President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 15, 2011 09:25 PM UTC

So You're Sure It's Legal, Are You?

  • 87 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

THURSDAY UPDATE: Los Angeles Times:

“Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the president had constitutional authority, as commander in chief and chief executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad,” the memo states.

“The president is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution’s 60 day termination provision,” it continues…

In its initial response to the memo, Boehner’s office said President Obama had “fallen short” of his obligation to properly explain the U.S. involvement.

—–

Remember back in March, when we noted some dissent from both Republicans and Democrats over the decision to participate in NATO air strikes against Libya by President Barack Obama? We said at the time that “a plain reading of the 1973 War Powers Resolution is tough to square with ordering airstrikes against Libya without congressional authorization, or a direct threat to American interests.” When we noted that, we drew some relatively heavy flak from readers, including some we would describe as liberal Democrats, who insisted that the President had complete authority to conduct the war–based on American adherence to international treaty, the president’s role of commander-in-chief, etc. The certitude with which various readers asserted to us we were wrong about the War Powers Resolution was a little surprising, especially since the legislative and executive branches of the federal government have been arguing about this law pretty much from the moment it became law.

Well today, Politico reports:

A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)…

According to Kucinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration’s “circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad.”

It also will ask a judge to prohibit the White House from conducting a war without congressional approval.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner is towing an unusual line in this debate, having had to defend President Obama from his own angry caucus at least once. Some Republicans can be accused of hypocrisy for suddenly becoming champions of the War Powers Resolution; others, it should be noted, have felt this away about it all along. It’s worth noting that for all the criticism heaped on him by liberals, George W. Bush never pushed the line in his congressionally-authorized military actions as far as Obama has in Libya. Boehner doesn’t claim that the President has already violated the Resolution, but says he will by the weekend if American involvement doesn’t end or congressional approval is not obtained.

The bottom line according to legal opinionmakers we’ve talked to is that the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution may never have been presented with a test like this one. Presidents have called the Resolution unconstitutional, even as some (like Bush) complied with its terms by seeking congressional approval for military action. Passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the Resolution seeks to balance the role of Congress is declaring war with the nature of modern conflict, where “declarations” of war have become quaint. Because the President is apparently relying upon United Nations authority to prosecute the war instead of (as of this writing, anyway) Congress, it’s a test of the constitutional primacy of international treaty as well.

Once thing this is not, though, is an open-and-shut case.

Tweet
Share

Comments

87 thoughts on “So You’re Sure It’s Legal, Are You?”

    1. “Political question” – Courts, including the Supremes, have long held this issue as political and declined to take it up. Numerous legal challenges to the Vietnam War were filed to no avail.

      “Commander in Chief” – does this give the president the authority to decide to go to war without congressional approval?  Or does this mean he is the Commander of all military forces once the decision to go to war is made by Congress? I think the latter, and I think this was the intent of the drafters as well.

      The War Powers Resolution was a necessary and proper check to presidential war by fiat, in that case 58,000 Americans and millions of Asians dead, and a stain upon the founding legacy of this country of self determination.

      Make Obama, and all presidents, follow the law.  

  2. who live a lot closer to Libya than Americans are the ones dive bombing Tripoli.  

    Even if Gaddafi holds on to power, his military is smashed.

    The original intent was to prevent the wholesale slaughter of dissidents so the original mission looks accomplished.

    Republicans as the anti-war faction is too ironic to contemplate.

        1. Side with pro-democracy forces who were about to get wasted, and take out a long-standing thorn in the side–Gaddafi was low-hanging fruit.

          Do you think we would have raised a finger if it had been Israelis about to massacre pro-Hamas demonstrators?

          1. Israelis will never let the Arab Spring blossom in their country so you’ll never have a bunch of protesters bunched up for killing.  Actually the Israeli method of elimination is more economic destruction and oppressive poverty that grinds down those who aren’t of the same religion.  The US will never interfere with a permanent occupation that takes it’s toll in infant mortality rather than street bloodshed.

  3. they don’t need to ask for Congressional approval.  From the NY Times

    The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role – providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes – although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

    They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

    So where is the line where the President needs to ask Congress for permission to use military assets in combat?

  4. approval and Republicans side with Gaddafi.

    They’ll probably fall all over themselves swearing allegiance to any enemy of Obama.  Bachmann will naturally screw up the “Enemy of my enemy” line.

    1. Who nominated Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection Agency?

      Who allowed the Bush tax cuts to be extended because it meant that the long term unemployed would continue to receive assistance?  That was certainly unpopular with liberals but it helped feed the children of the unemployed for another year.

