How does the president have authority to go into Libya? Forum

[trey]

I'm not asking this to incite debate because i know that would go in the lounge, but i'm outlining con law and I'm confused about this...

[jpSartre]

it was a unanimous UN decision

[Kobe_Teeth]

He's got wide latitude in terms of foreign policy. its important for the ciuntry to act as one central force in the eyes of foriegn nations - something the executive and not the legislative branch can do.

also, there's an argument that a lack of objection by Congress is Congressional approval - also Congress continually funding the military is seen as approval as well (not sure how that would apply here, but its possible). It apparently does not have to be as formal as a document declaring war.

See: Every military conflict we've been in after WWII. Also, read Chemerinsky.

Lastly, I'm sure someone can add to this. I'm ok at ConLaw but not the best.

it was a unanimous UN decision

That would probably work as well.

[trey]

so is that to say that so long as the UN passes a resolution he can invade another country regardless of what congress says?

also, is this related to the war powers resolution and that he would have to withdraw within 60 days if congress disapproves?

[notanumber]

Dude's just following Jefferson's example.

[pattonthicke]

my understanding is that the prez can act on his own for up to 100 days without congressional approval.

[joshlyman]

so is that to say that so long as the UN passes a resolution he can invade another country regardless of what congress says?

also, is this related to the war powers resolution and that he would have to withdraw within 60 days if congress disapproves?

basically what others have said. president is commander in chief and has broad power. technically yes the war powers act can restrict what the president can do militarily but if you ask anyone its a whole lot of fluff. First of all, with a unanimous UN resolution its hard to claim there is some overriding reason we shouldnt be participating. Also, the limits the war powers act proposes can only be within the powers congress has constitutionally i.e. funding the military. Ask any jo blo congressman whether or not it is politically smart or viable to defund the military.

in short yes, but personally I see war powers as fluff produced from anti-Vietnam rage. president has broad authority for both very good and potentially troubling reasons. a UN resolution is a sufficient condition as opposed to a necessary condition in my mind and in truth its only added ooomph.

[Kohinoor]

so is that to say that so long as the UN passes a resolution he can invade another country regardless of what congress says?

also, is this related to the war powers resolution and that he would have to withdraw within 60 days if congress disapproves?

Strong question of whether the war powers resolution is constitutional.

[vamedic03]

Cynical answer: The president has the authority because no court will touch a question like this. Slightly less cynical version: political question doctrine.

[joshlyman]

so is that to say that so long as the UN passes a resolution he can invade another country regardless of what congress says?

also, is this related to the war powers resolution and that he would have to withdraw within 60 days if congress disapproves?

Strong question of whether the war powers resolution is constitutional.

that was what seemed silly about the war powers act. (im no expert at all this is just my view) the act was meant to curtail
presidential power in an undeclared war...but to be constitutional it cant expand on powers congress has which is limited to
funding...they wont defund because who the hell would do that, so is it all just a bunch of hot air from the political climate of
the time?

[asoli]

You can also look into Curtiss-wright, the prize cases, and Belmont to see broad presidential authority for for pol.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Also, I'm gonna guess we have some sort of treaty to be in the UN in the first place. President has treaty power and the senate is the oversight of that power (in treaties entered into and I'm guessing how they are implemented) - the treaty power may be a more substantial avenue to say he has the authority to do it.

[2011Law]

so is that to say that so long as the UN passes a resolution he can invade another country regardless of what congress says?

also, is this related to the war powers resolution and that he would have to withdraw within 60 days if congress disapproves?

Strong question of whether the war powers resolution is constitutional.

that was what seemed silly about the war powers act. (im no expert at all this is just my view) the act was meant to curtail
presidential power in an undeclared war...but to be constitutional it cant expand on powers congress has which is limited to
funding...they wont defund because who the hell would do that, so is it all just a bunch of hot air from the political climate of
the time?

The war powers act is still law, but the only body that can charge the president with violating it is Congress, and the only way Congress is going to charge a president for violating that law is if Hell freezes over.

[HopefullyLaw]

The U.S. is a charter member

[swc65]

See Voltron v. Thundercats

[Veyron]

Well kids, when a man loves a woman very much. O wait, wrong birds and the bees.

Well you see son, its a little thing we like to call the commander and chief power. The president gets to do whatever he wants with the military as long as congress will fund it (and allow the war powers act to stay suspended).

[JDeterminedF]

Well kids, when a man loves a woman very much. O wait, wrong birds and the bees.

Well you see son, its a little thing we like to call the commander and chief power. The president gets to do whatever he wants with the military as long as congress will fund it (and allow the war powers act to stay suspended).

[FireNextTime]

Commander-in-Chief power has (or ought to have) little to do with deciding when to use force, with the exception of an attack on the U.S. It instead gives the president broad power to decide how to use force when Congress has expressly authorized it.

Of course, the exec's singular role and power when shaping/conducting foreign affairs is important to recognize. But when weighed against the constitutional dictate on which branch may commit troops to war, I think the foreign-affairs power should give way. So, unlike in other foreign-affairs cases that do not relate to war, the lack of direct objection by Congress shouldn't be considered an implied OK.

The fact of a unanimous UN Security Council vote — which featured abstentions by the representatives of about 1/4 of the world population — would seem to have little effect on whether the commitment of U.S. forces is constitutional or not. Then again, if there's statutory authorization related to U.S. participation in UN that expressly grants Prez authority to use force in conjunction with UN ops, then nevermind. All is fine.

Also: the Afghanistan war was authorized, more or less, under AUMF. Congress gave the Iraq war even more explicit authorization. So not every war since WWII has been waged w/o congressional stamp. And even were that so, it doesn't make it constitutional.

The president should, and hopefully will, seek congressional authorization for U.S. action in Libya as part of UN operation. But it's all academic, because, as has been said, the practicality of it is that Congress lacks the requisite spine to object to the (domestically) unilateral decision of War Presidents.

[Kohinoor]

Commander-in-Chief power has (or ought to have) little to do with deciding when to use force

No Yoo

[tallboone]

Youngstown 2

[Kohinoor]

*argues that only way Congress can regulate the executive war power is by stifling funding
*argues that the power to wage war means the power to wage war effectively and stifling funding infringes on that right
*does the Cupid Shuffle

[YourCaptain]

Wouldn't most litigants also have a standing issue? I'm not saying ALL, but most. You'd have issues of attenuated cause/injury.

Political question doctrine would be here. We haven't gone over Fed.Exec. power yet in ConLaw...is the Court as deferential to the Executive as it is to the Legislature?

[JusticeHarlan]

See Voltron v. Thundercats

552 N.E.2d 162?

[DukeCornell]

See Voltron v. Thundercats

552 N.E.2d 162?

Hahahahahahaha!

[CanadianWolf]

George Bush Doctrine.