Plenty Of Votes To Totally Defund Libya Mission In The House

Despite the failure to pass a bill through the House of Representatives to defund the war in Libya that Obama started without congressional authority, the votes to totally defund the war are there, and 70 Democratic members that voted against the measure to defund, did so because it didn't go far enough!!

Foreign Policy reports:

The vote failed 180-238 - but, in fact, there were more than enough lawmakers to pass the measure. Of the 149 Democrats who stuck with the president, up to 70 of them are totally opposed to the Libya intervention and want to see it completely defunded as soon as possible. They voted "no" on the Rooney's bill because they thought it was too weak, did not cut off all funds, and implicitly authorized the intervention.

These 70 Democrats make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the largest caucus within the House Democratic Caucus, whose leadership includes Reps. Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

Quotes from individuals progressive caucus members back up Foreign Policy's assertions, plus they add a statement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for those that think the individual statements were not clear enough:

The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce call on Congress and the President to immediately end our war in Libya. The US has been engaged in hostilities for over 90 days without congressional approval, which undermines not only the powers of the legislative branch but also the legal checks and balances put in place nearly 40 years ago to avoid abuse by any single branch of government.

We call on our colleagues in Congress to exercise their legitimate authority and oversight and immediately block any funding for this war. Before the Executive branch further weakens the War Powers Resolution, and before we attack another country in the name of our "responsibility to protect," we must recommit ourselves to our Constitutional duty and obligation to hold the purse strings and the right to declare war. For decades, the House recognized the need for appropriate checks and balances before another war was waged. We must do the same. We call on Congress to exhibit similar foresight by promptly ending this war and pledging to uphold the laws that characterize America's commitment to democratic governance.

If the Republican House leadership is to assert their authority on initiating acts of war and force Barack Obama to stop violating the War Act Resolution of 1973, they need to stop being complicit in allowing Obama to go war without authority to do so.

GOP, grow a spine.

.
.

Authorization Of Libya Mission Fails To Pass In The House Of Representatives

Complete wording of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is below the post for those that have not read it.

The vote was 295 to 123 against passage of a bill that would have authorized U.S. aid for the war in Libya and barred any deployment of ground troops. Roll call can be found here. Over 50 Democratic House members joined with the majority of Republicans in rejecting the bil with only eight House Republicans supported the authorization.

National Journal reports:

The House is now debating a second bill backed by the chamber's GOP leaders that would cut off funds for any U.S. combat missions as part of the NATO-led effort to oust Libyan strongman Moammar el-Qaddafi.

The bill, which is highly unlikely to pass the Senate, would still provide funding for support missions, such as combat search and rescue and aerial refueling. But it would block money for Predator drone strikes and other hostile actions.

Update to reflect failure of second measure to pass by 180 to 238 with almost three dozen Democrats voting for passage in a stinging rebuke to Obama from his own party m embers.

Barack Obama's administration insists that bombing from drones and participating in the war in Libya does not qualify as "war" and does not require the President follow the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which states that a President requires authorization from Congress to introduce our military forces into war.

From the Resolution:

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

Some Democratic and Republican House and Senate members believe that introducing our military into hostilities does equal war and that Obama does, indeed, need Congressional authorization to continue. Those same members are calling out Obama as being in violation of the War Powers Resolution already. As are some of the White House lawyers who Obama rejected the advice of when they told him he would be violating the WPA.

A bipartisan group of House members have also filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration because of this issue.

War Powers Resolution of 1973

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) 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; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference.
Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

(Post updated to reflect failure of second measure.)

.

Obama Finally Unites Democrats And Republicans By Ignoring His Lawyers On Libya And War Powers Resolution

Blast from the past- Video below- Vice President Joe Biden on why going to war without congressional authority is an impeachable offense.



[Updated question- Does this mean 2007 Biden would lead the charge to impeach the 2011 if Biden wasn't 2011 Obama's VP?]

Obama has expressed his desire to have politics be less partisan, even as he proved himself to be one of the most partisan of players, but he finally united Republicans and Democrats as both sides denounce him after the latest news showing Obama ignored and rejected the legal guidance of Pentagon and the Justice Department lawyers when they informed him he did not have legal authority to continue military action in Libya without Congressional authorization as per the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

Instead of listening to the legal advice provided and which is meant to guide a president as to not violate the laws even he must follow, Obama simply ignored those very people and shopped around a bit to find someone who would tell him what he wanted to hear.

Far left liberal progressives, such as Glenn Greenwald at Salon and David Dayen at FireDogLake seem a tad (yes, understatement) incensed over Obama's outright "power grab" and complete disregard for the law and his own violation of said law.

