iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Kucinich Sues Obama For Violating War Powers Act In Libya


First Posted: 06/15/11 01:19 PM ET Updated: 08/15/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON –- President Barack Obama spoke passionately in 2007 about the need for Congress to challenge the Bush administration over violating the War Powers Act -- the very charge he is now facing from lawmakers in both parties over U.S. military involvement in Libya.

Back when Obama was a senator, he talked tough on the need for Congress to find "a backbone" and keep then-President George W. Bush in check regarding the legality of the Iraq War.

"We thought we learned this lesson," Obama said during remarks at DePaul University in October 2007.

"After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it."

Those sentiments are now being played out by some of Obama's biggest critics on Libya.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) announced Wednesday that they are suing Obama in federal court over the constitutionality of leading the U.S. into war with Libya without seeking Congressional approval. Specifically, their lawsuit challenges the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations -- namely, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to authorize the use of military force abroad.

"With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated," Kucinich said in a statement. "We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies."

The lawsuit is signed by a bipartisan mix of lawmakers, including Reps. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Of note: Paul is one of Obama's GOP challengers for the presidency in 2012.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also warned Obama Tuesday that he may be in violation of the War Powers Act by Sunday if he doesn't seek congressional authorization to continue operations in Libya. Sunday will mark 90 days since U.S. forces first struck Libyan targets as part of the NATO-led effort to take out leader Muammar Gaddafi.

According to the War Powers resolution, a president who commits troops to war must explain the legal reasoning for doing so within 60 days. That period can be extended to 90 days if the president requests more time from Congress, which Obama did not do. By the 90-day mark, the president is required to obtain congressional approval for action. To date, Obama has not sought such approval and maintains it is not necessary given that military action is expected to be limited in scope and duration.

"Since the mission began, the administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action," Boehner said in a letter to Obama.

"Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission."

In his letter, the Speaker proposes the White House has made one of two determinations on Libya: "Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution."

Boehner wasn't always so critical of Obama over Libya -- in fact, Politico reported that he said the president was "technically" in compliance with the War Powers Act earlier this month.

“There are a lot of questions that remain out there, and frankly I think members on both sides of the aisle are looking for answers about this, and they’re looking for some clarity,” he told reporters. “Legally, they’ve met their requirements [under] the War Powers Act.”

An administration official told The Huffington Post on Wednesday that the White House is preparing to send Congress extensive documentation “sometime today” that makes the case for involvement in Libya without Congressional approval. It remains to be seen if lawmakers will agree those documents suffice -- and if Republicans plan to drag the issue out for political gain.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON –- President Barack Obama spoke passionately in 2007 about the need for Congress to challenge the Bush administration over violating the War Powers Act -- the very charge he is now facing...
WASHINGTON –- President Barack Obama spoke passionately in 2007 about the need for Congress to challenge the Bush administration over violating the War Powers Act -- the very charge he is now facing...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,011
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (31 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
jsarets 04:08 PM on 06/15/2011
I tend to agree with Kucinich in principle, but the wrinkle in this case is that Libya is a small engagement from a US standpoint. We have no ground forces deployed, and our European allies are really the ones prosecuting the operation. The US is providing certain assets such as refueling, radar, and reconnaissance.

We have signed treaties obligating formal support for NATO member states such as  Read More...
08:28 PM on 06/17/2011
Obama's Watergate has begun; history could now change at a breathtaking pace.

http://larouchepac.com/node/18481

http://larouchepac.com/node/18476
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
10:01 PM on 06/16/2011
Kucinich is "tilting with windmills," and cannot seriously imagine he will succeed in accomplishing anything with this effort other than getting unwarranted public attention. There is a rumor that Kucinich may be moving to the West Coast (sometimes referred to as the "Left Coast") to find a new home and liberal congressional district in which to run. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The suit against Obama under WPR is baseless, not merely because individual congressioinal reps do not have the standing to challenge the legal authority of the president in a court of law, but because it explicitely excuses the President from reporting requirements if US forces are deployed "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." As US forces have not been engaged in combat operations since well before the expiration of the sixty-day deadline, it would appear Obama would have no currenet reporting requirements under WPR. And there are constitutional scholars who hold the position that WPR itself is an unconstitutional usurpation by the congress of the executive's constitutional powers as commander in chief. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - One has to believe Kucinich understands all this, but either way, if he does, or if he doesn't, his bringing the lawsuit is at best dangerous, and at worst totally disingenuous political pandering.
04:51 PM on 06/16/2011
The invasion of Libya was illegal under US law from the get go. Under the War Powers Resolution (WPR), 15 USC Section 1541(c), the President may commit US forces to hostilities only under one of the following limited circumstances: (1) a declaration of war (which takes an act of Congress); (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. None of these apply to the Libyan conflict. Read the WPR at www.law.cornell.edu

Others have claimed that the USA’s NATO obligations provide a legal basis for the Libyan invasion. Not so. The North Atlantic Treaty (NAT), which is the legal basis for NATO, provides, at Article 5, only for a pact for “mutual defence”. (Read that at www.nato.int. Go to the “Search” box and type in “North Atlantic Treaty.”) No NATO member state was attacked by Libya.

By failing to report to Congress within 60 days and seek authoriztion for a prolonged engagement President Obama again violated the War Power Resolution.

There is no legitimate, credible argument supporting the legality of the invasion. Unfortunately, the courts will probably hold that the members of Congress who have brought the lawsuit lack "standing" to sue personally and thus side step the issue.

This is a serious constitutional crisis which the mainstream media has largely ignored and which has barely impinged on the surface of the American consciousness.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
07:10 PM on 06/16/2011
Was the intervention into Libya to prevent Gaddafi's forces from bombardment of his own civilians not the right thing to do? What about our treaty obligations with NATO in the context of our obligations to support UN peace keeping missions?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:22 PM on 06/16/2011
We have no real obligation to support UN peace keeping missions. We didn't do it in Sudan, Congo or Rwanda.
07:32 PM on 06/16/2011
The United States Constitution is FIRST, not NATO.

We must obey the Constitution. This is the basis of the lawsuit.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamaLover1
04:50 PM on 06/16/2011
I cant wait until this guy is redistricted out of congress. He sues for a tooth and now he wants to sue the President..seems like someone needs attention!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:12 PM on 06/16/2011
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the best preson progressives have in congress. He has fought going to war, he opposed all the wars. He pushed hard, very hard for single payer. He is for gay marriage, against the patriot act, Abolishing the death penalty.
Environmental renewal and clean energy, Creating a moratorium on Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Implementation of H.R. 676, which integrates traditional medicine with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Ban offshore drilling.
Halt all Biochemical Aerial Spraying of Pesticides and other toxins. Preventing the privatization of social security. Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace" Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting. Protecting a woman's "right to choose" while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.Ending the War on Drugs. Legalizing same-sex marriage.
Strongly promoting workers' rights. Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
Restoring rural communities and family farms. Strengthening gun control.
Legalizing medicinal marijuana and decriminalizing non-medical possession.

You really want him to go away? Serious?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
07:15 PM on 06/16/2011
What would Kucinich's Department of Peace do exactly? Stay out of conflicts?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
theobserver4
progress is a process not an end result
10:46 PM on 06/16/2011
This is a publicity stunt but I still love Kucinich. Again Obama has a bit of a communications problem, his office could have already laid out their stance well before 60 and then 90 days.....he may not have been exactly required to under his office's opinion, but why let it blow up like this?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
11:40 PM on 06/16/2011
The only blow up is in the media hoisting the actions of 2% of congress into a story that has no legs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
posie Di Sesa
01:29 PM on 06/16/2011
thanks for bringing suit on a fruitless, baseless causer. another stimulus package for lawyers and judges with taxpayers footing the bill. it's a win-win-win!! for everyone but taxpayers. stop wasting our money and your time!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:37 AM on 06/16/2011
The suit will be dismissed by the District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1999, Rep. Tom Campbell and a bipartisan group of 16 other members of the House of Representatives filed a suit in the same court against President Clinton for violating the War Powers Act by participating in NATO air and cruise missile attacks on Serbian targets as part of the Kosovo dispute. The District Court found that members of Congress lack standing to bring such suits and in Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed that decision. The 17 members of Congress appealed to the Supreme Court, but it refused to hear the appeal. Unless the Supreme Court decides to get involved this time, Kucinich and the other plaintiffs will never be heard on the merits of this case.
04:56 PM on 06/16/2011
Unfortunately, that is probably an accurate assessment of what the courts will do with this. However, the lawsuit may still serve some benefit in raising consciousness of this issue. The public should be dismayed that the President has invaded Libya without a legal basis for doing so. See my later post.
05:24 PM on 06/16/2011
Methinks your vocabulary could use some updating. We have no troups on the ground according to latest reports. "Invade" should probably vacate the space for "attack".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
theobserver4
progress is a process not an end result
10:48 PM on 06/16/2011
We didn't invade, we lobbed missiles and are providing support.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
07:17 PM on 06/16/2011
Fave froma fan. Nice work DinkSinger. Gotta love those facts and citations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kalemanao
We Didn't Start The Fire...
10:32 AM on 06/16/2011
This lawsuit is signed by a bipartisan mix of lawbreakers...
photo
Just Ask Jheri
Tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift.
10:41 AM on 06/16/2011
We are in the belly of the beast and we are being starved . . .
Pray because prayer changes things . . .
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:18 AM on 06/18/2011
The 9 congressmen who have joined in Kucinich's suit against Obama and Gates include only two Democrats, Conyers, and Capuano (Massachusetts), and seven GOP, including ultra-right wing libertarian Ron Paul, and four other GOP who are formal members of the congressional Tea Party Caucus. Kucinich's deal with the devil?
10:30 AM on 06/16/2011
umm since when have we been at war with Libya? I must have missed that memo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is a member of NATO. So if NATO chooses to act against Libya, then the US has to lend a hand too, correct. You can't be a member of an organization like NATO and decide when to help and when to sit on your hands. Moreover, there are no US troops over there. Unlike this War on Terror bit that started when I was a freshman in college and here I am a couple of years shy of 30 and troops are STILL over there dying for God only knows what because it only seems to be getting worse. It's an uneven comparison to say what Obama is doing is what push is doing. Obama is backing our Allies. Bush utterly disregarded our Allies feelings.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Grif
03:39 PM on 06/16/2011
We are NATO. I'm guessing that the others are wondering why they let the articulate Obama entagle them in yet another inspiring US effort in which Obama will pull out. I thought they weren't trusting American leadership and wanted change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
theobserver4
progress is a process not an end result
10:51 PM on 06/16/2011
The British, French, and Italians WANTED this one. This is their Iraq.
04:54 PM on 06/16/2011
You are dead wrong about NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty (NAT), which is the legal basis for NATO, provides, at Article 5, only for a pact for “mutual defence”. (Read that at www.nato.int. Go to the “Search” box and type in “North Atlantic Treaty.”) No NATO member state was attacked by Libya. Thus, there was no obligation triggered by NAT to join in the operation and President Obama's actions in committing US forces to the invasion of Libya has to be justified under some other provison of US law - which it can't be. See my later post.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:20 AM on 06/18/2011
If you read further on NATO's website you will see that it's mission has evolved and now includes humanitarian peace keeping, as with the Kosovo War.
photo
Just Ask Jheri
Tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift.
10:27 AM on 06/16/2011
By any means necessary - let us make sure that this man get one term . . .

Boehner wasn't always so critical of Obama over Libya -- in fact, Politico reported that he said the president was "technically" in compliance with the War Powers Act earlier this month.

To the Flip-Flopping cry baby - "SO BE IT!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anthony Zapata
"...I shall finish the game."
10:52 AM on 06/16/2011
To the individual for whom intellectual honesty is a crap shoot- "HOW AM I SUPPOSE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ramman
10:27 AM on 06/16/2011
Wow with in this whole article it did not mention that the President doesn't have to have congressional approval as long as it has joined in coalition with NATO to right a wrong when no one steps up to protect those being massacred. It is an actual written agreement that was broken down and explained numerous times already when the move was first made. The Presidents legal team had already thoroughly checked into this before they made the move thats why it had gotten so much criticism as to why it took the administration so long to help in the coalition move once the people on Libya started screaming on world news outlets for help.

On top of that the President did notify multiple members of congress on conference call to let them know what was going to go down before he actually joined in the coalition effort in which many of the people on the conference call confirmed.

This effort to do this thing by Kucinich and his cohorts is an attempt to force Obama to formally address them about this issue because some of them were left out of the loop on the call, They already know within the frame work the president has the right to act in and Ron Paul evens knows this where as he was grilled about it a month ago and said they should get rid of the NATO law because he didn't have a leg to stand on after all his arguing.
05:06 PM on 06/16/2011
The North Atlantic Treaty (NAT), which is the legal basis for NATO, provides, at Article 5, only for a pact for “mutual defence”. (Read that at www.nato.int. Go to the “Search” box and type in “North Atlantic Treaty.”) No NATO member state was attacked by Libya. The fact that NATO has chosen to expand its role beyond NAT does not trigger a treaty obligation on the part of the US to participate in NATO actions. President Obama's decision to invade Libya has to be justified on some other basis. Which it can't. See my later post.
05:22 PM on 06/16/2011
Early reports from other than US news indicated that the refugees fleeing Libya were in particularly high numbers and Italy was particularly flooded with them. With all of the "secure" positions in so much of our international relations, I cannot help but think there is a lot which is not being mentioned for other reasons. Bringing our own citizens away safely should have been a high priority, and sharing the space with others along the Mediterranean should also have been high priority.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
07:32 PM on 06/16/2011
From your link, under FAQ, I copied and pasted the following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q: What does NATO do? A: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of 28 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949. In accordance with the Treaty, the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO is playing an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NATO actions in Libya are a UN sanctioned peace keeping and crisis intervention mission.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoAnn Kennedy
10:23 AM on 06/16/2011
Let's just move the UN somewhere else, out of this country and do a reassessment of NATO altogether. NATO was for the Allies in WWII I think that ship has sailed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
posie Di Sesa
12:14 PM on 06/16/2011
no, it came after world war 2 when half of europe was occupied by soviet russia. it's a defense pact/alliance to assist in the defense of a member nation when its security is in question. a positive effort to do away with the weakness of european countries in confronting nazi germany. nato and un, not the same thing.
05:07 PM on 06/16/2011
NATO was a positive idea, but it does not justify the US participation in the invasion of Libya. The North Atlantic Treaty (NAT), which is the legal basis for NATO, provides, at Article 5, only for a pact for “mutual defence”. (Read that at www.nato.int. Go to the “Search” box and type in “North Atlantic Treaty.”) No NATO member state was attacked by Libya.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jacob007
10:11 AM on 06/16/2011
More tax dollars @ work.......
photo
PRR Fan
8 year-olds, dude.....
10:10 AM on 06/16/2011
How many Democrats, including President Obama as the article pointed out, were bashing on Bush, to the point of talking about impeachment, over a war in Iraq for which he had not one but two Congressional authorizations BEFORE we went in?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anthony Zapata
"...I shall finish the game."
10:57 AM on 06/16/2011
The "bashing" was not over authorizations per se but nice try.The gist of Obama's critique is and always has been that the evidence in the case for the Iraq war was unsound. That's a completely different argument than the one being made here.
photo
PRR Fan
8 year-olds, dude.....
11:43 AM on 06/16/2011
Iraq was viewed as a threat by the intelligence organizations of the U.S., Great Britain and France as well as the U.N. which passed 19 resolutions against it. The war in Iraq was supported by Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry (before he was against it), Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, Henry Waxman, and Nancy Pelosi. Either Bush was a lot smarter than most people think to fool all these people or they are all pretty stupid to be fooled by Bush. Or maybe the intelligence was viewed as being legitimate by all of these people, most of whom supported the removal of Saddam before Bush was in office, as was U.S. policy under Clinton.
photo
tmm77625
The winner is the one who stops first
10:04 AM on 06/17/2011
There is nothing in the War Powers Act or the Constitution about "good wars" or "wars based on sound intelligence" or "oops, we screwed up, our bad, but as long as we're here..." wars. War is war. Dropping bombs on a sovereign nation is an act of war, whether by manned plane or unmanned drone, every bit as much as sending in 100,000 ground troops. And if anyone thinks we don't have special forces and "advisers" on the ground in Libya, you're on crack.

This is all disingenuous hypocrisy on the part of the Obama administration and its defenders. Obama took this country to war. Period. The fact that he beat up on a weak country that is far away and unable to retaliate does not change that fact. Obama did NOT seek Congressional approval. Period. Obama has thumbed his nose at Congress when they have asked for a report as required. Congress should cut off all funding for Obama's military adventure in Libya, as is their Constitutional prerogative, until Obama complies. If Obama continues with it after funding is cut off, Congress would have grounds to remove him from office.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giant robot9
consultant, innovator, promoter,
09:57 AM on 06/16/2011
it was ok with bush /cheney they got us here like a friend in a bar fight who leaves you when the swinging starts
photo
PRR Fan
8 year-olds, dude.....
10:05 AM on 06/16/2011
Would you have preferred that Bush & Cheney tried to remain in office past their terms?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SigonellaPC3
One Wississippi, two Wississippi...
09:47 AM on 06/16/2011
Kucinich/Grayson 2012...