Why do Republicans call the Libya situation a "war" and why are they against it?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

This is a good video for Iraq v. Libya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec

"So Obama is killing civilians in an unfunded, undeclared, war for oil, promoted by the dictators of the Arab League along with the UN, in support of some unidentified rebels that he's never met with, and you're totally fine with that?"

^That says it all, really.

[anvi]

Once again, the Libya operation is not a NATO action, it's a U.N. Article 42 action, and the president is legally permitted under U.S. law to commit a requested number of forces under that Article 42 declaration without Congressional approval.  If Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress really believe that the president has taken the U.S. to war in blatant violation of the Constitution, they have the Constitutional duty to impeach him, instead of passing meaningless contempt resolutions.  Want to blame someone for our participation in Libya?  Blame Congress for ratifying our U.N. membership in 1945.  If they want to amend the U.N. Participation Act or remove ourselves from the U.N., then they should do that.  But if Congress really thinks this operation is unconstitutional, where the hell are the impeachment articles?  Bring them forward, Congress--it's your own constitutional duty!

Secondly, Bush had to seek approval from Congress for the Iraq war because it was not entered into due to treaty obligations and was not declared via U.N. Article 42, which is what distinguishes it from the Libya case.  So Bush sought Congressional approval, he got it, and you got your war!  I gravely questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war when it was being ramped up, and I gravely question it now; but I never questioned its legality under U.S. law, the procedure for approving it was done correctly.

Thirdly, the U.N. and other participating nations are sharing a far larger cost of these operations than they have in previous wars.  The U.S. to date has spent about $1 billion in total on it, which is, as wars go, or even as the typical government program goes, nothing.  And it's not being financed with new spending, it's being financed with money already appropriated to DOD.

Now, if the criticisms of this war are that it's strategically ill-conceived, increasingly unlikely to achieve it's intended results and unnecessary, then I'm pretty sympathetic to all those criticisms.  The easy way to avoid participation would have been for the U.S. to vote "no" on the U.N. Article calling for military participation, and had it been me, that's what I would have instructed our U.N. Ambassador to do.  As mentioned, I think we as a country need to make a more fundamental decision about to what degree we are going to either participate in or assist or not participate in or assist efforts in the "Arab Spring," and we should stick to whatever principles we decide on with regard to that issue.

Congress and the public are perfectly entitled to criticize the wisdom and conduct of the Libya operation, and they should communicate it loudly, clearly and often.  But, very seriously, if Congresspeople on both the right and the left really believe that Obama's commission of forces in the Libya operation was unconstitutional, then they have a sworn duty to bring impeachment charges against him.  On the legality charge, either put up or shut up.  

[BigSkyBob]

Once again, the Libya operation is not a NATO action, it's a U.N. Article 42 action, and the president is legally permitted under U.S. law to commit a requested number of forces under that Article 42 declaration without Congressional approval.  

The US Constitution is clear that the power to declare war rests with the Congress, not  U.N. Article 42. The Constitution cannot be amended by statute, so references to U.S. law are not definitive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[anvi]

The US Constitution is clear that the power to declare war rests with the Congress, not  U.N. Article 42. The Constitution cannot be amended by statute, so references to U.S. law are not definitive.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Article 6, Paragraph 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senate approved the U.N. Charter, which is a treaty, by way over a two-thirds margin, and both chambers approved the U.N. Participation Act by well over two-thirds margins.  We are a member of the U.N. under U.S. statute, the U.N. Charter is a treaty duly approved by the U.S. Senate, and its provisions are therefore given the authority under U.S. law specified above by the U.S. Constitution.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The constitution doesn't give the UN or NATO the power to declare war.

But the Constitution does give the president the authority to make treaties with the consent of Congress.  The U.N. Participation Act was passed by overwhelming majorities in both chambers with the same procedures in place Congress uses to approve treaties.  That same Act explicitly permits the president to commit troops to any action declared under a UN Article 42 declaration without consulting Congress. (He must however seek Congressional approval to commit troops to any UN Article 42 action in addition to the number of troops that were originally requested of each nation by the specific Article.) The War Powers Act itself makes an exception for the requirement to consult Congress in cases where the U.S. membership of a treaty is part of U.S statute (as the U.N. Participation Act is). 

You do have a point there, though I think its questionable whether congress can legitimately farm out its essential duties to another body to begin with. Does the War Powers Act allow for bypassing congress when a treaty allows for but does not necessitate intervention? I'm thinking here of the difference between the Libya action, which we could have refrained from without going against our treaty obligations, as opposed to something like the case where a NATO member is attacked.

