Obama's Decision to Attack Libya is Unconstitutional

On March 19th, 2011, the POTUS, Barrack Obama, authorized the use of military force in Libya. Following this, over one hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles were deployed to destroy various targets. Since then, reports having been coming in via different news agencies that various, unconfirmed numbers of civilians were also killed in the attacks. The Chairman of the United States JCS denies this so far.

Civilian deaths aside, the actions that the POTUS has undertaken go against Constitutional Law, very clearly. According to the Library of Congress, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 states (here are some pieces, visit the link for access to the full resolution):

The President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541)...

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b)...

Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544)...

However, the United States Congress has not declared war against Libya, the United States has neither been attacked nor threatened by Libya, and the POTUS has not been given specific statutory authorization (as Pres. Bush did for Iraq) for the ordering of these attacks. Because of this, our President has absolutely no constitutional right to have ordered the attacks on Libya, regardless of the United Nations-approved no-fly-zone, and has acted illegally and put the American people (further) at risk.

House of Representative Speaker Boehner has called on Obama to explain the United States' position and goals in Libya.

Furthermore, Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter of the United Nations states:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll

and, Article 7, Sections 1 through 3

1.All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2.Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3.The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

(Emphasis added by me) Pres. Obama received no such ratification or sanction from the Congress of the United States before authorizing said air strikes, Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Our President of the United States has engaged in military combat without approval from the United States Congress and against the Constitution of the United States, instead acting after the permission of the United Nations.

You can also read here for more information on his actions.


Mod Note : Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

reply to post by Konah


Obama did not make the decision to attack Libya.The UN made the decision to attack Libya.

Search is your friend here. Already a dozen or so threads started about this.

reply to post by UtahRosebud


The threads I have read were linking to a Senator calling the act unconstitutional. Here, as I have yet to see a thread show this, I have provided proof using both the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter that his decision was inappropriate.

And, the U.N. did approve the no-fly-zone. But, the U.N., as I showed by linking to the actual charter, also states that the members must have ratification by their own congressional bodies. Not to mention that our Constitutional law surpasses the Charter of the U.N. when it comes to actions by the POTUS and our armed forces.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by Konah

 

Obama did not make the decision to attack Libya.The UN made the decision to attack Libya.

You beat me to it!

The UN agreed unanimously to put up a no fly zone. The coalition is enforcing said no fly zone.
www.foxnews.com...

The UN decided to approve "All necessary measures" In order to stop Libya from attacking it's own people... news.yahoo.com...

The UN okay-ed the use of force and it is therefore legal for the US to assist in enforcing the ruling of the UN.

Do I like that the US is getting involved? Not at all.... But it is legal.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


The United Nations approved the use of military force, yes, but Obama did so without ratification by the U.S. Congress, and against both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution - which supersede approval by the United Nations.

Is it internationally legal according to the United Nations? Yes. Is it legal according to our United States Constitution? No.

The United Nations approved the use of military force, yes, but Obama did so without ratification by the U.S. Congress, and against both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution - which supersede approval by the United Nations.

reply to post by Konah


So maybe you should make the title of your thread state that Obama was not ratified by the US Congress, ect, instead of the sensationalist title you used, which by the way remains inccorrect regardless. Also I am sure that congress would agree to the decision made by the UN.

it doesn't matter. bush set a presidential precedent and obama is acting justly given his constitutional charge.

The UN okay-ed the use of force and it is therefore legal for the US to assist in enforcing the ruling of the UN.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I dont think so.Our Constituion makes no reference to the UN. Only Congress can make war.

Everybody should write a letter to your congressmen tomorrow about this. I'm gonna

Originally posted by Konah
Because of this, our President has absolutely no constitutional right to have ordered the attacks on Libya, regardless of the United Nations-approved no-fly-zone, and has acted illegally and put the American people (further) at risk.

Questions of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act aside, it seems to me that you have misread the Act, or at least haven’t accurately represented one aspect of it.

You were accurate, in your citations, that the President, absent a declaration of war or statutory authorization, must remove the armed forces from hostilities when directed by a concurrent resolution from Congress. Which, as far as I know, Congress hasn’t done.

But, contrary to what you seem to be implying, the President, as per the War Powers Act, namely 50 USC 1544(b), absent a declaration of war or statutory authorization, has 60 days before having to request that declaration or authorization. It is only after those 60 days that he must request such authorization.

Since we’re nowhere near that limit, and Congress hasn’t requested him to remove the armed forces from hostilities, why do you claim he has no constitutional authority?

I don’t think we even need to reach your points about the United Nations to question your claim, just from a War Powers Act perspective it doesn’t seem sound.

But regarding your points about the United Nations Charter, the action being taken against the Gaddafi regime is pursuant to Article 42, not Article 43. Article 43 is for the establishment of a UN army.

In the United Nations Participation Act of December 20, 1945 — codified at 22 USC 287d — the Senate implemented the following provisions—

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. 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 ...

reply to post by aptness


Stop making sense, you're blowing holes in the theory.

We have teh google, we're all scholars.

reply to post by Konah


Since when did Obama care about following what the Constitution says?
To him ifts an old, outdated piece of paper that doesnt mean anything.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by Konah

 

Obama did not make the decision to attack Libya.The UN made the decision to attack Libya.

Yeah ..tomahawks are UN production ....you Americans will never learn

Originally posted by xavi1000

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by Konah

 

Obama did not make the decision to attack Libya.The UN made the decision to attack Libya.

Yeah ..tomahawks are UN production ....you Americans will never learn

Classic response. Please don't forget all of the other nations involved and the sorties that are being flown by the British and the French. Oh and the British have also fired tomahawks from its submarines in the area.

For now, the US is in the backseat on this one. This is still a multilateral mission and there are many nations waiting in the wings for their call to action. Please save your judgement for the days when the dust begins to settle. Then, see which nation is left holding the bag. Probably the US as usual.

reply to post by jibeho


This is name of the thread " Obama's Decision to Attack Libya is Unconstitutional " so ..it's clearly about U.S
About France and UK ....afcourse their involvement is illegal too .Bombing another country without being attacked from bombed country is always illegal,unconstitutional ,unfair..... and your statement "US is in the backseat on this one " doesnt equate with 112 tomahawks fired already from US war ships

I know it hurts a lot of war mongers on ATS, but the truth is the truth.

This war is just proving that the U.S. will take marching orders from the UN, mostly because the globalists want it that way. Obama is also a chairmen of the UN so that is also unconstitutional. Basically America's constitution is getting shredded, but America is too dumbed down to protest. It won't happen until it hits close to home like the dollar collapse, then America will change forever.

applicable quotes:
"We dont need no stinkin; (Constitution)!"
"It's just a G-D piece of paper!"