« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Would-Be Bomber Arrested Near The Arlington National Cemetery »

Ron Paul's Case Against The Obama Administration's Involvement In Libya

In deference to what Jay wrote this morning, Rep. Ron Paul posted an entry at the Daily Caller explaining why he’s suing the Obama administration over Lybia:

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Dr. Paul even uses Obama’s words against him. But, honestly, does anybody think Barry can’t get away with this? It’s like Johnny Cochran is the Obi-Wan to Obama’s Luke Skywalker. Facts don’t matter.

Then again, I guess that’s what Jay wrote.

Funny

Seems to me that the Professor of Constitutional Law, the Senator from Illinois, and the President of the United States ought to be introduced to each other and have a long and thoughtful discussion on Libya and the War Powers Resolution.

In the comments, our own Rodney Graves, everybody.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41799.

Comments (20)

When are the Republicans go... (Below threshold)
Stan:

When are the Republicans gonna grow a pair and file impeachment proceedings this bastard? He has proven time and again, he does not care to follow the law. Everything thing that he has done has been unconstitutional, yet no one does a damn thing about it. There is a long list of felonies that he committed that would have anyone else in the supermax. Yeah I know that we would have Joe Biden as Prez. At least, he tries to stay within the law and constitutional restraints.

John,Seems to me t... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

John,

Seems to me that the Professor of Constitutional Law, the Senator from Illinois, and the President of the United States ought to be introduced to each other and have a long and thoughtful discussion on Libya and the War Powers Resolution.

StanDo you honestl... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Stan

Do you honestly think that the dems will vote for impeachment? You have to get 66 votes in the Senate. Why go through all the negativity of it when it will solve nothing.

Besides. Maybe impeachment is what Obama wants. He may figure it will make him as popular as Clinton.


"But, honestly, does anybod... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"But, honestly, does anybody think Barry can’t get away with this?"


The scholar can get away with it because the opposition do not riot in the streets, pillage, burn, rape and murder like his side would do in such a scenario.

When are the Republicans... (Below threshold)
jim m:

When are the Republicans gonna grow a pair and file impeachment proceedings this bastard?

Just wait a little longer. If Barry keeps stonewalling on Libya and the economy continues to decline the dems will file impeachment proceedings against him on their own.

When a Massachusetts machine dem like Mike Capuano comes out saying that obama has violated the War Powers Act you know that obama has totally lost the issue and the dems are becoming desperate to separate themselves from him and his policies.

Mr. Stansbury,I've... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Stansbury,

I've been thinking some these exact same thoughts. But if our Commander-in-chief won't honestly and faithfully follow the Constitution, then what good is it?

I know what your saying about Democrats too, but really? When Nixon thought he was above the law, the Republicans stood with the rule of law - and damn the political consequences to their party. He had to go, and to his credit - he did (and so did Agnew BTW).

We have a serious Constitutional crisis brewing (on many fronts), and as with any crime, the cover-up, with its attendant evasion, lying, and deceit, is what does one in... hell, any 19 year old Marine private knows that - and if he or she doesn't, they learn the error of their ways real quick.

When informed, the American people will feel the same... they will not put up with the trashing of the foundational touchstone of our country. If they make their displeasure known for the insult... the majority of Democrats in Congress will feel the thunder and reluctantly see the light, and end up doing whatever is necessary to set the situation right.

I still believe in our Constitution and still place my faith in our fellow countrymen. Amen.

Semper Fidelis-
Brucepall

Seems to me that the Pro... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Seems to me that the Professor of Constitutional Law

He wasn't a professor of Constitutional law; he was an adjunct who just gave a few guest lectures. Kinda like a guy sitting in for Jay Leno on a few nights isn't a late night talk show host.

Sorry, back on-topic, I agr... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, back on-topic, I agree with John Stansbury: I'm not sure what I think about the War Powers Act, but would like the matter resolved judicially one way or the other.

Jay,The War Powers... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

Jay,

The War Powers Act and the War Powers Resolution are not the same things...

I've always been of the opi... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

I've always been of the opinion that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional, as an improper affront to the powers of the president to dispatch forces as he sees fit in his role as C-I-C.

Then again, I'm to to the right of Atilla the Hun on executive branch authority, so I'm probably not the most objective source.

Now onto the real topic at hand:

Ron Paul is nothing more than a perpetual side show. Outside of university campuses his "support" is about an inch deep. If he didn't keep the (R) by his name on the ballot he'd have difficulty being reelected to his own Congressional District. This lawsuit against Obama is a fool's errand.

On a larger scale it makes absolutely no sense for legitimate Republican candidates to focus on Obama's foray in Libya. Next year's election is about the economy. It's not about anything other than the economy.

People out there in Zombieland have no clue about Libya and they really don't care. They care about their jobs (or lack thereof), housing, taxes, business regulations, health care, gas prices and paying for their kids to go to college. They couldn't find Libya on a map of the world, even if you spotted them Egypt.

It's one thing for Republicans to take a short break from focusing on the economy to point out that Obama has sold out Israel. That makes sense from a political standpoint. Florida is absolutely necessary and there is a large Jewish population in Florida. Other than that, however, every nanosecond that's spent talking about something other than the economy is a nanosecond too long. It's actually a favor to Obama & Co.

Gentlemen,First Wa... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

Gentlemen,

First War Powers Act, 55 Stat. 838 (1941)
Second War Powers Act, 56 Stat. 176 (1942)

These two acts, still in effect, greatly expand the powers of the Executive Branch during time of Declared War (one reason Congress is very hesitant to Declare War).