[BigSkyBob]

The constitution doesn't give the UN or NATO the power to declare war.

But the Constitution does give the president the authority to make treaties with the consent of Congress.  The U.N. Participation Act was passed by overwhelming majorities in both chambers with the same procedures in place Congress uses to approve treaties. 

The Constitution has provisions for passing Acts [House and Senate pass identical language by simple majorities...], and ratifying treaties [2/3rd of Senate]. It does not have any provisions for "[passing Acts] with the same procedures in place Congress uses to approve treaties." That is an internal matter for the House and Senate respectively.  Nor, does the Constitution grant Acts passed by 2/3 majorities of both Houses any more standing than any other act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The power to declare war rests with the Congress. The Constitution cannot be amended by statute. No Act of one Congress can alter the Constitutional prerogatives of a subsequent Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Because they oppose every action of Obama.

If he proposed massive tax cuts combined with spending money on giving fresh chocolate chip cookies to orphans, it would be a 53-47 vote. Maybe he could get the Maine girls, Lisa, or Scott on board.

[BigSkyBob]

The US Constitution is clear that the power to declare war rests with the Congress, not  U.N. Article 42. The Constitution cannot be amended by statute, so references to U.S. law are not definitive.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Article 6, Paragraph 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senate approved the U.N. Charter, which is a treaty, by way over a two-thirds margin, and both chambers approved the U.N. Participation Act by well over two-thirds margins.  We are a member of the U.N. under U.S. statute, the U.N. Charter is a treaty duly approved by the U.S. Senate, and its provisions are therefore given the authority under U.S. law specified above by the U.S. Constitution.

Since the Constitution must be faithfully executed by all those in the executive branch, and the Constitution clearly places the power to declare war in the Congress, technically, our Ambassador to the UN is obligated to enforce that provision in the UN. 

[anvi]

Once again, and highlighted for emphasis:

Article 6, Paragraph 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And, again to repeat, the U.N. Charter is a treaty that was approved by Senate by more than a 2/3 margin as is required by the Constitution.  We are bound by its provisions, including provisions which the U.N. passes by vote as an Article 42 action.  This paragraph makes clear that Congress' enumerated power to declare war is not the only possible trigger for U.S. military action, since a treaty that has already been approved by the Senate may also trigger it.

But, hey, as I said above, if the GOP really believes the Libya operation is unconstitutional, where are the impeachment articles?  What could possibly be a more serious crime than the president taking the country to war in violation of the Constitution?  And that being the case, how are House members who seriously believe this is happening now not in violation of their own oaths of office for failing to indict the president and force the Senate to hold trial?  The ball is in the House's court, and as mentioned, on the legality issue, they should put up or shut up.

[anvi]

Does the War Powers Act allow for bypassing congress when a treaty allows for but does not necessitate intervention? I'm thinking here of the difference between the Libya action, which we could have refrained from without going against our treaty obligations, as opposed to something like the case where a NATO member is attacked.

The War Powers Act does have such an exception.  It's in Section 8.a.2.

"8(a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
8(a)2  from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution."

The treaty status of the U.N. charter allows it to require of its member nations' military assistance under Article 42 actions (as the Libya operation was).  And the U.N. Participation Act grants statutory authorization for the president to introduce armed forces into hostilities without the further consent of Congress in its Section 6.

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."

This means that the president has the authority to commit only such forces as are specifically requested in an Article 42 action of the U.N. without the consent of Congress.  If he wishes to commit additional forces to the operation in excess of what was originally required in the Article 42 action, only then does he need to get Congressional approval.

The Article 42 actions were designed specifically for emergency situations, so that the organization could respond quickly in case of immanent threats.  

[BigSkyBob]

Once again, and highlighted for emphasis:

Article 6, Paragraph 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And, again to repeat, the U.N. Charter is a treaty that was approved by Senate by more than a 2/3 margin as is required by the Constitution.  We are bound by its provisions, including provisions which the U.N. passes by vote as an Article 42 action.  This paragraph makes clear that Congress' enumerated power to declare war is not the only possible trigger for U.S. military action, since a treaty that has already been approved by the Senate may also trigger it.

1) Unless, treaties that declare war without an authorization of Congress are not Constitutional, even if passed by 2/3rds of the Senate. The notion that the Constitution can be amended by Treaty when the amendment process is clearly laid out is an interesting claim.

