Author Topic: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War  (Read 3295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Freeper

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17779
  • Reputation: +1311/-314
  • Creepy ass cracker.
Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« on: June 15, 2011, 12:43:23 PM »
Quote
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:21 PM
Original message
Congress Members Sue Obama to End War   Updated at 12:21 PM
   
On Wednesday in federal court, 10 members of the U.S. Congress sued President Obama in an attempt to end U.S. involvement in a war in Libya.

These are the plaintiffs: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL), and Dan Burton (R-IN).

According to a statement from Congressman Kucinich:

"The lawsuit calls for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from (1) the policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution; (2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress; (3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress; (4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries; and (5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya."

I would have liked to see the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter extend that list to seven items, but doing so would probably not have altered the result. What will the result be?

During the 70 years since Congress last declared war, the congressional authorizations of war have grown weaker, vaguer, and broader, but the Libya War has set a new mark by excluding Congress entirely. Courts have also tried to claim that even wars never explicitly authorized by Congress become constitutional once Congress funds them. For years now, we've watched congressional "critics" and "opponents" of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan vote over and over again to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into them. The Libya War, here too, sets a new mark: Congress has not authorized a dime for it.

Courts, nonetheless, might be inclined to do the very same thing Congress does on these matters: pass the buck. Congress, a court might argue, has the power to declare a war over, to forbid the spending of funds on it, and/or to impeach its architect. Congress has done nothing of the sort. A growing number of senators is writing a letter to the president. "My kids have done that," a judge might remark. The House has held a vote on a resolution to end the war and failed to pass it. The House has attached amendments to two different bills forbidding funds from those bills being used for the Libya War, but those bills have yet to pass the Senate, and funds can come through other bills. The House, sadly, passed another amendment to one of those bills that would effectively transfer the powers of warmaking to presidents. Even once those bills pass, they might have to be applied retroactively to impact this case. The House has also passed a non-binding resolution expressing its concern that the Libya War has never been authorized, but failing to do anything about it. I don't know on which side of this case that odd resolution will provide support, if either.

Let's assume, however, that the courts do not try to pass the buck back to Congress. Is the Libya War illegal?

I spoke to a college class Tuesday night, and one student asked me if I wasn't being extremist or tactless by calling a war, and in fact all war, illegal. But "illegal" is not a derogatory description like "fat" or "ugly." "Illegal" has a very precise meaning. It means that an action violates written laws. The current war violates the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which under Article VI of the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It violates the UN Charter which holds the same status. It also, in its conduct, almost certainly violates the terms of a UN resolution that is being used to justify it. But let's look at the five points the court will look at:

(1) the policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution;

This was the clear meaning of the Constitution, and overwhelmingly its interpretation both by those who wrote it and by those who used and studied it through most of US history. The catch is the past 70 years of history. If a law is violated routinely for 70 years, must it or can it or should it be enforced?

(2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress;

The North Atlantic Treaty affirms the UN Charter, and the UN Charter forbids war. But if that were the argument that the plaintiffs intended, wouldn't they have listed the UN Charter? Presumably, they intend to rely on the North Atlantic Treaty itself, Article I of which states: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." But there the defense can point to the UN resolution used to launch the war, and it will become necessary to point out that the United Nations passed a resolution for a humanitarian intervention, a no fly zone, a cease fire, an arms embargo, and a ban on foreign ground troops, but it was immediately used to bomb civilians, introduce arms, and employ foreign ground troops, not to mention drone bombings and an apparent assassination attempt. But if that were the argument the plaintiffs intended, wouldn't they have listed the UN resolution on Libya? Perhaps they intend to argue that the North Atlantic Charter permits only wars in response to an attack on a NATO member, and that no NATO member was attacked. Fair enough. But the War Powers Resolution (see #5) is also only applicable if the United States is attacked, and everyone simply pretends otherwise, including presumably this lawsuit.

(3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress;

Here we return to the same ground as point #1 above. The Constitution says one thing. The historical precedent, including President Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia, say something else. Again, does violation of a law serve to permit future violation of a law?

