Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[sarge]

But would those circumstances also have been in conflict with U.S. law? Remember, the president can act without congressional authorization in cases where, as Obama said, there is an actual and imminent threat to the U.S.

Either the use of force under the NATO charter would violate the Constitution or the present use of force under UN charter arguably does not. An attack against a NATO member would not directly threaten the US, although it would certainly threaten our best interests. Similarly, Obama might argue that not enforcing the UN No Fly zone in Libya might threaten US interests.

If the notional NATO trigger did not present an imminent threat, then the only way for us to meet our treaty obligations under NATO is to assume that by ratifying the treaty, congress gave advance authority for the President to wage war under circumstances that would invoke NATO treaty obligations.

But neither NATO nor the UN has the authority to require us to act against the Constitution.

Agreed.

And this notion that a Congress in 1945 can ratify a commitment for all future Congresses to give tacit authorization to use military force goes flat out against U.S. law.

That hasn't been established. Congress ratifies treaties, and the President is required to honor those treaties. If Congress ratifies a treaty that specifically obligates the US to act with military force, then it is reasonable to assume that Congress intends for the President to honor the treaty obligations.

Again, the War Powers Act says the president can use military force in 3 circumstances: 1) Congress declares war, 2) Congress authorizes it by statute, or 3) in the state of emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

The Supremecy Clause of Art VI seems to be clear on this subject. Once ratified, treaties are statutes.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It seems reasonable, absence specific court decisions to the contrary, to argue that once Congress ratifies a treaty, that treaty becomes statute and that the War Powers Act specifically presents a provision for the President to commit war when authorized by statute.

 

[sarge]

The UN charter demands nothing of the U.S., for the simple reason that the U.S. has veto power in the U.N.S.C. - a fact which has been largely overlooked in the argument to this point.

Not true, The UN Charter places many demands on the US, many of which never appear before the Security Council for decision.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0324-chapman-20110324,0,6776569.column

It's a good thing we didn't elect John McCain in 2008. A McCain victory would have meant an escalation in Afghanistan, a third war in the Middle East and a president sending U.S. forces into harm's way heedless of public opinion or congressional power.

Instead, we elected Barack Obama, who firmly rejected military action for purely humanitarian reasons. In his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war, Obama insisted that though Saddam Hussein "butchers his own people to secure his own power," the war was unjustified.

Hussein, he pointed out, "poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors" and "can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

… snip …

Said Obama in 2002: "I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." That first sentence was true.

 

[rwguinn]

The UN charter and NATO.

The NATO charter (and Treaty) specifies that an attack on one (member) is an attack on all (members), as a deterrent against the USSR back in the Cold War days. That is why a response is "per-authorized", if you will.
The UN Charter has no such specification.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So I'm going to address your usual tactic of pointing out something someone said 7 years ago as proof they're... something. I'm not entirely sure what

People change.

Really simple.

 

[BeAChooser]

So I'm going to address your usual tactic of pointing out something someone said 7 years ago as proof they're... something.

Then I'll point out that Obama ran for President on that record just 3 years ago.

And I bet you voted for him.

How far in the past doesn't matter to you?

Is history totally irrelevant to liberals?

 

[Neally]

Add Hillary to the hypocrisy list From 2007:

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,"

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization ..."

"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action. This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEwQIpyu9lA&feature=player_embedded

 

[sarge]

Add Hillary to the hypocrisy list From 2007:

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,"

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization ..."

"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action. This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEwQIpyu9lA&feature=player_embedded

I never though I'd be in a position to defend Hillary, but how does this make her a hypocrit?

There is no equivalency between the never happend Bush/Iran war and the UN authorized Obama/Libya war. Had Bush intended to wage war against Iran, he clearly would have been required to seek Congressional approval. It is far from clear that Obama does not already have Congressional approval for actions against Libya.

 

[Neally]

I never though I'd be in a position to defend Hillary, but how does this make her a hypocrit?

There is no equivalency between the never happend Bush/Iran war and the UN authorized Obama/Libya war.

If she thinks any use of force requires congressional approval,

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,"

then she should demand the same congressional approval before bombing Libya. Since she does not, she is a hypocrite.

 

[TraneWreck]

The NATO charter (and Treaty) specifies that an attack on one (member) is an attack on all (members), as a deterrent against the USSR back in the Cold War days. That is why a response is "per-authorized", if you will.
The UN Charter has no such specification.

You're trying to narrow the scope of the issue to make a distinction, but in so doing you've glossed over the relevant point.

The question is whether Congress has the power to pass a law that obviates the Constitutional requirement that they make war.

In the case of NATO, Congress has ratified a treaty that creates a situation not specifically provided by the Constitution in which the president can launch military action without Congressional approval. Namely, if there's an attack against a member nation.

In the case of the UN charter, Congress has ratified a treaty that creates a situation not specifically provided by the Constitution in which the president can launch military action without Congressional approval. Namely, if the Security Council votes to do so.

The question is whether Congress has this power at all, not whether one trigger works and the other doesn't. Either the Constitutional authority to declare war can be delegated by Congress (vesting that authority to a treaty obligation) or it can't. If it is delegable, then allowing the president to act pursuant to a Security COuncil vote some time in the future is no different than allowing the president to act if a NATO member nation is attacked some time in the future. They're indistinguishable from the perspective of Constitutional authority, though they differ in detail.

 

[Bill Thompson]

There are a few things I like about Obama. He is not Joe Biden is one of them. So, because of this, Impeachment should not be persued.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Then I'll point out that Obama ran for President on that record just 3 years ago.

And I bet you voted for him.

How far in the past doesn't matter to you?

Is history totally irrelevant to liberals?

If liberals cold learn from history there would be no liberals.

 

[sarge]

If she thinks any use of force requires congressional approval,

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,"

then she should demand the same congressional approval before bombing Libya. Since she does not, she is a hypocrite.

Not true.

You believe that Clinton said that any use of force always requires Congressional approval. That is not what she said, and almost certainly not what she meant. At the time that Clinton believed that Bush might be considering the use of force against Iran, there was no existing circumstance under which the War Powers Act might allow Bush to unilaterally use force against Iran.

Obama's use of force against Libya is (arguably) allowed by the War Powers Act, and obviates the requirment for Obama to seek Congressional authorization. Indeed, it isn't necessary that this be true - it need only be true that Clinton believes it to be true in order for her not to be a hypocrit.

 

[BeAChooser]

It seems to me that there's a good argument that by signing the North Atlantic Treaty and ratifying it, Congress has pre-approved military action in the event a member nation is attacked.

And which NATO member nation was attacked by Libya? You are clearly spinning excuses, TW.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Either the use of force under the NATO charter would violate the Constitution or the present use of force under UN charter arguably does not.

But the present use of force in Libya is not authorized by the UN Charter. It was called for by a UN resolution that was not ratified by Congress.

Again, U.S. law is pretty clear: the president can only use force in 3 situations: if Congress declares war, if Congress passes a statute authorizing that use of force, or in an emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

Clearly, the civil uprising (or civil war) in Libya is not an attack on the U.S.

The argument that somehow Congress' ratifying the UN Charter in 1945 supersedes the War Powers Act of 1973 or satisfies it because the UN Charter is Congress' consent to the use of military force in Libya makes no sense.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the case of the UN charter, Congress has ratified a treaty that creates a situation not specifically provided by the Constitution in which the president can launch military action without Congressional approval.

No no no no.

The UN Charter has nothing to say about requirements for Congressional authorization of the use of force by the U.S. president.

If anything, the UN Charter is an additional requirement for authorization* to use military force beyond the requirements I've described several times that the War Powers Act lays out.

I think you are still trying to construe UN authorization to use force as a requirement to use force.

*ETA: For example, suppose Congress decided to declare war against Canada because we want to expand our borders. The UN Security Council would not authorize that use of force, even though the U.S. may have fulfilled the constitutional requirements for the president to order the use of military force.

ETA: Ditto with NATO. NATO does not and cannot change the requirements laid out in U.S. law, but it can add another layer of authorization that is needed to use force. So when NATO says that if someone attacks the UK, the U.S. is authorized to defend the UK, this does not take the place of the requirements for Congressional authorization called for by the War Powers Act. If the situation presents an immediate threat to the US though, the War Powers Act already allows the president to act without going to Congress first.

 

[BeAChooser]

Obama's use of force against Libya is (arguably) allowed by the War Powers Act

No, it is not. The WPA clearly states:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001542----000-.html

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances

The only exception was if the US were under direct attack or serious threat of attack. Neither was the case in Libya.

Furthermore, the WPA states:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001547----000-.html

(a) Inferences from any law or treaty

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred —

… snip ...

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

Thus, the fact that the Senate ratified the NATO and UN Charters does NOT give the President the authority to introduce US forces into Libya without seeking Congressional approval prior to doing so. The NATO charter does not apply because Libya did not attack a NATO member state. And the UN Charter is simply too broad and vague to be considered a valid exception in this case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Similarly, Obama might argue that not enforcing the UN No Fly zone in Libya might threaten US interests.

Yes, he could argue that and urge Congress to grant him statutory authorization to use the military for this purpose.

If the notional NATO trigger did not present an imminent threat, then the only way for us to meet our treaty obligations under NATO is to assume that by ratifying the treaty, congress gave advance authority for the President to wage war under circumstances that would invoke NATO treaty obligations.

That doesn't logically follow.

NATO, as with the UN Charter, says nothing about US requirements for the president to use force. NATO might have conditions that might require Congress to authorize the use of force, but NATO doesn't trump US law.

This is precisely the reason why the US elects to treat ratified treaties and international agreements as part and parcel of U.S. law: because we have never recognized international law as being supreme to U.S. law.

Congress ratifies treaties, and the President is required to honor those treaties. If Congress ratifies a treaty that specifically obligates the US to act with military force,

But back to the topic of this thread: Congress has not ratified any treaty or resolution that specifically obligates the U.S. to use the military to intervene in Libya.

That's rather the point of all this discussion.

Even if the UN Charter does oblige the US to use its military (a point I'm not conceding, because authorization is not obligation), under US law, that obligation falls to Congress to grant the president the authority to use it that way. In cases where there is disagreement (since nothing in the UN Charter talks about the current situation in Libya), the decision is Congress' to make; not the president's.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're trying to narrow the scope of the issue to make a distinction, but in so doing you've glossed over the relevant point.

The question is whether Congress has the power to pass a law that obviates the Constitutional requirement that they make war.

Let's suppose that Congress can satisfy constitutional requirements ahead of time through treaty ratification. In other words, by ratifying the NATO treaty, Congress is basically saying we will go to war if the conditions of the treaty call for it. If they can do that for NATO, then they can do that with other treaties. If the treaty demands that we go to war under a set of conditions, then Congress' ratification should be taken as prior approval of war should those conditions materialize.

But did they do that in this case? Did signing the UN charter similarly commit us to war? I would say no: I see no equivalent commitment on our part in ratifying the UN charter. And in this specific case, the UNSC resolution here did not require us to act, so conditions are definitely different. So I have to conclude that even if we can take treaty obligations as prior approval by Congress, no such obligations exist here. So we should not construe prior approval here.

In other words, if a treaty only permits military action under a given set of conditions, does ratification of the treaty indicate congressional authorization of military action if those conditions are met? I would say no, in such a case we cannot construe Congressional approval, we can only construe the possibility of congressional approval. We would still need the actual approval. This isn't a unique legal situation either. Plenty of actions fall under the scope of multiple statutes, and they generally must all be satisfied (unless the law itself clarifies some hierarchy).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Once ratified, treaties are statutes.

Yes. Now show me a treaty that gives specific authorization to intervene in the current situation in Libya. No such treaty that has been ratified by Congress exists.

Have you read the War Powers Act? I strongly suggest you read it, since it is the current law that controls the question of the president's authority to use military force.

The UN Charter, on the other hand, lays out the conditions and circumstances where the UN authorizes the use of force.