A War Powers Challenge to President Obama's Libya Project
President Obama failed to seek a declaration of war before ordering U.S. attacks on Libya. Now, he faces a challenge under the War Powers Resolution.
By any reasonable reading of the Constitution, that was a violation of the provision in the founding document that requires the executive to attain authorization from Congress before launching military adventures abroad. But presidents have skirted that requirement in recent decades by claiming that the 1973 War Powers Resolution -- an act originally intended to constrain presidential warmaking -- affords them the freedom to fight first and consult Congress later.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in the late stages of the Vietnam War over a veto by President Richard Nixon, requires the commander in chief to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action that he or she determines is necessary in the face of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The resolution also forbids armed forces from remaining in action for more than 60 days without congressional authorization of the use of military force.
That's not supposed to be a blank check from White House wars of whim, even if successive presidents have relied on self-serving interpretations of the law to lauch and maintain military endeavors.
This week, however, a leading critic of the Libya mission, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, is planning to introduce legislation -- pursuant to the War Powers Resolution -- that will assert the constitutional responsibility of Congress to make decisions about declaring war.
In a letter to fellow members of the House, the Ohio Democrat writes:
"Dear Colleague: Earlier this month, President Obama made his case for U.S. participation in a United Nations-sanctioned war in Libya. The President's Office of Legal Council recently released the Administration's legal justification for the war, arguing that he was not required to come to Congress for prior authorization because the war is in our national interest and because it is not really a war. But our actions in Libya and the Administration's failure to seek authorization from Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, cannot be justified.
"I intend to offer legislation pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that will address Congress' constitutional responsibility to make decisions pertaining to the use of U.S. military force abroad. Doing so will allow Congress the latitude to make an informed decision under circumstances in which Congress's predictable desire to support the troops does not skew the debate on the war's legitimacy.
"The costs of this war are already mounting. According to figures recently released by the Pentagon, the war has cost the U.S. $608 million thus far, not including the costs to deploy U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the war in Libya. Experts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believe that the U.S. costs could "easily pass the $1 billion mark...regardless of how well things go." If U.S. "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo is a precedent, we know that the U.S. will continue to bear the majority of the cost of military and post-conflict costs with the United States contributing 25% of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military budget. During the Kosovo conflict, the U.S. spent $2.8 billion fighting the war, and another $2 billion to replace the munitions it used over Kosovo.
"While we may not all agree on the merits of military intervention in Libya, we can all agree that Congress must have the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to a war abroad. The Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 8 provides only Congress with the ability to declare war or authorize the use of military force. This institution cannot stand by idly as a war of choice with significant ramifications for our national and economic security is waged in the name of our national interests."
That closing paragraph makes the key statement: "While we may not all agree on the merits of military intervention in Libya, we can all agree that Congress must have the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to a war abroad.
Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, swear an defend and abide by a Constitution that gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare wars. That oath demands that they reassert the role of the House and Senate in maintaining the system of checks and balances that the founders outlined "to chain the dogs of war."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President Obama failed to seek a declaration of war before ordering U.S. attacks on Libya. Now, he faces a challenge under the War Powers Resolution.
By any reasonable reading of the Constitution, that was a violation of the provision in the founding document that requires the executive to attain authorization from Congress before launching military adventures abroad. But presidents have skirted that requirement in recent decades by claiming that the 1973 War Powers Resolution -- an act originally intended to constrain presidential warmaking -- affords them the freedom to fight first and consult Congress later.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in the late stages of the Vietnam War over a veto by President Richard Nixon, requires the commander in chief to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action that he or she determines is necessary in the face of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The resolution also forbids armed forces from remaining in action for more than 60 days without congressional authorization of the use of military force.
That's not supposed to be a blank check from White House wars of whim, even if successive presidents have relied on self-serving interpretations of the law to lauch and maintain military endeavors.
This week, however, a leading critic of the Libya mission, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, is planning to introduce legislation -- pursuant to the War Powers Resolution -- that will assert the constitutional responsibility of Congress to make decisions about declaring war.
In a letter to fellow members of the House, the Ohio Democrat writes:
"Dear Colleague: Earlier this month, President Obama made his case for U.S. participation in a United Nations-sanctioned war in Libya. The President's Office of Legal Council recently released the Administration's legal justification for the war, arguing that he was not required to come to Congress for prior authorization because the war is in our national interest and because it is not really a war. But our actions in Libya and the Administration's failure to seek authorization from Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, cannot be justified.
"I intend to offer legislation pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that will address Congress' constitutional responsibility to make decisions pertaining to the use of U.S. military force abroad. Doing so will allow Congress the latitude to make an informed decision under circumstances in which Congress's predictable desire to support the troops does not skew the debate on the war's legitimacy.
"The costs of this war are already mounting. According to figures recently released by the Pentagon, the war has cost the U.S. $608 million thus far, not including the costs to deploy U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the war in Libya. Experts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believe that the U.S. costs could "easily pass the $1 billion mark...regardless of how well things go." If U.S. "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo is a precedent, we know that the U.S. will continue to bear the majority of the cost of military and post-conflict costs with the United States contributing 25% of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military budget. During the Kosovo conflict, the U.S. spent $2.8 billion fighting the war, and another $2 billion to replace the munitions it used over Kosovo.
"While we may not all agree on the merits of military intervention in Libya, we can all agree that Congress must have the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to a war abroad. The Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 8 provides only Congress with the ability to declare war or authorize the use of military force. This institution cannot stand by idly as a war of choice with significant ramifications for our national and economic security is waged in the name of our national interests."
That closing paragraph makes the key statement: "While we may not all agree on the merits of military intervention in Libya, we can all agree that Congress must have the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to a war abroad.
Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, swear an defend and abide by a Constitution that gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare wars. That oath demands that they reassert the role of the House and Senate in maintaining the system of checks and balances that the founders outlined "to chain the dogs of war."
President Obama failed to seek a declaration of war before ordering U.S. attacks on Libya. Now, he faces a challenge under the War Powers Resolution.
By any reasonable reading of the Constitution, that was a violation of the provision in the founding document that requires the executive to attain authorization from Congress before launching military adventures abroad. But presidents have skirted that requirement in recent decades by claiming that the 1973 War Powers Resolution -- an act originally intended to constrain presidential warmaking -- affords them the freedom to fight first and consult Congress later.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in the late stages of the Vietnam War over a veto by President Richard Nixon, requires the commander in chief to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action that he or she determines is necessary in the face of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The resolution also forbids armed forces from remaining in action for more than 60 days without congressional authorization of the use of military force.
That's not supposed to be a blank check from White House wars of whim, even if successive presidents have relied on self-serving interpretations of the law to lauch and maintain military endeavors.
This week, however, a leading critic of the Libya mission, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, is planning to introduce legislation -- pursuant to the War Powers Resolution -- that will assert the constitutional responsibility of Congress to make decisions about declaring war.
In a letter to fellow members of the House, the Ohio Democrat writes:
"Dear Colleague: Earlier this month, President Obama made his case for U.S. participation in a United Nations-sanctioned war in Libya. The President's Office of Legal Council recently released the Administration's legal justification for the war, arguing that he was not required to come to Congress for prior authorization because the war is in our national interest and because it is not really a war. But our actions in Libya and the Administration's failure to seek authorization from Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, cannot be justified.
"I intend to offer legislation pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that will address Congress' constitutional responsibility to make decisions pertaining to the use of U.S. military force abroad. Doing so will allow Congress the latitude to make an informed decision under circumstances in which Congress's predictable desire to support the troops does not skew the debate on the war's legitimacy.
"The costs of this war are already mounting. According to figures recently released by the Pentagon, the war has cost the U.S. $608 million thus far, not including the costs to deploy U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the war in Libya. Experts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believe that the U.S. costs could "easily pass the $1 billion mark...regardless of how well things go." If U.S. "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo is a precedent, we know that the U.S. will continue to bear the majority of the cost of military and post-conflict costs with the United States contributing 25% of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military budget. During the Kosovo conflict, the U.S. spent $2.8 billion fighting the war, and another $2 billion to replace the munitions it used over Kosovo.
"While we may not all agree on the merits of military intervention in Libya, we can all agree that Congress must have the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to a war abroad. The Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 8 provides only Congress with the ability to declare war or authorize the use of military force. This institution cannot stand by idly as a war of choice with significant ramifications for our national and economic security is waged in the name of our national interests."
That closing paragraph makes the key statement: "While we may not all agree on the merits of military intervention in Libya, we can all agree that Congress must have the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to a war abroad.
Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, swear an defend and abide by a Constitution that gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare wars. That oath demands that they reassert the role of the House and Senate in maintaining the system of checks and balances that the founders outlined "to chain the dogs of war."