War Powers Act

Another way to skirt the War Powers Act Re "Presidents can't declare war? Just watch them," Opinion, March 29 Michael Kinsley is correct that it is the function of Congress to declare war. However, the wars since World War II have not been wars. They have been "police actions. " The Constitution has nothing to say about those. Therefore, the president can declare these "police actions" without consulting Congress, God or the devil. The Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya have all been "police actions," not wars, even if millions of people have died in these little squabbles.

War and the founders Re "Warring ambitions," Opinion, July 3 In this season in which we reflect upon the founding of our country, I read with interest the article by UCLA historian Joyce Appleby. She makes the point that James Madison would have expected the current conflict between Congress and the president over whether the deployment of our troops in and above Libya requires congressional authorization. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson sought and obtained congressional approval before deploying American naval forces to Libya.

Rep. Robert K. Dornan submitted legislation Thursday that would give the President more power to send U.S. troops into battle. The bill by Dornan (R-Garden Grove) would repeal the War Powers Act, a law passed in 1973 as the United States was phasing out its involvement in Vietnam. Congress used the measure to curtail the chief executive's authority to engage in prolonged military skirmishes.

James Madison would have smiled had he heard about President Obama's maneuver, seemingly in defiance of the War Powers Act, to avoid asking Congress to authorize military action in Libya. The act, passed in 1973, came at a time when the Vietnam War had been underway for years without any president asking for congressional approval. Members of Congress wanted future presidents to be obliged to come to them early on in a military action. The Constitution, after all, had invested in Congress the sole power to declare war. And it rankled legislators that no president had sought congressional approval of a war since 1941, when Franklin D. Roosevelt appeared before a joint session of Congress the day after Pearl Harbor.

The Senate today refused to restrict President Reagan's Persian Gulf policy as it fashioned a Pentagon budget bill that Reagan already has promised to veto because of its restrictions on his "Star Wars" program. The Democratic-controlled chamber voted 50 to 41 against invoking the War Powers Act, the 1973 law which limits a President's ability to send U.S. troops to situations of imminent danger. Reagan says the law doesn't apply to the Persian Gulf operations.

Secretary of State George P. Shultz said Friday that the Reagan Administration has no intention of becoming involved in a shooting war with Iran and doesn't intend to invoke the War Powers Act to give Congress a say in the deployment of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Shultz said that U.S.

Can the president make war on another country, even against the will of Congress? May 25 is the last day the bombing of Yugoslavia has even a tinge of legal authority under the War Powers Act. The next "collateral damage" caused by the bombing campaign may be to the laws and Constitution of the United States. The constitutional stew comes from a poisonous mix of presidential arrogance and congressional partisanship. President Bill Clinton launched the war without seeking congressional support.

After 14 years of intense bickering over the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, there finally appears to be a growing consensus among Democrats and Republicans in Congress that the controversial Vietnam-era law is unworkable and must either be clarified or repealed. A desire to end the quarreling arises out of the current dispute in Congress over how to respond to President Reagan's policy of providing U.S.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Tuesday authorizing U.S. involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya, a small step forward in a stubborn legal stalemate between Congress and the White House over the war. If adopted by both chambers of Congress, the resolution would permit U.S. involvement for up to one year, but would restrict any expansion of the nation's role. Four Republican members of the committee joined the Democratic majority to pass the measure on a 14-5 vote.

The Obama administration is facing tough questions in the Senate over its decision not to seek congressional authorization for its participation in the NATO military mission in Libya. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday complained that the White House’s position had made Congress “irrelevant,” unnecessarily antagonized lawmakers and opened a Pandora’s box of debate over the definition of war. At the heart of the debate is the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of engaging in military hostilities or discontinue them.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Tuesday authorizing U.S. involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya, a small step forward for those in Congress seeking a path out of a stubborn legal stalemate with the White House. The resolution would give approval to U.S. engagement in the mission for up to one year, but puts new restrictions on expanding the U.S. role. Four Republicans joined the Democratic majority to pass the measure on a 14-5 vote. It’s a resolution that President Obama has declared he would “welcome" but which he also insists he does not need under law — a point on which many in Congress, including Democrats, disagree.

The House of Representatives refused to either endorse or curtail U.S. involvement in Libya, delivering a mixed message Friday that highlighted deep divisions surrounding the issue. By an overwhelming margin, lawmakers refused to sanction U.S. participation in a NATO campaign of airstrikes in the North African country, a vote that amounted to a rare, bipartisan rebuke of a president's foreign policy during an active military conflict. Minutes later, however, a Republican-led effort to try to curb financial support for U.S. involvement also failed.

The congressional standoff over military involvement in Libya sharpened markedly Tuesday when two senators introduced a bipartisan resolution authorizing continued use of U.S. forces, while House Republican leaders proposed to ban American airstrikes, unmanned aircraft and other hostile measures. The Senate legislation, by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), would authorize "limited use" of U.S. forces for a year, but specifies that no ground troops could be involved except for "the immediate personal defense of United States government officials.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced a bipartisan resolution Tuesday authorizing the continued use of "limited" U.S. military force in Libya, further indication of the growing divide in the GOP overPresident Obama's stance on the War Powers Act and the national security agenda. McCain acknowledged the resolution was not "perfect" but said it reflected a necessary compromise - a position at odds with the Republican-led House, which has rebuked the Obama administration's Libya policy and now is considering a possible halt of funds unless the White House seeks congressional approval for the military operation.

Suddenly and sadly, the Libyan war may be one of the most consequential adventures in recent American history. Libya's not important because it is vital to our national security. Nor is it a particularly significant country. It's important solely because the Washington establishment, led by President Obama, made it important. If you set out to take Vienna, Napoleon advised, take Vienna. Similarly, if you invest America's and NATO's prestige in an obstreperous North African backwater, you'd better recoup a worthwhile return on that investment.

The Obama administration has come up with a remarkable justification for going to war against Libya without the congressional approval required by the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. American planes are taking off, they are entering Libyan airspace, they are finding their targets, they are dropping bombs, and the bombs are killing and injuring people and destroying things. One can see this as a good war or a bad war, but surely it is a war. Nonetheless, the Obama administration insists it is not a war. Why?