(4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries;

Congress has appropriated incomprehensibly vast sums of money for the military and for secret budgets. President Bush the Lesser gave himself and his successor(s) the power to secretly transfer funds to secret budgets. The CIA has been given the "legal" if unconstitutional power to do just about anything it wants, and to keep what it does secret. One result of that could be that this case is conducted in secret or is shut down due to secrecy concerns. Obama authorized the CIA to arm Libyan fighters, and the CIA has been on the ground in Libya since before the official launch of the US/NATO war. It would not be surprising to hear from the US Justice Department as early as today the cry of "state secrets privilege." NATO might also serve as a money laundering operation here; once funds are handed over to NATO, it could be argued they are beyond US law.

(5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya.

Clearly the Libya War is illegal under the War Powers Resolution. Either it is illegal because the United States was not attacked. Or it is illegal because required information has not been reported to Congress. Or it is illegal because it has gone on for over 60 days without a declaration or authorization of war. In no case is it legal.

The same might be said of the unmentioned Kellogg-Briand Pact. That pact bans war. This is a war. It is not a war that fits the exception for an attack on the United States, because Libya did not attack the United States or even threaten to or even attack or threaten to attack any US ally or imperial outpost. In no case is the war legal.

Unless it's not a war but something else, which is another argument we might see. There is a lot at stake in the question of whether dozens of small and even unmanned killing operations around the world are wars or something else. And if they are something else, do we have any laws that apply to them?

Laws are what people choose to make of them. So is Congress. Whether or not this lawsuit succeeds, for Congress to continue to exist as the first branch of our government, it will have to stop deferring to the judicial branch and instead stand on its own two feet.

On June 3rd the House blocked a resolution to end the war by passing a toothless resolution asking that all sorts of information be provided by the President within 14 days. That comes due this Friday. It would not be shocking if the President missed the deadline or failed to actually include much of the requested information.

The House could then pass the resolution it rejected two weeks ago, ending the war. Or it could pass one barring the use of any funds for the war. Either such measure would have to be passed by the Senate as well.

The House on its own could simply refuse to appropriate any funds for the war. The Senate would not be needed. But thus far the House has already done that, and the funds have simply been found elsewhere in the President's imperial pockets. This is why the decision on point #4 above is extremely important.

In the end, the continued meaningful existence of the House rests on the impeachment power. Bruce Fein has already drafted articles of impeachment for Obama over Libya. But the impeachment power was effectively removed during the presidencies of Clinton and Bush. Its revival does not appear imminent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1300656

Now I wonder why the dems didn't try this with Bush.
Oh that's right he never violated the War Powers Act.

Quote
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Too bad this is bipartisan...
   
The Repubs generally support military intervention. I believe they only support this because the president is slightly darker than white.... and a Dem.

The Dems should long ago have shown leadership on getting us out of the wars.

Hard to imagine Kucinich and Conyers on the same side with Paul and Burton.

Yeah that has to be it, if John I served in Nam Kerry was president we would be in full support of him, right?
 :-)

Quote
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Impeachment?
   
Are you ****ing serious?

Well one of the charges that DU flung at Bush was his war in Iraq was illegal, therefore he should be impoeached, and Dick Cheney should have been president.

Here we have a case of a war that will become illegal if Congress does not give 0bama authorization to continue on. So if impeachment is the punishment fro illegal war then yes 0bama should be impeached, and Bite me should be president long enough to lose the election in 2012.

Quote
Xithras (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. If a judge finds that Obama violated the WPA...
   
...it would certainly meet the legal bar where someone could propose it. Presidents aren't allowed to knowingly break the law. If they do, impeachment is always on the table.

I'm not saying that they SHOULD, and I strongly doubt that anyone would seriously try (though I wouldn't be shocked to hear it proposed halfheartedly as a way to score brownie points with the teabagger set), but it becomes a remote possibility. Dozens of American presidents through history have committed various crimes that would have also met the bar, so this really isn't anything new. Some reps like to bring it up for political reasons, but impeachment attempts are rare for a reason.

If he broke the law then impeachment articles should be drawn up. I would say that even if the president is a repuke, once there is illegal activity congress has a duty to at least start the impeachment ball rolling.

Quote
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I'm sorry, I thought I was at DU.
   
Between the call to action against Obama yesterday, the call for impeachment today and the numerous threads asking one of the leftest leaning Democrats in the House to resign, this place is FUBAR.

Apparently I will have to find a new site that actually supports Democrats.

Don't worry $kimmer will shut up the 0bama bashers before too long.

Quote
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. Just great; now we get President McCain
   
I expect to see certain arguments advanced in opposition to an actual adherence to that quaint old document, "President McCain" being one of them. Additionally, we will hear heart-rending accounts of the atrocities Qaddafi is committing against his citizens. I haven't heard any incubator stories yet (a la the casus belli for Iraq Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but something similar is bound to come along.

I'm a bit surprised that Congress has actually taken steps to enforce their constitutional prerogative. I figured that all sides have a vested interest in avoiding a judicial ruling on what they all already know they're supposed to do. A ruling, though, makes it official that the Executive and the Legislative each have their own defined obligations and duties when it comes to belligerent actions. Call me old-fashioned, but I think if the U.S. is going to launch yet another war, we really ought to cross all the t's and dot all the i's. Just for once.

Do the DUmmies still think that if one is impeached the person who came in second during the election gets the job?

I may not lock my doors while sitting at a red light and a black man is near, but I sure as hell grab on tight to my wallet when any democrats are close by.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2011, 12:53:00 PM »
If Barry is impeached and Biden because President, that means John Boehner will be VP. :whistling:
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline FiddyBeowulf

  • "Its on, its off, its on, its off." "That is called blinking, boys."
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5271
  • Reputation: +523/-34
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2011, 01:02:06 PM »
If Barry is impeached and Biden because President, that means John Boehner will be VP. :whistling:

I am not sure that is correct. I thought if the VP becomes president someone is then nominated and confirmed into the office of VP. If the president and VP are both unable to perform their duties then the Speaker of the House becomes president.

Again I am not 100% sure but I think that is correct.
Fire...BAD!!! - John Fetterman


The policies that are indorsed by this party, that they backer of which are much of the 1 percent, causes a social structure much like the one back before the Revolution.

-Words of wisdom from Lady Freedom Returns

"Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

"A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks more stupid than a hat." - P. J. O'Rourke

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40571
  • Reputation: +2224/-127
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2011, 01:09:10 PM »
I am not sure that is correct. I thought if the VP becomes president someone is then nominated and confirmed into the office of VP. If the president and VP are both unable to perform their duties then the Speaker of the House becomes president.

Again I am not 100% sure but I think that is correct.

Um, Chris_ was making a joke at the DUmmies expense. Many of them do not have a clue as to how the government works.

Offline FiddyBeowulf

  • "Its on, its off, its on, its off." "That is called blinking, boys."
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5271
  • Reputation: +523/-34
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2011, 01:50:36 PM »
Um, Chris_ was making a joke at the DUmmies expense. Many of them do not have a clue as to how the government works.
If so, my bad.
Fire...BAD!!! - John Fetterman


The policies that are indorsed by this party, that they backer of which are much of the 1 percent, causes a social structure much like the one back before the Revolution.

-Words of wisdom from Lady Freedom Returns

"Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

"A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks more stupid than a hat." - P. J. O'Rourke

Offline WinOne4TheGipper

  • Enemy of DU
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2603
  • Reputation: +171/-59
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2011, 03:43:50 PM »
If Barry is impeached and Biden because President, that means John Boehner will be VP. :whistling:

No, no.  Sarah Palin would become vp.    :yahoo:
“Sometimes the curses of the godless sound better than the hallelujahs of the pious.”

Martin Luther

Offline Skul

  • Sometimes I drink water just to surprise my liver
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12475
  • Reputation: +914/-179
  • Chief of the cathouse
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2011, 03:55:55 PM »
From the sheer length of that OP, I had to go back and look who it was.
I though Wilbur the Pitt had stumbled out of Bukakees to dazzle the primatives.
Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2011, 04:08:48 PM »
No, no.  Sarah Palin would become vp.    :yahoo:
No. You've all got it wrong. It would be Kerry. He was the last democrat presidential candidate so he would get it,
but Palin would be Vice President, and Newt would become Speaker of the House again. So the net result would be
even more repukes. Pam just got finished teaching that chapter to her social studies class.

Offline Ralph Wiggum

  • It's unpossible that I'm a
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19514
  • Reputation: +2561/-49
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2011, 04:39:16 PM »
Quote
lazarus   (1000+ posts)      Wed Jun-15-11 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
32. We're locking this

Calling for the President's impeachment isn't really something we support.  


