Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would take 2/3 of both houses to override a veto - 10 congressmen doesn't quite get you there.
Also, there is no special appropriation for Libya, it's just being paid for out of annual DOD appropriations...
According to the War Powers Act, Congress solely holds the purse strings to fund these actions. There's no veto power. This is not regular legislation.
The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches:
Judicial Branch is not involved.
However, it looks like the Judicial Branch can be summoned for legal interpretations regarding the War Powers Act. See Campbell v Clinton at the link above and noted below.
Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit;
According to the War Powers Act, Congress solely holds the purse strings to fund these actions. There's no veto power. This is not regular legislation.
The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches:
Judicial Branch is not involved.
Are we talking about the war powers act or about defunding? They're two different things. Congress could defund Iraq or Afghanistan because funds were specifically appropriated for them. That doesn't guarantee an end to the action though - regular DOD appropriations could be used to pay for limited continuation. In theory they could defund DOD altogether, but that isn't an option. Since there was no specific appropriation for Libya, I don't believe it can be defunded.
Defunding doesn't involve the judicial in any way, unless of course a defunding bill contained something unconstitutional.
Suing for violation of war powers is entirely a judicial matter. I assume anyone could sue, the fact that it's a few congressmen isn't particularly relevant...
Are we talking about the war powers act or about defunding? They're two different things. Congress could defund Iraq or Afghanistan because funds were specifically appropriated for them. That doesn't guarantee an end to the action though - regular DOD appropriations could be used to pay for limited continuation. In theory they could defund DOD altogether, but that isn't an option. Since there was no specific appropriation for Libya, I don't believe it can be defunded.
Defunding doesn't involve the judicial in any way, unless of course a defunding bill contained something unconstitutional.
Suing for violation of war powers is entirely a judicial matter. I assume anyone could sue, the fact that it's a few congressmen isn't particularly relevant...
Kucinich doesn't seem to have standing to sue the President as Campbell v Clinton seems to preclude that.
I wonder if a soldier could refuse to participate in military actions against Libya or Yemen on the grounds that the President breaking the law here?
Seems like they would have standing to sue. There has to be some avenue by which a soldier can refuse an illegal order and have it judicially reviewed.
I wonder if a soldier could refuse to participate in military actions against Libya or Yemen on the grounds that the President breaking the law here?
Seems like they would have standing to sue. There has to be some avenue by which a soldier can refuse an illegal order and have it judicially reviewed.
However, it looks like the Judicial Branch can be summoned for legal interpretations regarding the War Powers Act. See Campbell v Clinton at the link above and noted below.
Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit;
But Obama Admin doesn't make that claim. They said two days ago they are abiding by the law and they have no problem with the WSR.
“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
