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.
And yet, the WPA allows for those reasons to be overlooked, by affording the President the discretion to employ troops first, notify Congress second, then let the chips fall where they may with regard to whether or not the President can make his case to Congress.
You may consider it a technicality, but that's all that's required to give him cover under the WPA. Which means the answer to the question posed in this thread; "Is Obama violating the War Powers Act?", is No.
wrong Jill. the Act calls for
1. Declariation of war
2. Statutory Authority
3. An attack on Americans or an American territory.
WPA is violated if the President sends in troops outside of these 3 conditions.
wrong Jill. the Act calls for
1. Declariation of war
2. Statutory Authority
3. An attack on Americans or an American territory.
WPA is violated if the President sends in troops outside of these 3 conditions.
What part of this is so hard to understand?
No Act can or should be read in pieces, isolating them from the other parts of the law. Each part bears an importance as it relates to the Law as a whole.
The WPA allows the President to take military action first, notify Congress second, and provide his or her reasons for doing so in writing later. It is up to Congress to determine, based on this written submission, whether those reasons fall within #3, or, if they do not, to require him or her to remove the troops from the action.
Since Congress as a body has not weighed in yet on whether they agree that the President's written reasons fit within the law, I fail to see how you, personally, can declare that they don't. And until Congress has their say, the President is well within the scope of his power under both Article II and the WPA to continue with the military action he has engaged the troops in.
What part of this is so hard for you to understand is a mystery to me.
No Act can or should be read in pieces, isolating them from the other parts of the law. Each part bears an importance as it relates to the Law as a whole.
The WPA allows the President to take military action first, notify Congress second, and provide his or her reasons for doing so in writing later. It is up to Congress to determine, based on this written submission, whether those reasons fall within #3, or, if they do not, to require him or her to remove the troops from the action.
Since Congress as a body has not weighed in yet on whether they agree that the President's written reasons fit within the law, I fail to see how you, personally, can declare that they don't. And until Congress has their say, the President is well within the scope of his power under both Article II and the WPA to continue with the military action he has engaged the troops in.
What part of this is so hard for you to understand is a mystery to me.
You are completely wrong. America has to be under an imminent threat or attacked already for him to do this. None of that happened. What Obama did was against the law, but many other presidents have done the same thing. It doesn't make it right though.
You are completely wrong. America has to be under an imminent threat or attacked already for him to do this. None of that happened. What Obama did was against the law, but many other presidents have done the same thing. It doesn't make it right though.
You are completely wrong. What Obama did was well within the WPA guidelines in his actions. But go right on ignoring that fact if you wish. No skin off my back.
This is what the WPR says. But what does the Constitution say?
As Jill points out, nobody has ever challenged the Constitutionality of the WPR, even though it is widely believed that the act is patently unconstitutional. And this is the place where it is most vulnerable to that charge.
The WPR asserts a specific interpretation of the Constitution that can actually be found nowhere in the Constitution itself. As such it arguably attempts to amend the Constitution through statute which is, of course, prohibited. No judicial review has ever been brought to bear on that interpretation... so it could very well be true. It could just as well be false.
There are many reasons why it has never been challenged. Presidents have never challenged it because in truth, the active requirements of the WPR are really not all that onerous. And Congress has never challenged it because they want to retain the requirements for Congressional consultation, review and approval. But both sides also recognize that the declaration of "Constitutional" ways for a President to commit military force is really is simply that... declaratory.
Like the preamble to the Constitution, it declares purpose and intent but contains no actual law. It requires no one to do anything, or demonstrate anything, or assert anything, or prove anything. The rest of the Resolution in contrast provides a framework and process for insuring that the Congress is engaged when military force is used. It is within that process that Congress (and no other body, to include all us interested kibitzers on CD) will determine if the commitment meets the asserted standard. And if Congress decides it does not, then they can withhold approval for an extension of that commitment beyond the 60 days.
But of course... they are not bound to even consider that issue if they don't want to. They can deny (or approve) such an extension for any reasons they want, even completely arbitrary ones. There is nothing in the act that binds the President to acting only under those three circumstances or any particularly narrow interpretation of them.
As long as the President actually engages the process described by the WPR, he is not violating the Resolution. There may later come a judgment call on the part of Congress as to whether or not the commitment was Constitutional as per these standards... but it is absolutely and exclusively their judgment call. How they define an "attack upon the United States" may not be the same way you define an "attack upon the United States."
And if they are in general satisfied that the commitment was the right thing to do, I assure you that they will judge generously.
HD, we are now getting down to something that is worth discussing....
Question. Is what you are saying here, a matter of interpreted law or is this your opinion.
Because I am under the impression that 1541 paragraph 3 is clear statement of the powers and limitations of the President as Commander in Chief.
The issue of constitutionality is not in play until such time as a suit exists. We don’t get to go with “I can ignore that because I think it’s unconstitutional”.
I have reviewed as best as I can all the military actions we have taken at least since RR bombed Libya and I cannot find one (I could very well be wrong) where there was no clear indication that America or Americans had been attacked as a precursor. Clintons bombing of Serbia might be the exception but I am not really sure. I do know and agree with Clinton that Congress’s funding of the effort in the aftermath was sufficient statutory authority to continue the operation.
Maybe this is a matter of semantics but either there are preconditions or there aren’t. The way the act itself reads, it is clear that there are preconditions.
But as has been said, because no one really wants this before the court, we just ignore those preconditions? I find that mind boggling.
You are completely wrong. What Obama did was well within the WPA guidelines in his actions. But go right on ignoring that fact if you wish. No skin off my back.
Nope. Try again. If you are SOOOOOO sure, please provide legal documentation backing up your stance. As it sits now I can find plenty of legal documentation that proves you wrong. Please provide proof that is what it means.
You are completely wrong. What Obama did was well within the WPA guidelines in his actions. But go right on ignoring that fact if you wish. No skin off my back.
Oh yeah? Please explain:
Quote:
This section provides that the President is not allowed to send U.S. troops into combat unless Congress specifically gives advance approval; the only exception is if the President is responding to a national emergency created by an attack on U.S. territory or on U.S. armed forces.11 Even then, the President must report to Congress immediately and then "terminate any use" of the troops within 60 days unless Congress specifically approves of further action.12
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.