A bipartisan group of House members have already filed a lawsuit against Obama over his Libya decisions, Congress is about to begin a full investigation, the Speaker of the House John Boehner has picked up the gauntlet Obama threw down and now, with this latest bombshell, the whole shebang is about to blow.

I seriously doubt that this is an issue Obama truly wants to use as a distraction from unemployment, gas prices, inflation, housing, foreclosures and the economy, yet here it is.

ALLAHPUNDIT at Hot Air gets the quote of the day:

".....This doofus almost certainly could have gotten congressional authorization shortly after the mission began if he’d asked for it, but for reasons I still don’t understand, he refused. I guess he wants to maximize his presidential prerogative to use drones anywhere he likes, notwithstanding Johnson’s assessment that that’s enough to constitute “hostilities” under the WPA, in order to give himself a free hand in Yemen and beyond. Good work, champ — you’ve now forced a high stakes, politically risky separation-of-powers confrontation with Congress over a conflict to which virtually no one has paid attention for weeks."

.

Devastating News For Obama: Approval Tanks, Misery Up, Scholar Talks Impeachment And More

A series of reported bad news items for Barack Obama this week, following a very bad month of similar news. Obama's bounce from the death of bin Laden is gone according to Gallup.

Via Rasmussen shows Obama's Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 with 23 percent strongly approving and 42 percent strongly disapproving with the overall numbers being 54 percent somewhat disapprove and only 45 percent somewhat approve.

Both polling organizations find that Obama drop is largely from Independents, which will be one of the blocs that determine the 2012 presidential election.

Gallup, in separate news, also finds that Americans' satisfaction with the way things are going in the country fell to 20 percent in early June from 26% at the start of May with 78 percent of Americans dissatisfied with the direction the nation is heading.

Investors Business Daily reports the Misery Index is climbing as well as showing;

***Federal outlays have risen more than 25% since Obama took office

***Annual deficits, meanwhile, have topped $1 trillion every year since Obama took office.

***Gross federal debt has climbed more than a third under Obama, topping $14 trillion. His budget plan puts it on a course to reach $20 trillion by 2016.

***The Fed has acted as the Democrat's big-spending enabler by buying hundreds of billions in Treasury debt through its quantitative easing programs — and in so doing, sowing more seeds of inflation.

Obama may not need any more bad news but he has it with CNS reporting that a Constitutional Scholar believes that Obama's taking the U.S. into war, without Congressional approval, a war that is costing almost $9.5 million every single day and Obama's violation of the War Powers Resolution as well as his claim that the WPA isn't relevant to our military involvement in Libya, is an impeachable offense.

Yesterday it was reported that a bipartisan group of House members have filed suit against Barack Obama over Libya as well. Kucinich leading the charge.

The hits keep coming and Investors Business Daily believes Obama is "beatable, and he knows it".

Not only does he know it now, but Ace reminds everyone, via video, that in 2009 Barack Obama even predicted his downfall:

"Flashback, Obama 2009: I'll Be a One-Term President If I Don't Fix This Economy In Three Years; I Will Be Held "Accountable".

Barack Obama does have one thing going for him and it is also the one thing that can guarantee his loss in 2012. 17 Months left until the 2012 presidential election.

He can admit his policies have failed and "change" course by lifting regulations, massively cut spending instead of publicly battling Republicans on it, spur job growth by assuring stability to job creators and quit threatening them constantly with higher taxes.... or he can continue down the path he has been going on and hand the election over to the Republicans.

It all depends on whether Obama thinks his base can reelect him alone or whether he understands he needs more than the 20-22 percent of the population that call themselves liberal.

.

Video Added: Bipartisan Group Of House Members Sue Obama Over Libya

It was reported previously that Speaker of the House John Boehner issued a letter to Barack Obama regarding the few days he has left before the president is in violations of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Video below- Kucinich press conference announcing lawsuit against Barack Obama.



Now we see that a group of House members is taking the issue of Obama involving the U.S. military in a mission in Libya, to court.

A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

This law suit will ask a judge to prohibit the White House from conducting a war without congressional approval.

More at CNN and Fox News.

[Update] H/T Jonathan Turley who provides the Libyan Complaint: PDF.

[Update] Now the Obama claims Libya intervention doesn't fall under War Powers Resolution.

What a piece of work this guy is.

Boehner Letter Warns Obama That He Has Five Days Before Risk Of Violating War Powers Resolution

Via ABC News' Political Punch, Speaker of the House, John Boehner's letter to Barack Obama regarding the deadline to which is approaching where Obama could be violating the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

June 14, 2011

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. President:

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. 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.

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. It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many Members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the Administration’s strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution.

You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009 in which you swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: 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. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.

Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions: Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached? Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch? In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011? Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011.

From the beginning, the House of Representatives has sought to balance two equal imperatives regarding Libya which have been in direct contradiction: the House of Representatives takes seriously America’s leadership role in the world; our country’s interests in the region; and the commitments to and from its steadfast allies. At the same time, strong concern and opposition exists to the use of military force when the military mission, by design, cannot secure a U.S. strategic policy objective. The ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your Administration.

I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief, though I remain deeply concerned the Congress has not been provided answers from the Executive branch to fundamental questions regarding the Libya mission necessary for us to fulfill our equally important Constitutional responsibilities. I believe in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East. I sincerely hope the Administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution and the requests made by the House of Representatives, and that you will use your unique authority as our President to engage the American people regarding our mission in Libya.

Respectfully,

John A. Boehner

.

Saturday Reading- Linkfest To A Variety Of News

A couple updates and a few interesting links Saturday, May 21, 2011.

First, let me say "whew", good to see the world is still here, despite all the hype from those-I-will-not-name, who thought Rapture was upon us and the world was ending!!

One of the updates include some reactions to the awesome, polite in-your-face history lesson Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave to Barack Obama at the White House in front of the press, which was shown live and now being passed around from YouTube and other video sites as well as videos on media sites across the web.

Video shown at WuA on yesterdays post, well worth seeing and something that needed to be said to Obama.

Andrew McCarthy calls Obama's original speech "Borderline Treachery" and provides a more in-depth history lesson for Barack Obama.

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, thinks Netanyahu's history lesson to Obama was "incredible" and that Obama appeared to be a "complete buffoon."

AllahPundit, Hot Air, thought Barack Obama looked like he was passing a kdney stone during the whole lesson.

Left Coast Rebel puts it best when he says "What Netanyahu said is exactly what he should have said and what I would expect our president to say to the leader of another nation; given we were being pushed into a precarious position, against our interests and safety..."

[Late update] Democratic and Republican lawmakers push back against Obama on Israel:

Dems:

Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) delivered a similar message, arguing that reverting the borders would only embolden Hamas to launch more attacks.

"A two-state solution agreed upon by the Israelis and Palestinians should be negotiated through direct talks," Rothman said Friday in a statement, "but it is important to remember that a full return to the 1967 borders will be indefensible for Israel and that talking with terrorists who want to destroy Israel is a non-starter."

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) echoed that sentiment, saying the 1967 borders "were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them."

"The President is correct that land swaps built into a peace agreement could make Israel’s borders safe and secure, but make no mistake about it – such territorial adjustments would be very significant so that Israel would no longer be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point."

More Dem Pro-Israel reactions, here.

Republican:

"It would undermine Israel’s strategic depth, increasing its vulnerability to both military invasions and the sorts of rocket and missile attacks that Hamas carries out in Gaza," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Friday in a statement. "Doubling down on failed policies will not lead to the changes we need. It’s time for the Obama administration to change course.”

This is what happens when an inexperienced child decides to try to insert himself into an adult situation... Could Obama have screwed up more? [End Update]

[Another update with video of Gene Simmons, Israeli born KISS member]



Transcript, via NewsBusters:

GENE SIMMONS, KISS: President Obama, I voted for an idea. What I didn’t realize what I was getting was an idealist. If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no f—king idea what it’s like on the moon. For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, “Go back to your 67 borders in Israel,” how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide? On one side you’ve got hundreds of millions of people who hate your guts, on the other side you’ve got the Mediterranean. Unless you control, in Israel, unless you control those Golan Heights, it’s an indefensible position.

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well. I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no f—king idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there.

[End 2nd Update]

The next update to one of yesterdays posts here at WuA is Obama's failure to obtain Congressional authorization for military action in Libya and the deadline which passed yesterday for getting such authorization.

Jake Tapper, ABC News' Political Punch reports that Obama sent a letter to Congress asking for a resolution to support military action in Libya and suggests that it doesn't fall under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, therefore isn't a law Obama must obey.

David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post, explains that the War Powers Act "makes no specific exception for limited or supporting action: It applies to any instance in which military forces are “introduced into hostilities,” or sent into foreign territory or airspace while equipped for combat."

You can look at the War Powers resolution for yourself and determine where you come down on this.

Liberal Taylor Marsh provides the snark for this one with "Pres. Obama, a man who said he wasn’t going to be like Bush, is on the cusp of making the War Powers Act obsolete by simply ignoring it. Hey, but no worries, he’s the president so we can trust him."