2) In the case of Article 42, this is academic inasmuch as the US can veto any resolution in the security council. So, no treaty obligation can be triggered without the US choosing to commit troops. Since our Constitution states the power to declaration of war rests in the Congress, the appropriate Constitutional obligation of our ambassador to the UN is submit any tentative resolution to Congress. If our Congress votes to declare war, our Ambassador can  sign the resolution. If Congress does not, he should be Constitutionally obligated to veto the resolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True enough, but, they could start with the Ambassador to the UN.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wow. The idea of the UN requiring any nation to engage in military activity is insane.

[anvi]

Well, to both Bob and shua, just a couple quick points.

The U.N. can't require anyone to go to war.  Article 42 actions are voted on by members of the Counsel.  Voting Article 42 resolutions down in the U.N. means no military action is authorized.  That's the out. 

The Constitution isn't "amended by treaty."  The Constitution itself, in Article 6 paragraph 2, stipulates that Treaty obligations duly approved by the U.S. Senate have the same force of law as the Constitution itself does; they are to be considered "the supreme law of the land" by all.  Signing on to treaty obligations is therefore hardly just "academic," as we are bound by those obligations to the same degree that we are bound by the Constitution itself.  That's what the language of the Constitution and the language of the treaty we have agreed to with the U.N. both affirm.

[Bacon King]

Wow. The idea of the UN requiring any nation to engage in military activity is insane.

A few points here.

1. The United States has a Security Council veto, so even if hypothetically all 192 of the other United Nations wanted to start a war through the UN and went through all the proper procedures to do so, we'd still be able to cancel them out if we wanted.
2. Even if for whatever reason the US didn't want to stop that, Article 48 of the UN Charter says that the makeup of the UN military force is decided by the Security Council. Again, we have a veto.
3. Even if the US didn't veto that either, our participation in the United Nations (and thus our acceptance of the obligations of UN membership) was authorized by Congress by the UN Participation Act, so it's not like our country be forced into something that it hadn't already agreed to.
4. Of course, if something actually became an issue we could just withdraw from the United Nations.
5. Ultimately, and this is the most important part, the President is still Commander in Chief and thus he has the final say over United States troop deployment, not the United Nations.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

I'm against it for the same reason I'm against Iraq and Afghanistan: we have nothing to gain and all we are is spreading ourselves too thin and creating ire in the Muslim community.  (Not to mention the financial waste).

As for the UN, I say we leave.  As soon as possible.

[lowtech redneck]

I am and have been in favor of action in Libya.

I wasn't in favor of getting involved in Libya, but at this point it would not be in our best interests to quit before Gadaffi loses.

[BigSkyBob]

Well, to both Bob and shua, just a couple quick points.

The U.N. can't require anyone to go to war.  Article 42 actions are voted on by members of the Counsel.  Voting Article 42 resolutions down in the U.N. means no military action is authorized.  That's the out. 

The Constitution isn't "amended by treaty."  The Constitution itself, in Article 6 paragraph 2, stipulates that Treaty obligations duly approved by the U.S. Senate have the same force of law as the Constitution itself does; they are to be considered "the supreme law of the land" by all.  Signing on to treaty obligations is therefore hardly just "academic," as we are bound by those obligations to the same degree that we are bound by the Constitution itself.  That's what the language of the Constitution and the language of the treaty we have agreed to with the U.N. both affirm.

[BigSkyBob]

Wow. The idea of the UN requiring any nation to engage in military activity is insane.

A few points here.

1. The United States has a Security Council veto, so even if hypothetically all 192 of the other United Nations wanted to start a war through the UN and went through all the proper procedures to do so, we'd still be able to cancel them out if we wanted.
2. Even if for whatever reason the US didn't want to stop that, Article 48 of the UN Charter says that the makeup of the UN military force is decided by the Security Council. Again, we have a veto.
3. Even if the US didn't veto that either, our participation in the United Nations (and thus our acceptance of the obligations of UN membership) was authorized by Congress by the UN Participation Act, so it's not like our country be forced into something that it hadn't already agreed to.

Acts by one Congress are simply not binding on any subsequent Congress. The Constitution is clear, the power to declare war rests with the Congress by a 2/3rds vote of the current Congress, not some Act that was passed over sixty years ago. No Act by a Congress telling some subsequent Congress "in such and such circumstances you must authorize war" has any Constitutional authority whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.