Apparently lazarus' memory isn't all that good, because it was damn near a prerequisite at DU to call for the President's impeachment from 2001 to 2009.
Voted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender


Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2011, 04:42:14 PM »
Apparently lazarus' memory isn't all that good, because it was damn near a prerequisite at DU to call for the President's impeachment from 2001 to 2009.
Google: About 1,490,000 results (0.62 seconds)

Uh huh.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23578
  • Reputation: +2497/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2011, 05:18:31 PM »
Quote
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-15-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Too bad this is bipartisan...
   
The Repubs generally support military intervention. I believe they only support this because the president is slightly darker than white...

TRANSLATION: It's just silly to expect people of color to obey the law.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline miskie

  • Mailman for the VRWC
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10462
  • Reputation: +1035/-54
  • Make America Great Again. Deport some DUmmies.
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2011, 05:40:38 PM »
No. You've all got it wrong. It would be Kerry. He was the last democrat presidential candidate so he would get it,
but Palin would be Vice President, and Newt would become Speaker of the House again. So the net result would be
even more repukes. Pam just got finished teaching that chapter to her social studies class.

Really ? I thought this situation required the Zombie solution -

Zombie Reagan for president - because one only gets two terms while alive, there is nothing in the Constitution barring serving post-mortem.
Zombie Nixon for VP
Zombie Tip O'neil for Speaker of the house
and Zombie Ted Kennedy for Senate leader

Most of the cabinet positions would be filled by zombie presidents down the line, save for Zombie Czar which must be filled by Zombie Abraham Lincoln - because he has the bestest hat.

Offline Evil_Conservative

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7845
  • Reputation: +554/-194
  • Oh snap!
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2011, 06:06:58 PM »
Do any of you see Obama taking action by Friday on Libya? 

Personally, I do not.  I see Obama on the golf course on Friday.  Just start the impeachment process and save some time.
You may call me Jessica or Jess.

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2011, 06:17:16 PM »
Do any of you see Obama taking action by Friday on Libya?
No, and he shouldn't. In a few years, we will have an American in the White House, and possibly a traitorous democrat Congress. The president should be able to use the military in the nation's interest. I don't agree with the action taken in Libya to stomp on a few sand rats, but it's not the kind of military action that should require a declaration of war. The Kootch and the paulbots are pushing this, and that's all you really need to know.

Offline zeitgeist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Reputation: +429/-44
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2011, 06:41:29 PM »
If Barry is impeached and Biden because President, that means John Boehner will be VP. :whistling:

You make dummies cry. :rotf:
< watch this space for coming distractions >

Offline Freeper

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17779
  • Reputation: +1311/-314
  • Creepy ass cracker.
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2011, 06:44:08 PM »
If Barry is impeached and Biden because President, that means John Boehner will be VP. :whistling:

Do you remember the scheme they dreamed up to make Pelosi president after they chimpeached Chimpy and Cheney?
I recall they had some way they thought they could do it, but I forget how.
I may not lock my doors while sitting at a red light and a black man is near, but I sure as hell grab on tight to my wallet when any democrats are close by.

Offline miskie

  • Mailman for the VRWC
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10462
  • Reputation: +1035/-54
  • Make America Great Again. Deport some DUmmies.
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2011, 06:50:42 PM »
Do you remember the scheme they dreamed up to make Pelosi president after they chimpeached Chimpy and Cheney?
I recall they had some way they thought they could do it, but I forget how.


I think it had something to do with this...

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2011, 06:53:10 PM »
I think it had something to do with this...
Isn't that how they were gonna cure Andy, before the freepers killed him?

Offline miskie

  • Mailman for the VRWC
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10462
  • Reputation: +1035/-54
  • Make America Great Again. Deport some DUmmies.
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2011, 06:55:00 PM »
Isn't that how they were gonna cure Andy, before the freepers killed him?

Yeah - its pretty much how they deal with everything.

Offline true_blood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
  • Reputation: +652/-817
Re: Congress Members Sue Obama to End War
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2011, 08:06:40 PM »
Quote
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Wed Jun-15-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Too bad this is bipartisan...
The Repubs generally support military intervention. I believe they only support this because the president is slightly darker than white.... and a Dem.
Really DUmmie? Is that the reason why?
Sorry,....you lose. :bird: