Nilatai wrote:
I don't have to, he isn't the leader of my country. However, I'm fairly sure what he did isn't actually illegal. Someone else (someone with more knowledge of US law preferably) will have to clarify that.
It's political theater, mainly. Ever since its passage, US presidents have had a long, proud history of ignoring the War Powers Act and Congress has a long, proud history of ******** about it. Neither side is confident enough to take it to the mat and risk a judgment on its constitutionality. Even the lawsuit recently filed is a joke -- the last one involving Clinton was thrown out because Congress hadn't exercised all their options. Boehner knows this; he was in Congress for the last lawsuit. Namely...
Library of Congress.gov wrote:
Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution
Lacking a resolution by both chambers of Congress, there is no illegality behind forces remaining (assuming they meet the standard for the War Powers Act, which Obama argues isn't the case but we'll assume it does). This was the basis for the Clinton case being dismissed. The initial part of the act, notifying Congress, was satisfied the Monday after the attacks bega. Possibly even before given Obama's discussions with Congressional leaders but formally on that Monday.
Obama asked Boehner to take up a resolution regarding the military action
over a month ago and the House is just getting around to it now. I assume they had hoped the whole thing would be over with by now and avoid putting them in the position of siding with Gaddafi over NATO.
Comparisons between a lengthy, multi-year nation building mission involving tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground and a limited scope air mission are pretty silly. Bush didn't go to Congress because he was some firm believer in the WPA. In fact, he stated:
President GW Bush wrote:
...my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.
Bush went to Congress for the purely pragmatic reason that he'd need the funding for the mission scope he envisioned. Obama, I'd assume, is hoping for a speedier resolution before coming to Congress for funding will be an issue.
Edited, Jun 24th 2011 10:38am by Jophiel