DescentBB

GOP Pulls Libya War Powers Resolution from the Floor Because it Might Pass

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... Might-Pass

article wrote:The House Republican leadership is worried that Congress might stand up to the Obama Administration and assert its constitutional prerogative as the only branch of government that can declare war. The House was scheduled to vote this afternoon on a a privileged resolution from Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] directing the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. But the House leadership has pulled it from the floor because, according to Republican aides who spoke with Fox News, “it became clear that it might succeed.”

Hell it's no wonder Obama don't give a ★■◆● about Englands protocols, none of them seem to give a ★■◆● about ours here either. It's exactly what I was talking about. The house leadership is hand in hand with this crap and Dennis just pointed it out. Another contender. The majority of the ones in power right now like it exactly like it is. It keeps them where they are at.

The house needs to pass Kucinich's bill. I was "okay" with one or two weeks of opreating in Libya; this is over and beyond what was required for us and I think it's a huge waste of money.

Another angle is, if congress makes him get out of Libya now, the repubs won't be able to complain about what a mess Obama has us in if we are still there a few months before the election...

God forbid any of you should vote against the status quo next time around because you are sick of the ruling class putting decent representation second to those kind of power struggle games between their D team and their R team.

This is ridiculous.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... libya.html

article wrote:In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:

a) Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or

b) Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.

The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”

Boehner is explicitly and formally stating that the president did not check the box on the War Powers Act before sending the US military to intervene in Libya.

I guess the bill had to have a Republican's name on it before it was considered a good idea. I don't care who's name is on it, just pass the damn thing already.

Also:

"Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off."

woodchip wrote:"Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off."

Good.

I can understand the constitutional question being raised here, but what I can't really understand is the underlying sentiment behind it. Is there a suggestion that we shouldn't have intervened in what's going on in Libya in the first place? As I understand things, we're not engaged in any sort of active combat role now, nor have we been since the first week or two of NATO's intervention.

I think the problem is we don't want the President to be able to single-handedly steer our course into the future yet instead of standing on that principal the Republicans use it to grandstand in hopes that they can do the same.