      Who spearheaded health care reform to allow people with pre-existing conditions to get affordable health care?

      I guess we have to assume that the President can’t multi-task and someone without access to national security intelligence knows more about the situation than the President.  I call it the Palin Effect where anyone with a grade school education knows as much as the people who have expertise in the subject matter and can make simple black and white pronouncements.

    1. I want to send sxp152 to the University of Enormously High Tuition and this will be easier than saving up for it.

      The thing I hate about a site like Politico is that they can run this story (or the story on Boehner’s criticism) without any historical context whatsoever, and as someone who’s old enough to remember how debates on the War Powers resolution always go, it gets rather frustrating.

      The War Powers Act itself has been considered unconstitutional by every President since Nixon (including Carter), and every President has made a point of not following it. George W. Bush may have asked for Congressional “permission,” but in the strict sense he did not follow the War Powers Act.

      From the antiwar point of view, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional since it allows Presidents to start hostilities without a declaration of war from Congress, and constitutionally that’s the only way to start hostilities.

            1. You can read serious responses to serious questions if you actually care, or you can continue to post drivel. Not my concern if it’s not yours.

            2. You have the self-discipline not to boot David in the balls when he acts like a little weenie defending Republicans while being outraged that Obama isn’t progressive enough.

              Your restraint is admirable.

      2. I know this conversation is inspiring cognitive dissonance among liberals, which doubly surprises me that Pols put it up. But if President Bush obtained congressional approval to use force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did, how was he not in compliance with the War Powers Act?

        Because he’s BUSH!!! And Bush is EVIL!!! Yes I know.

        You’re free to give me a real answer anytime.

        1. so I won’t get too technical with you, but essentially the War Powers Act does not just ask for Congressional approval. It has fairly precise language, and Bush (in addition to every other President since 1973) very consciously said he was not getting permission because he had to under War Powers, but just because it was a nice thing to do.

          1. Yeah. I’m sure that’s exactly why Bush sought and obtained congressional approval to go to war.

            So I’m an idiot, and you believe nonsense like this, eh? That’s funny.

            Hint: sometimes when you try to act like a know-nothing arrogant dick, you succeed! Is that lowbrow enough for you?

            1. which is fine since nobody expects anything better of you. But this would be a good time to cut your losses. Bush believed he was under no legal obligation to get Congressional approval for the war in Iraq. If you doubt that, go see what John Yoo and the Heritage Foundation have to say (it’s audio, so you don’t even have to read it). It wasn’t a secret and he wasn’t ashamed.

              1. Like you say, every President has said that.

                Bush still went to Congress, and he still got approval to go to war. Would you like to try again answering the question: why? And silly answers like “it was a nice thing to do” just make you look stupid, so I’d advise you to think about it a little more before you answer.

                Why did Bush get approval from Congress to go to war?

                1. For Afghanistan, because it was easy, so why not?

                  For Iraq, it was partly because he wanted the vote to be an issue in the 2002 election, and partly because it was a big investment that required big emergency supplementals to fund.

                  This is just my interpretation as a lefty, of course, and you can debate it. I can’t know for sure WHY he did anything he did. The thing I know for sure, however, is that he did not do it because he thought he was legally required to do it, because he (along with his legal staff) made very clear that he had all this authority inherently as Commander in Chief. He hired John Yoo precisely because Yoo believes in the broadest possible interpretation of executive power.

          2. in that the only thing that matters to him in these discussions is the opportunity for payback. It’s a hallmark of the right in general – the Clinton impeachment was about nothing other than getting Dems back for Nixon.

            So when a guy like ArapaGOP sees something that kinda sorta, but not really, reflects something that happened under W, he treats it as though it were EXACTLY the same thing, and that the shoe is now on the other foot. Even though no shoe is even in evidence.

            Kinda sad, but when you don’t have basic comprehension of the facts on your side, just raw emotion and the desire to show up your opponent, this is what you get.

            1. Where did I say it was EXACTLY (all caps) the same thing? All I said is that Bush did obtain approval from Congress before going to war. And that is a true statement. Is it not? Are you going to tell me how Bush did it just to be nice like sxp151 did? Because that’s ridiculous, you know that right?

              Perhaps inconvenient for supporters of Obama, but is that my fault? Can’t you respond honestly to this instead of lurching into insult mode?

              Kinda sad, but when you don’t have basic comprehension of the facts on your side, just raw emotion and the desire to show up your opponent, this is what you get.

              You said it, not me.

              1. You are wrong in your interpretation of Bush’s legal position on the War Powers Act. And if you read carefully, you’ll see that I’m not even criticizing Bush for it (though I disagree with his position) since every other President did the same thing, including Carter.

