May 26.

    ....The resolution was a child of Vietnam...Passed over Richard Nixon's veto....

    But Congress, distracted by....can't seem to get excited enough about Libya to assert its supposed powers to either authorize or stop the intervention there.

    The House of Representatives did vote on Thursday to ban funds from being used to put U.S. troops on the ground in Libya....

    CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AT ISSUE

     Article One of the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. But Article Two says the president is commander in chief of the armed forces.

     This has been a source of friction at least since President Harry S. Truman committed U.S. forces to Korea in 1950 without congressional approval......

    HOUSE LAWMAKERS TRY TO SHAKE THINGS UP

    But first-term Representative Amash, elected last year with Tea Party support, has proposed a bill to eliminate funds for the Libya operation unless Congress authorizes it. However, no action is scheduled on that or several other related bills.....


    by artappraiser on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 11:56am

    Thanks, aa.  Great primer on the issues there.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:15pm

    Here's a rundown of events when Clinton took on the War Powers Resolution after 60 days of the Kosovo operation, which sheds some light on the legal status of the WPR:

    On May 25, 1999, the 60th day had passed since the President notified Congress of his actions regarding U.S. participation in military operations in Kosovo. Representative Campbell, and those who joined his suit, noted to the Federal Court that this was a clear violation of the language of the War Powers Resolution stipulating a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area of hostilities  occur after 60 days in the absence of congressional authorization to continue, or a presidential request to Congress for an extra 30 day period to safely withdraw. The President did not seek such a 30-day extension, noting instead that the War Powers Resolution is constitutionally defective. On June 8, 1999, Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman dismissed the suit of Representative Campbell and others that sought to have the court rule that President Clinton was in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by conducting military activities in Yugoslavia without having received prior authorization from Congress. The judge ruled that Representative Campbell and others lacked legal standing to bring the suit (Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 1999)). Representative Campbell appealed the ruling on June 24, 1999, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals court agreed to hear the case. On February 18, 2000, the appeals court affirmed the opinion of the District Court that Representative Campbell and his co-plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the President. (Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). On May 18, 2000, Representative Campbell and 30 other Members of Congress appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court. On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the appeal of Representative Campbell thereby letting stand the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Campbell v. Clinton, cert. denied, 531U.S. 815 October 2, 2000). On May 18, 2000, the Senate defeated by, a vote of 47-53, an amendment to S. 2521, the Senate’s version of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, FY2001, that would have, among other things, terminated funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless the President sought and received Congressional authorization to keep U.S.
    troops in Kosovo.



    by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:19pm

    The Representatives lacked the standing?  Yikes; counter-intuitive, isn't it?


    by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:26pm

    Here's the HLR's summary of the decision:

    On June 8, Judge Friedman held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and dismissed the suit. The conflict ended two days later; the plaintiffs nevertheless appealed.The D.C. Circuit affirmed. Writing for the court, Judge Silberman called the suit an attempt to find a "soft spot" in the barrier that Raines v. Byrd erected against legislative challenges to executive action. He explained that the Raines Court had stated a general rule that legislators may not challenge executive action in court, but that the Court's failure to overrule Coleman v. Miller left an exception to that rule. Judge Silberman read Coleman's survival to mean that legislators may still challenge executive action if they have no legislative power to prevent or to counter that action. Judge Silberman applied this test to Campbell's facts and held that Congress had legislative remedies for the President's actions in Yugoslavia and that its members therefore lacked standing. Congress could have ordered the President to withdraw from the conflict, refused to appropriate funds for the conflict, or impeached the President. Furthermore, Judge Silberman wrote that the plaintiffs' two claims alleged only unlawful presidential action and that under Raines such claims, standing alone, did not support legislative standing.

    That was what I was saying in somewhat abbreviated form above. If Congress have other means of constraining the action in question, then they have no standing to sue. Makes sense, though of course it weakens Congress' position somewhat - they need to actively take action to stop the President, rather than just passively omit to provide War-making authority.


    by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 1:24pm

    Thank you, Obey.  I didn't realize that 'alternative remedies' was a legal precedent.  But yes; gives a Prez plenty of maneuvering room given that so many Congress-critters are so...incoherent on issues like war, balancing campaign contributions and political dramatics and opposition.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:21pm

    In my opinion, it's not the President overreaching or going 'rogue' as Destor suggests, it's Congress running away from their responsibilities. They can't be fucked to provide any oversight or push-back when it comes to military/security measures.

    If you look at Congress now, you don't want to depend on them providing a majority vote authorizing a war without taking the issue hostage (cf. debt ceiling). If the war's unpopular, they can collect a majority to defund it. Seems like a reasonable setup to me...


    by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:01pm

    Seems like a reasonable set up to me, too.  What bugs me about this situation is that it means the War Powers Act is totally meaningless.

    The President is acting as if it doesn't exist.

    Congress is acting as if it doesn't exist.

    But it does exist.  It's just an unenforced law.  The fact is, there is probably not public support for (or congressional desire to) order Obama out of Libya, or to defund it, or even to oppose it.  Which means, just for the sake of following the law, Congress should hold a quick vote authorizing it.  In the absence of that, the President really should follow the letter of the law and withdraw.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:31pm

    You will recall that I got Congress approval before I kicked Sadaam's butt!

     


    by The Decider on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:34pm

    Yup. Great timing too. Just before the first election after 9/11.

    Andrew Card explained the timing as sort of a commercial calculation 'you never start a marketing campaign during the summer' . You can believe that you'll believe anything- as Wellington replied when he was greeted "Mr. Smith I believe".


    by Flavius on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:52pm