dagblog - Comments for "Obama Is Breaking The Law"

Yes, the big criticism of

Peter Schwartz — Sat, 28 May 2011 18:57:58 +0000

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.

Yup. Great timing too. Just

Flavius — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:52:07 +0000

In reply to You will recall that I got

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".

You will recall that I got

The Decider — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:34:58 +0000

In reply to Obama Is Breaking The Law

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

Seems like a reasonable set

Michael Maiello — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:31:30 +0000

In reply to In my opinion, it's not the

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.

In my opinion, it's not the

Obey — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:01:13 +0000

In reply to Thank you, Obey. I didn't

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...

Thank you, Obey. I didn't

we are stardust — Fri, 27 May 2011 18:21:01 +0000

In reply to Here's the HLR's summary of

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.

Here's the HLR's summary of

Obey — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:24:19 +0000

In reply to The Representatives lacked

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.

The Representatives lacked

we are stardust — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:26:28 +0000

In reply to Here's a rundown of events

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

Here's a rundown of events

Obey — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:19:46 +0000

In reply to War Powers Resolution

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.

Thanks, aa. Great primer on

Michael Maiello — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:15:20 +0000

In reply to War Powers Resolution

Thanks, aa. Great primer on the issues there.