                You can call this simple statement of historical fact “ridiculous” or “nonsense” or whatever, but the burden of proof is on you now to show that Bush believed he was required to get Congressional approval. Go look for such a source. I’ll wait.

                1. Bush, like every President, claims the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

                  That’s not the point and you know it. The point is that Bush DID get approval, so his actions did not challenge the War Powers Act. Political motivations or legal, it doesn’t matter. He didn’t challenge the law. He obtained the approval of Congress to go to war, which has the effect of complying with it whether he agrees verbally that he has to or not. I personally believe Bush did so because it gave his military action legitimacy.

                  Obama is challenging the War Powers Act. He has committed the nation’s armed forces to combat for almost 90 days with no congressional approval. And for reasons I still find as fascinating as I did a little while ago, you’re backing him up.

                  So, do YOU believe the War Powers Act is constitutional? I’m not asking what John Yoo says. What do YOU think Aristotle and sxp151?

                  1. The only thing I said about Bush is that he didn’t comply with the precise provisions of the War Powers Act (despite coming closer than some Presidents), which you interpreted as a call to the barricades.

                    I’ve stated my opinion, and I am making no effort to defend Obama. I’m just saying there is not the slightest chance the Kucinich lawsuit will go anywhere.

                    1. I’m not going to try to build Dennis Kucinich into a credible actor, because that would be silly too.

                      You seem to be conversant in the issue. Are you aware of any President who committed American forces to sustained combat action for this long without congressional approval since the War Powers Act was passed?

                      I don’t think there has been.

                    3. So cruising the Gulf of Aden for pirates slightly more than we do anyway is the equivalent of bombing the shit out of Libya, is it?

                      I await your next logical inconsistency/hypocrisy.

                    5. Anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden don’t rise to the level of “hostilities” as defined by the War Powers Resolution. It’s more of a Coast Guard law enforcement job really, and nothing at all like what is happening in Libya.

                      We do conduct naval patrols in peacetime, are you aware of this?

                    6. The WPA simply says “in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced.”

                      50 U.S.C. Section 1543(a).

                    7. That’s where you supposed reading, but I’m afraid that’s not all it says:

                      In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-

                      (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

                      (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

                      (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

                      Sorry, but the Gulf of Aden is international waters. So that won’t work either.

                      Do you enjoy misleading people? Do you enjoy misleading people to defend warfare? Must be strange for you…

                    8. I meant to say “That’s where you STOPPED reading.” I was frankly so blown away by your untruthfulness that I forgot to check my grammar before I posted.

                      But the fact remains, you committed what can be reasonably called a lie of omission. Big time.

                      It’s so weird, arguing against war with Democrats.

                    9. You’re mistaken–I was answering Ari’s question regarding the scale of operation.  The WPA makes no reference to the scale of operation required to trigger the reporting requirement (request).

                    10. Of course, given that our involvement in Libya mostly involves drones and probably some surveillance planes which we’ve flown over nations without Congressional authorization since the Cold War, I am even more of the opinion that President Obama is correct in his assessment.

                      The Libya conflict does not meet any of these three conditions.  Our pilots, even if they are flying over the country, are not under threat of imminent hostilities; we have no forces (surveillance overflights possibly excepted) in the territory of a foreign nation; and we have not substantially increased our presence in Libya.

                    11. I answered the question you asked, not the question you thought you asked. And I didn’t draw any equivalence.

                      But OK, I’ll answer the question you thought you asked:

                      No ArapaGOP, there is no example in history of a black Democratic President sending combat troops into Libya in 2011 for this long. Truly these times are unprecedented.

                  2. Bush (the lesser) did it because it gave legitimacy and cover to his perjury.

                    (Bush, the wimpier, didn’t face any problem, because no way was big oil congress — aw, same damn difference –going to allow SH to get his mitts on Kuwait’s oil emphastructure.)

              2. of reading between the lines. Exact words weren’t necessary.

                You should have considered your approach here from day one if “honest responses” and avoiding “insult mode” were things you truly cared about. Kinda hard to ask for those bridges when you were the one who burned them.

                But, since you asked…

                The important thing here isn’t what Bush did, but why. sxp has given you proof that Bush’s actions were politically, and not legally, motivated. That has about 100 times the import that the actual action taken has.

        2. Bush did not fulfill the obligations of the Iraq AUMF resolution which gave him the authority to wage war, but Congress didn’t press him on it – Congress tends not to press the issue once a President has committed troops to the ground.

          And I think that is part of what’s different about Libya – we don’t have any ground troops in danger, so it’s easy to criticize and push the issue.  The other part, of course, is that it’s a Democratic President; remember the opposition to the Bosnian intervention under Clinton?

