Has President Obama Violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by Attacking Libya? If so, impeach? | Texas GOP Vote

You are here

Has President Obama Violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by Attacking Libya? If so, impeach?

In November of 1973, over the veto of then President Richard Nixon, a Democrat controlled Congress passed the War Powers Act (WPA) of 1973 as a means of clarifying the Constitutional powers of war and limiting presidential power to act without approval of Congress. Has President Barack Obama violated this act by taking action against Libya without Congressional approval?

Many people say this is not the case because the President notified Congress within 48 hours and he is now within the 60 day reporting period (which can be extended by another 30 days pretty much at the President's discretion.) The wording they reference is, "...within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States."

If you look just at this section you can make the case that President Obama is in compliance with the act. However, before the President can even use the authority to attack another nation under the WPA, he must first clear the hurdle of the authority to use this power contained in section 2(c) which states, "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

More analysis of the meaning of these terms and phrases can be found in a report titled, The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years.

It can be argued that President Obama has acted illegally by pretending to comply with the WPA while ignoring the limitations of the very authority to use the WPA to engage in military action. Clearly the following statements are true.

  1. Congress has not declared war against Libya.
  2. Congress has passed no statutory authority for the President to take this action.
  3. A national emergency was not created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Those statements being correct, the President does not have the authority to engage in the actions of war he has undertaken in Libya and has, quite possibly, violated the War Powers Act and committed an impeachable offense.

All that said, what should Congress do at this point? Has the President done the right thing, but without authority? Should his actions be reversed? Should he be impeached or otherwise punished by Congress?

Then Senator Joe Biden was very clear on the subject in 2007 when he stated at the one minute mark in the following video that if President Bush took our nation to war against Iran without Congressional approval, he would lead the attack to impeach him.

Later Biden would repeat and re-emphasize the threat on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews.

Others including Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Republican Ron Paul (R-TX) have also called for possible impeachment action.

During the Bush administration, officials argued the president did not need Congressional approval before going to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. However, President Bush sought and received approval of Congress before engaging in military action in either place.

What do you think? Has President Obama violated the law and, if so, should he be impeached?

at Mar 29, 2011 11:40 AM
       

Comments

Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

One of our nearly 17,000 Facebook fans added the following video from renound Constitutional lawyer/radio talk-show host, Mark Levin that offers a counter perspective on this story.  Does this alter your viewpoint?

 

The war Powers Act is in violation of the constitution.  Were in the parts of the constitution does it give the President the power to act without any consent from congress? Congress can not just give up its powers without an amendment.  Artical 1, Secton 8 states: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water and Section 10 No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.  Artical 2 Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
Even the "in such imminent Danger" section is directed at the States not the President.  So I think there are grounds to start impeachment on Libya.  I also think that Reagan should be post-officio impeached for Grenada, George H.W. Bush for Panama and possibly Clinton for Bosnia.