Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[JoeTheJuggler]

The WPA does not require specific authorization - at least, not as you are presenting it.

Yes, it does. I even quoted the WPA repeatedly.

The WPA specifically authorizes the President to commit war if required by statute.

Yes, I have cited the three conditions when the president may take military action: 1) congress declares war, 2) Congress gives specific authorization by statute, and 3) there is an emergency caused by an attack against the U.S.

There are generally some legal distinctions between 1) and 2) (most notably that a formal declaration of war triggers a number of other statutes that give the president special powers--statutes not triggered by statutory authorization), but not of the sort you seem to think exist. Both are passed by Congress and are laws.

As treaties are "statutes", Congress clearly intended for the President to have the authority to commit war when a treaty we are signatory to requires it.

I disagree. No treaty can go against a U.S. law passed later than it. If there were (hypothetically speaking) a treaty that obliged the U.S. to act, under U.S. law, that obligation would fall to Congress. But that point is moot anyway since there is no treaty that requires the U.S. to intervene in Libya.

I have established that Congress intended to give the President the independent authority to commit war in response to treaty obligations,

You have established no such thing. I even cited language from the U.N. Charter that explicitly says any Security Council agreements requiring military intervention are subject to the ratification process called for by the constitution of the member states (in the case of the U.S. that means ratification by Congress). It is clear from the WPA and the wording of the U.N. Charter (ratified by the U.S. Congress) that it was not expected that Congress can somehow give a blank check to the president some 60 years ahead of time.

Except that the President undoubtably can use military force without specific authorization from Congress. There is no doubt about this at all. If the WPA required the President to seek Congressional approval p[rior to using force, there would be no need for the WPA. Indeed, the existance of the WPA is evidence that Congress intended to extend advance approval for the use of force to the President.

Again, the WPA specifies 3 situations when the president may use military force: 1) Congress declares war, 2) Congress gives specific statutory authorization or 3) there is a state of emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

Much of the WPA is devoted to category 3, since it is most problematic in terms of separation of powers. It is clear that the main thrust of the WPA is that even in cases of emergency (what Obama referred to as "self-defense") the president is to inform and get consent from Congress as soon as it is feasible under the circumstances.

My claim is that treaties that require the use of force meet the "statute clause" of the WPA. I believe that I have carried that argument.

I disagree. Even if such a treaty existed (hypothetically) requiring the U.S. to provide military intervention, absent an emergency threatening the U.S. (the 3rd category in the WPA), the obligation to act falls to Congress to grant the president authorization.

[ETA: The "statute clause"--situation number 2 when the president may use military force--calls for specific authorization. You have failed to point to a treaty ratified by Congress that gives the President specific authorization to intervene in Libya.]

You ask me to read the WPA in the same post that you demonstrate and [sic] almost singular misunderstanding of the WPA?

Nonsense. I've supported my reading of the WPA with the clear and plain text of it. Again, the thrust of the law is clearly to specify what the president can do and when, and the main intent is to keep the decision to make war in the hands of Congress whenever that is feasible.

Going back to the constitution, granting the authority to declare war to Congress was meant as a check on war-making by the head of state as in the European monarchies especially in the relatively recent history prior to the Revolutionary War.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Within 28 days, the report to Congress will arrive, and get the blessing ...

I agree. I think that is very likely what will happen.

With any luck, by that time Obama can get his picture taken under a "Mission Accomplished" banner while the civil war in Libya rages on without U.S. troops on the ground and with minimal U.S. involvement in the aerial warfare.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Part of what Kucinich is talking about, which is Constitutional authority, seems to be that UN resolutions do not fit into the Constitutional rubric.

Actually this issue came up within the first decade of the existence of the U.N. Congress amended the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 in 1949 to try to bandage the situation. It attempted to clarify the powers of the president and contained this very confusing language:

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

As has been pointed out, the Security Council did not make such an order to the U.S. to take action in Libya, but merely gave its authorization for member states to act.


At any rate, the WPA of 1973 makes it clear that there are only 3 situations when the president may use military force. The UN Participation Act says that it is not to be construed as such authorization (as under situation number 2 of the WPA).

 

[INRM]

The thought of an actual war declaration is a disaster. It could justify even more expansions in executive power, including domestic surveillance and extralegal authority; it could also justify a draft.

 

[CORed]

Found this at CNN's blog. I can't post links yet.

Thoughts?

It's an impeachable offense if he can convince a majority of the house of representatives that it is. To actually remove Obama, he needs to convince 2/3 of the Senate. there is very little chance of the first, and just about zero chance of the second.



The Constitution allows impeachment for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What are "other high crimes and misdemeanors"? Whatever the members of Congress want them to be. During the Clinton administration, a majority of the house thought lying in court about a blowjob qualified. However, not enough senators agreed to remove Clinton.

The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, but makes the President commander in chief of the armed forces. Exactly what the President can do with or without a declaration of war is not made clear, but there is ample precedent for committing armed forces to combat without a declaration of war.

 

[BeAChooser]

During the Clinton administration, a majority of the house thought lying in court about a blowjob qualified. However, not enough senators agreed to remove Clinton.

For the sake of accuracy (since afterall, we're supposed to be seeking the truth on this forum), it was about a lot more than lying in court about a BJ. Here, from David Schippers, who led the investigation for the House Managers ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372

And Schippers says the impeachment investigation of Clinton hardly was about the president's glandularly overexcited conduct. It was about corruption of power: the Citizenship USA initiative, which put hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens on the voter rolls, and Filegate, in which nearly 1,000 raw, secret FBI personnel files on Republican former officials wound up in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's hands and may have been used to blackmail congressmen and senators. Worst of all, in Schippers' view was a national-security lapse: Chinagate, in which the president of the United States deliberately may have compromised US. national security in exchange for illegal secret payments from Chinese military intelligence."

These, and not the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones sideshows, are the reasons the House voted to impeach Clinton. But it was an uphill fight even in the House. Then the Senate -- which didn't want to know the facts, in Schippers' account -- would not go along.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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.

The logical fallacy being employed here is that impeachment has zero effect on the behavior of successive presidents.

It also pretends that a congress, once having exercised its power of impeachment on one president, mysteriously transforms into the lapdog of the next president - a cowardly, obedient servant.

This is exactly the kind of backwards thinking that has reduced the republic to its present pathetic state.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The constitution in Article I, section 8 reserves to congress the power to declare war.

The constitution can be changed only through amendment. All the rest of these silly arguments are red herrings.

Congress and the President are relentless about violating the constitution, yes absolutely. That doesn't change the constitution any more than me robbing a bank makes it legal for the next bank robber.

When Presidents make war without authority, instead of impeaching him the cowards do asinine things like pass a "War Powers Act" that pretends to let the president wage war for 90 days on his own. An act cannot amend the constitution. Neither can a treaty.

If you are that daft then by treaty or mere act of congress the Bill of Rights can be removed, the Congress and Courts dissolved, and a King installed.

I am fairly certain that the electorate of this country would permit such a thing, yes. Because the problem is not Bush or O'Bomba or whatever next war criminal president we have.

The problem is the people. We are corrupt, shameless cowards ourselves and we are electing people who reflect us.

 

[BeAChooser]

So now we hear that rebels have recaptured two oil facilities and are at least threatening a Ghaddafi stronghold, the town of Sirte … with the help of plenty of NATO bombing, which just started there. Which raises an interesting question.

What verbage in the UN resolution gives NATO the authority to support this current rebel offensive? Militarily, the resolution (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution ) only authorizes :

1) the protection of "civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi".

2) "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians", unless humanitarian in nature or authorized for the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas.

3) and an arms embargo.

If the rebels are on the offensive now, conquering and threatening new terrain and cities that Ghaddafi has held all along, then clearly the threat of *genocide* at the hands of Ghaddafi's troops in the cities the rebels held and that Obama and the UN were concerned about is gone or greatly diminished. Now it is the civilians in the cities that Ghaddafi holds who are being put at risk by rebel attacks and UN bombing. Since these attacks are not protecting civilians and civilian populated areas, but instead exposing them to even greater risk, shouldn't the UN ban on flights apply to NATO as well? NATO hasn't just created a no fly zone. NATO has gone far beyond that authorization, and has now created a no Ghaddafi military zone both in the air AND on the ground. And since there is also talk of arming the rebels, shouldn't the UN arms embargo also apply to that? Any of you want to take a stab at these questions? Hmmmmmmmmm?

And one last question. When the rebels start murdering civilians who were pro-government supporters or start shelling Ghaddafi held civilian areas, what will Obama and NATO do then? Bomb them? Hmmmmmmmm? Wouldn't be a clear violation of the UN resolution requiring the same response from NATO? Hmmmmmmm?

Perhaps Obama will address those two questions, tonight, assuming Pigs(ford) fly.