          Regardless, the courts will almost certainly punt on this issue.  If Congress really thinks it needs to stop Obama over this issue, then it can impeach and convict him.  Being that such a remedy is already available, the courts will pass on the opportunity to make their own ruling.

  7. Graham raps Boehner, GOP candidates on Libya, Afghanistan

    WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham criticized his party’s presidential candidates and congressional leaders for increasingly advocating an international isolationism that he said repudiates the legacies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

    The South Carolina senator mocked seven GOP presidential candidates’ discussion of foreign policy in Monday night’s New Hampshire debate as “shallow” and full of “platitudes.”

    Graham, a military lawyer as a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, also criticized House Speaker John Boehner’s threat to invoke the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution against President Barack Obama over U.S. military involvement in Libya.

    After delivering a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank, Graham asked how many in the audience had watched the New Hampshire debate.

    “I was very disappointed that no one articulated why it matters if we win or lose in Afghanistan,” Graham said. “No one articulated what would happen if (Libyan strongman Moammar) Gadhafi stays in power. So we have Republicans talking about stopping our efforts in Libya.”

    http://www.miamiherald.com/201…

    huh…wonder how that’s gonna play out on the Calorically-challenged Radio Talk show on Friday…

  8. First of all if it’s a “political question,” well Congress has spoken when they passed the war powers act. This is not legislators trying to get the courts to create law, it’s trying to get the courts to enforce an existing law.

    Second the founders very specifically put the power to declare war in the legislature because they knew an executive if they had that power would abuse it (think President Palin).

    As to the President being Commander in Chief, it wasn’t clear then and it’s still not clear now exactly what that means. But the simplest explanation is that the President is the ranking officer. As we have civilian control of the military, in the role of Commander in Chief the President must be subservient to the civilian government.

    1. A “political question” exists between two branches.  The way you phrased it, because one branch (Congress) acted, it is a settled question.  That’s incorrect, and misses the entire point, which is that the court will dismiss the lawsuit, as the other, similar, lawsuits have been dismissed.  Also, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

      Second, as Commander in Chief, the President IS the “civilian government.”  As the Founders realized, one person must have both the authority and responsibility to act in certain situations, vide, an invasion of US territory.  

      The debate to have here, in my opinion, is whether Gadhafi represents a threat to the vital national interests of the United States.  While I think a case for that can be made, I think it’s a stretch.

      1. But if Congress passes a law and the President ignores it, then the courts can’t duck the issue by saying it’s a political question. They only get to duck that way if the legislature and executive are in agreement.

        1. The courts have consistently ducked the question of whether the WPA is constitutional by dismissing every case filed under it.  

          And the courts CAN, and do, duck other questions by saying it’s a political question, regardless of whether the executive and legislative branches agree.  In reality, the political question doctrine is just a convenient way for the courts to avoid deciding certain types of cases.  

          1. and that both liberal and conservative courts have said the exact same thing, is no match for the power of The Way David Wishes Things Were.

    2. the Supreme Court is who decides the interpretation of the law. I don’t agree with them. I’m not giving my own opinion here. But the Supreme Court will not under any circumstances take the present Kucinich case seriously, just like they didn’t before when Kucinich did the same thing (and before that, when his predecessors tried it).

      The precedent could not be any clearer: the Supreme Court will not act to enforce the War Powers Act. In particular they don’t agree with your interpretation.

        1. Ron Paul has always signed on, and did again this time. Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones is a recent convert and so is probably more newsworthy in the headline.

          And it’s always been a group of about 10 people whose case gets dismissed early on due to lack of standing or something. The Supreme Court has consistently said that this sort of thing is a dispute between Congress and the President, and that Congress has options like defunding the war rather than this.

          1. ?

            I mean, THANK GOD nobody ever revisits a court case! The Supreme Court consistently said Plessy v. Ferguson is settled law.

            I swear, you’ll never find such ardent defenders of the status quo as liberals defending their liberal president. Even the right to wage unilateral war! It’s funny, but not as much as it is pathetic. You appear to have no principles whatsoever.

            I know you won’t like reading that, but it’s really very true in this case.

            1. I’m explaining it to people who clearly don’t know what the legal issues are. I would love to see Kucinich succeed in this, and I would love to end all three wars. But I know this won’t go anywhere.

              You lack even the most basic reading comprehension skills, which I guess explains why you’re a proud Republican.

            2. The Supreme Court has dismissed cases like this for years, because Congress has its own enforcement remedies against the Executive branch.  It can bar funding for programs and operations, and if need be it can initiate impeachment hearings.  There’s no need for SCOTUS to get involved, and therefore they traditionally don’t when there’s a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches – they’ve got other things to do with their time.