War Powers Resolution, 87 Stat. 555 (1973)

The War Powers Resolution seeks to prevent the Executive from engaging in hostilities without explicit Congressional approval within a set timeline from the commencement of operations.

QED

This really bothers me that... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

This really bothers me that some persons are acting so unpatriotic right now and giving comfort to the one of the world's worst dictators who was directly implicated in terrorism such as the aircraft bomb over Lockerbee, Scotland. Of all the causes to champion, championing the survival of this dictator is absolutely outrageous. This only gives the regime in Libya comfort that they can survive this NATO assault, which is mostly led by Britain and France. You can sure bet that there's no Ron Paul traitor standing up in Parliament arguing on behalf of Libya's dictator. Only in our own Congress. What's next, congressmen championing al Qaeda?

Our police actions in Libya hardly arise to some level that requires declaring war on Libya. But you can expect Britain to be involved in most of the action to bring down the regime there since they suffered so much from Libyan terrorism.

Congress should stand together with the White House to bring down international terrorism. The president has access to national security information about Libya that not every member of congress has access to. It's the obligation of this president to protect the interests of the United States from terrorism or other threats. There's nothing honorable about the action of Ron Paul in this matter. What he's doing is political and not in the interests of our nation. This is the same sort of nonsense as WWII when some Republican members of congress opposed efforts of Roosevelt to get tough with the Axis. Then Pearl Harbor happened. Going softcore on Hitler and his allies was wrong back then. Going softcore on terrorism right now is wrong as well.

Bombing and launching missi... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Bombing and launching missiles at a country are acts of war. Pretending otherwise is laughable.

There is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about wanting the POTUS to follow the U.S. Constitution. It is like insisting that Parade organizers get the proper permits and take the appropriate precautions when organizing a parade. Wanting the organizers to follow the law does not mean you are against parades or that you at trying to squash their free speech. It means you want them to follow the damn law.

Someone wanting Obama to follow the law does not mean they support Gaddafi or that military action shouldn’t be taken against him. It means they want Obama to follow the damn law.

It really bothers me that a... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

It really bothers me that a President of the same party as that which championed the War Powers Resolution is one of only two Presidents (the other being of the same party) to ignore the provisions when it became inconvenient. This lack of respect for a law which their own party championed reflects a lack of respect for the rule of law and the Constitution which he is sworn to uphold and defend.

Similarly, I find it shocking that the soi dissant anti-war movement which loudly kvetched that Iraq and Afghanistan (for both of which there was a debate and authorization under the War Powers Resolution) were illegal are not so engaged now against the war in Libya.

His apologists are hypocrites of the first water.

The Constitution gives Cong... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to declare war. In today’s fast moving world, dire threats can arise where the President doesn’t have time to consult Congress. He should have the power to act to protect the U.S. in such cases. He should have the power to conduct limited military operations to protect the U.S. and its interest in certain situation. For example rescuing hostages from pirates or reacting to a nuclear launch. He should have a good amount of leeway.

However that doesn’t mean he should have carte blanch in being able to use the military in any manner he chooses. He shouldn’t be able to invade a non-threatening country because he shot a bad round of golf.

Of all the causes to cha... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Of all the causes to champion, championing the survival of this dictator is absolutely outrageous.

Then why is Barry doing just that? He's said repeatedly that the "kinetic military action" (now there's a made-up bullshit name for you) is not intended to depose Gaddafi.

So Barry is himself championing the survival of this dictator. Why the hell he's in Libya at all baffles me.

@12 Wow.<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

@12 Wow.

This really bothers me that some persons are acting so unpatriotic right now and giving comfort to the one of the world's worst dictators

When it start bothering you? January 20, 2009 perhaps? Before that unpatriotic behavior – and I mean real unpatriotic behavior, such as wanting the President assassinated and troops to killed, not mere policy opposition – was the rule of the day. Don't think so? Check out zombietime.com for photographic proof.

You can sure bet that there's no Ron Paul traitor standing up in Parliament arguing on behalf of Libya's dictator.

I always wondered whether you leftists even recognized the concept of treason. Now I know.

So "treason" in leftist land is defined as disagreeing with a Democrat President. Rejoicing in the deaths of American servicemembers is A-OK, but only if there's a Republican in office. Got it.

The president has access to national security information about Libya that not every member of congress has access to. It's the obligation of this president to protect the interests of the United States from terrorism or other threats.

When you say "this president" you mean Obama, as opposed to President Bush, right?

I agree with you on your general point; the President, even this dumbell, presumably has information to which we are not privy. But he still has an obligation to lay out his rationale to the country. This "Barry" has yet to do. Why are we in Libya? What is our purpose in being there? Waiting ...

Going softcore on terrorism right now is wrong as well.

So your supported President Bush's efforts all along, right? Right? Or when you add the "right now," do you mean it was OK previously?

All in all, you're sounding alarmingly ... patriotic. But we won't denounce you to your leftist friends. Honest.

L-I-B-Y-A. Not trying to p... (Below threshold)
Chris:

L-I-B-Y-A. Not trying to provoke, but we're representing the right, here. Should probably at least spell the country correctly. Unless I'm missing the joke.

I just went back to make su... (Below threshold)

I just went back to make sure I spelled Canada right. This has not been my post-titling day.

Rodney,Not to defl... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Rodney,

Not to deflate your balloon, but the War Powers resolution was passed over a Presidential veto and is law. It is also correctly called the War Powers Act.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy