[mordechaj]

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-congress-ang ... war-libya/

While Obama is not obligated legally to receive approval for military action by the Congress, most insisted it is in his best interest to consult with the elected lawmakers and his duty under the War Powers Act of 1973 which insists the President consult with Congress. However, presidential powers have greatly expanded over the years to become increasingly vague.

Obama is required however to go to the Congress if he intends to declare war.

“I think [the President] has a duty and an obligation to come to Congress,” Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz told The Huffington Post. “I see no clear and present danger to the United States of America. I just don't. We're in a bit of the fog at the moment as to what the President is trying to ultimately do.”

“In the absence of a credible, direct threat to the United States and its allies or to our valuable national interests, what excuse is there for not seeking congressional approval of military action?” said Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler. “I think it is wrong and a usurpation of power and the fact that prior presidents have done it is not an excuse.”

Republican Congressman Justin Amash has directly alleged Obama is violating the US Constitution by engaging in military action in Libya, citing words used by President Obama himself as a Senator.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," said Obama as a US Senator.

“Under the President's and my reading of the Constitution, the U.S. must halt all strikes against Libya. I call on congressional leadership to reconvene session so we can vote on whether to authorize military action,” Amash concluded.

In addition, Republican Congressman and presidential contender Ron Paul is promoting a resolution that expresses Congress’ belief that the US President is required to obtain in advance specific authorization for the use of the US military in Libya. The measure has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

US Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said the US involvement in the intervention in Libya lacks constitutional authority. It’s illegal.

“The President has no constitutional basis for the order that he gave sending armed forces into combat over Tripoli,” he explained. “We are in a fourth war, fourth front, you have to count Pakistan plus Iraq and Afghanistan. When do these wars end? The United States does not have unlimited power here. We have to be very careful about making it appear that we are looking for opportunities to strike inside Muslim nations.”

America needs to find a diplomatic angle with the Muslim community, including leaving Afghanistan, Pakistan and other regions. You must work with the world, not drop bombs and kill civilians, he explained.

He noted it is positive the international community is working tougher on Libya. However, it still violates US procedure.

“We have a prior process that trumps the UN. That’s called our Constitution which requires that presidents have to get congressional approval to take our country to war,” Kucinich said.

Obama should have gained approval before committing the US to the fight. There was no reason to respond with executive action because the threat was not an imminent threat against the US or its people.

“At some point the Congress is going to have to move to cut off funds for any action in Libya,” he added. “There’s a point at which the process of political change, as difficult as it may be in various countries, has to be done by those people in those countries.”

Kucinich explained there needs to be a clear discussion that highlights the powers the president has and does not have so that abuses of power can be prevented in the future.

So her you go people.How do you see it? Is he violating US constitution or not??

[El Gilroy]

The US aggression is entirely illegal, illegitimate, and morally reprehensible.

THe EU intervention on the other hand is a really nice thing to do for a people in need.

[Fasces]

This criticism is entirely motivated by partisanship.

[Aekos]

The US aggression is entirely illegal, illegitimate, and morally reprehensible.

THe EU intervention on the other hand is a really nice thing to do for a people in need.

This is sarcasm, right?

[eugenekop]

Illegal or not, it is very very stupid.

[Oxymoron]

It is legal, he is the Head of the military and he could extend war zones anywhere he chooses.

[El Gilroy]

It was intended as schmuck bait for NA, but he seems to be having a slow day.

[nucklepunche]

Illegal from a standpoint of the constitutional requirement to declare war. The last US military action legal under the constitution was WWII and every president has taken a military action of some kind since then, therefore every president from Truman to Obama should have been impeached.

[Fasces]

This conflict is as legal as Korea and the First Gulf War, suffice to say.

[whale]

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," said Obama as a US Senator.

That comment was correct, but I never thought for a second that he made it for a sincere reason.
The man is a hypocrite, big surprise.

Illegal from a standpoint of the constitutional requirement to declare war. The last US military action legal under the constitution was WWII and every president has taken a military action of some kind since then, therefore every president from Truman to Obama should have been impeached.

Every president since WW2 has taken military action without the approval of congress?
LOL

[U184]

It is not just the USA, why leave out the Allies, especially since the USA is acting with limited involvement in said conflict? A coalition of forces intervening with UN approval is not the same as one country declaring war. This conflict is a direct response to a UN resolution mandate:

No-Fly Zone over Libya, Authorizing All Necessary Measures to Protect Civilians Approved

In a recent statement..

an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Col. Gadhafi to his own people.

As for the legality of the matter, the president does not need authorization from Congress before launching a military offensive, the action can go on for 60 days then he can institute another 30 day extension without congressional support. This is covered in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 under Public Law 93-148.

[MisterFreeze]

It's legal under the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory. The Security Council made the decision, and the United States is bound to support that decision as a member. It's a fulfillment of a treaty obligation, legally.

If you'd like this decision to be illegal, I suggest you join a political campaign either to change the UN Charter or for the United States to leave the UN.

[Social_Critic]

Well Mr Freeze, some of us think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I think the president should have gone to Congress to ask for approval to use the country's military assets. But I also think Clinton should have done the same in 1999, and Bush, given the enormity of the funds and the numbers committed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, should have had congress declare war.

Unfortunately, we have a country run by people whose specialty is to pick and choose which laws they want to follow.

[U184]

The office of the President of the United States of America is that of Commander and chief of its military forces. Constraining his actions and allowing those who have no idea what is, or is not needed, to protect the Nation is insane.

The Presidential office absolutely needs the ability to act and react to military actions, when and where needed and needs to do so on short notice. The constitution was written by militant men who understood that concept.

Also there is a difference between a declared war, a police action and contractual action entered with the United Nations Security Council. Congress approved of the United States becoming a member of the UN, thus they have already given their approval to the Executive Office to fulfill all member obligations. Click Image/Link below for full document.

Article 4
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

Article 23
1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.

Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
2. In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 42
it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 48
1.The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

[MisterFreeze]

Well Mr Freeze, some of us think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I think the president should have gone to Congress to ask for approval to use the country's military assets. But I also think Clinton should have done the same in 1999, and Bush, given the enormity of the funds and the numbers committed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, should have had congress declare war.

Unfortunately, we have a country run by people whose specialty is to pick and choose which laws they want to follow.

I'm sure the War Powers Act violates your understanding of the Constitution, in fact I'm pretty sure it violates my own understanding of the Constitution, but until the SCOTUS decides to back us up on that one, the WPA is the law. The question posed was whether the US intervention in Lybia is illegal. I'm certainly not a lawyer or any manner of legal expert, but by my understanding the military action is legal.

[Doug64]

Here is what candidate Obama said:

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

For once, candidate Obama got it right (though I'd extend it to include protecting and defending the citizens of our allies), and so President Obama should be impeached and removed from office.

It's legal under the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory. The Security Council made the decision, and the United States is bound to support that decision as a member. It's a fulfillment of a treaty obligation, legally.

Which would require an act of Congress to to carry out that obligation, the president does not have the constitutional right to do so unilaterally. We are part of the UN as treaty signatories, and a treaty cannot overrule the Constitution, ever. For that, we have the amendment process.

Well Mr Freeze, some of us think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I think the president should have gone to Congress to ask for approval to use the country's military assets. But I also think Clinton should have done the same in 1999, and Bush, given the enormity of the funds and the numbers committed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, should have had congress declare war.

Actually, we did. For Iraq, there was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 for the first one, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 for the second time around. For Afghanistan, there was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

[U184]

The instances you show did not have a UN mandate this instance does...

Congress approved of the United States becoming a member of the UN, thus they have already given their approval to the Executive Office to fulfill all member obligations. No further congressional approval is needed to follow UN mandates.

[Doug64]

The instances you show did not have a UN mandate this instance does...

Congress approved of the United States becoming a member of the UN, thus they have already given their approval to the Executive Office to fulfill all member obligations. No further congressional approval is needed to follow UN mandates.

So tell me, hypothetically speaking, if the US signed a treaty with Russia that required all negative references to the former USSR be banned from US airwaves and the Senate signed off on it, would that treaty override the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech?

[Fasces]

The Senate must approve treaties. Such a treaty would be found unconstitutional. What part of the codified law are you not getting - the President may act unilaterally up to sixty days without Congressional approval. We are discussing the reasons behind this in this thread, but regardless of the reasoning behind it, nothing being done by Obama is illegal.

[MisterFreeze]

Which would require an act of Congress to to carry out that obligation, the president does not have the constitutional right to do so unilaterally. We are part of the UN as treaty signatories, and a treaty cannot overrule the Constitution, ever. For that, we have the amendment process.

It bothers me when people treat their opinions as fact, mostly because most people don't know that they're doing it. As I said above

I'm sure the War Powers Act violates your understanding of the Constitution, in fact I'm pretty sure it violates my own understanding of the Constitution, but until the SCOTUS decides to back us up on that one, the WPA is the law.

If you think the UN Charter is unconstitutional, then you think the UN Charter is unconstitutional. You thinking it's unconstitutional does not make it unconstitutional. We have a judiciary branch of government for making such determinations officially. The OP's question was not 'should it be legal?', but rather 'is this legal?' The answer to the second question is yes.