              In fact, involvement by the court would probably be seen as a departure from the norm, and depending on just who is agreeing to hear the case, a partisan devolution of the court.

              1. Funding hits next year not now. And impeachment is for much much worse than this. It would be better for the court to rule on this and either say it’s valid and the President must follow it or that it’s unconstitutional.

                And it would be less of a political act than choosing Bush over Gore.

                2. A funding bill hits as soon as it’s passed, and targets as narrow a program as it’s designed to do, if the bill says that’s what it does.  Of course, if Obama disagrees with it, then it also has to get a 2/3 majority for a veto override.

                  And as far as I’m concerned, if the Congress feels the President is in violation of a law of the United States, then that is precisely the time for an impeachment proceeding, as violation of the law also means violation of his oath and therefore the Constitution.

                  Besides, if the court says it’s valid, what exactly will they be able to do about it if the President continues ignoring them?  The only resolution is to have Congress do the same things they could do without the Court’s ruling.  There’s no bar to the use of Executive power aside from those two possibilities – and even the funding option has to be backed up with the threat of impeachment, since technically the President has Executive control of the Treasury and Defense (as well as the Justice Department, which would normally be charged with enforcement of court decisions).

                  1. But already passed funding I think is a done deal and can’t be un-done. Can it?

                    As to impeachment, I agree with you. But in practice it has been used only 3 times, twice for very serious reasons and once for purely political advantage.  

                    1. An act of Congress can repeal any other act of Congress.  If the money hasn’t actually been spent yet, then yes, it can cut off the cash flow.

  9. If President Obama would have asked permission from Congress they would still be talking about it and hundreds of innocent civilians would have died.

     

    1. Bombing the shit out of people is the one thing most Republicans will not seriously obstruct. True that some of them will (just like a lot of them suddenly turned into pacifists when Clinton bombed Serbia), but I don’t recall a time in my life when a majority of Congressional Republicans voted against a military action.

      1. My point was half tongue in cheek. I was thinking of a quote when I wrote it.

        “If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?”

        – Thomas Jefferson

         

        1. Assume that with any post goes the assumption that it should be done in accordance with the laws and regulations of the governing system. So yes help in Libya and yes follow the law and ask Congress within 60 days.

          ps – Do you save and cross tab all my comments or just your favorite ones?

      2. The U.N., once it decides to hold a session on a subject, will generally rule one way or the other in a short timeframe, or say they can’t reach a decision.

        The Republicans in Congress, on the other hand, can tie up anything the President wants to do for as long as they can hold together 41 votes in the Senate.  If you haven’t remembered that from the past two years’ worth of Senate inaction, you’re seriously backsliding.

          1. As to following the law, the White House claims it is in compliance with the law.

            As not formally authorized engagements go, our involvement in Libya may not even qualify as a restricted activity under the War Powers Act – see 20th’s post above and my response to it.

            And if it does fall under the WPA, it is one of the most minor of violations in the history of the Act, which has been honored far more by lip service than by compliance.  Its standing has been compromised by every President since its passage.

  10. should be in Obama’s wheelhouse.

    The guy is a constitutional lawyer to taught classes in it at a prestigious law school.  He graduated from of the two schools that produce Supreme Court justices and could have positioned himself to replace Clarence Thomas.

    Ya think the dude has spent any of his considerable legal talents considering the legality of what he is doing?

    On the other hand, the assassination of bin Laden shows that he will cross the line to protect American interests.

    The uncomfortable thought that we have this perfect storm of someone with the Machiavellian talents to achieve cold blooded goals combined with a fierce dedication to his first duty to protect the American people.  This is the kind of president that is far and away is more dangerous than the dullard Bush.  Someone who can split hairs and stay several moves ahead.  You have to figure Obama has already prepared for this showdown.

  11. You guys said something about Congress already having a remedy? Now you can put your money where your mouth is, literally:

    House Speaker John Boehner threatened to cut off funding for U.S. involvement in Libya if he’s not satisfied with further White House explanation about the NATO-led military campaign.

    The Ohio Republican said he is waiting for the White House Office of Legal Counsel to report by Friday whether it agrees with Obama’s position released yesterday that his actions are legal. If the office does not agree, Boehner said the House has legislative options.

    “We’re looking at those options, and my guess is that next week we may be prepared to move on those options based on the answers to the questions that we get,” Boehner said.

    But “the ultimate option is…the Congress has the power of the purse. And certainly that is an option as well,” Boehner said.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

106 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!