Democratic Rep. from California, Brad Sherman, states that Obama is trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States."

He continues with "He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law."

Harsh when that is coming from your own supporters huh?

If the left is coming down hard on Obama on Libya, then you can imagine the reaction from the right.

Or, you can see for yourself.

Those are the updates on yesterday's news, now for some links on other things.

The million dollar recount in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is complete and Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is still 7,000+ votes ahead.

Defeated Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, after wasting a million plus in tax payer money on the recount, is now debating whether or not to finally concede to the will of the voters or challenge the results in court.

KETV Omaha reports "Best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, Herman Cain says he's running for president of the United States in 2012."

In the South Carolina televised GOP debate, Cain came to the debate with one supporter in the Lutz focus group and by the end of the debate over half of the 29 people in the group raised their hands for Cain as top choice.


Last but not least, the extraordinary photos of homemade damns in Mississippi around individual homes created in a desperate attempt to to save their homes.

Happy Saturday reading everyone.

.

Today Is The Day Barack Obama Starts Breaking The Law: Is It Impeachable?

War Powers Resolution, Congressional Action, Sec. 5 (b) and (c) states:

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Today, Friday, May 20, 2011, is the 60th day following Barack Obama's official notification to Congress that he had entered into a war mission on Libya.

To this day, no congressional vote has been taken to authorize the action.

Therefore today is the day Barack Obama starts breaking the law and even Democratic politicians are angered and concerned over it.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, tells CNN he believes Obama is trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States."

"He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law," Sherman said.

Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich is vowing to introduce legislation on Monday (three days after Obama formally breaks this law) to force Obama to pull U.S. forces from the conflict.

Six Republican Senators have written to Obama asking him if he intends to comply with the War Powers Act:

That action was taken without regard to or compliance with the requirement of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution that the United States Armed Forces only be introduced into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances "pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces...."

Congress received your report pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution on March 21, 2011. Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.

That letter was signed and sent by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid, via his spokesman suggests there is no urgency in forcing Obama to comply to the War Powers Act and comply with the law.

Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner simply responds by saying "The House is not in session this week."

Action in Libya has cost Americans an estimated $750 million so far with the Pentagon using existing funds to fund it since Congress has no only not authorized action but have also not provided and allotment of funds for our war in Libya.

Some believe Congress is abdicating their responsibility by not forcing Obama to comply with the law, but it is just as likely that Democrats who count on their anti-war base of supporters do not want to officially vote on allowing extended action while Republicans could be handing Barack Obama enough rope to hang his Presidency.

Far left progressive Glenn Greenwald starts his piece on this issue simply, by using Barack Obama's own words:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" -- candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

"No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers" -- candidate Barack Obama, August 1, 2007

Then again that was all said before Barack Obama became president. Somehow in Obama's mind, the rules do not apply to him, just everyone else.

How is a President punished for breaking the law?

Before anyone screams the word Impeachment, be very sure the legal grounds are there.

According to the wording of Constitutional Grounds For Presidential Impeachment, the relevant stated portion would be "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Which would bring the discussion to the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

When the constitution was written the phrase was understood far better than it is today. The best explanation I have found is here, where it goes back to the origin of the term:

....Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

I have never been one not jump on the Impeach Obama bandwagon because many were discussing it before he ever took office and I felt it was unreasonable.

Obama's actions now, refusing to formally ask Congress for authorization and letting the 60 day deadline pass without receiving any authorization, in many minds, does constitute an extreme abuse of power.

I would love to see legal scholars address one specific question: Does Obama's abuse of power by violating the War Power Act fall under the category of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

(Added Note- in case the above quoted WPA section is not clear enough, as of today, Obama has 30 days to have our troops removed from action in Libya. So far, nothing indicates he is planning such a withdrawal, in fact, from official's quotes he is planning on continuing the illegal action)

(Title and post corrected to clarify the additional 30 days Obama has to remove our troops from military action in Libya)

.

Video- Rand Paul On Libya War: 'The Senate Has Abdicated It's Responsibility'

I've told my caucus, 'Come loaded with all your questions; ask questions in this classified setting. And then if in fact you want to do more legislatively, you're entitled to do it. The War Powers Act we believe is valid, is very clear, setting forth timelines."--- Harry Reid to reporters, Tuesday, March 29, 2011: Source Bloomberg)

12 minute video below of Rand Paul (R., Ky.)speaking on the Senate floor about his proposed resolution reasserting congressional authority regarding the committing of the U.S.. and our resources to war. (H/T The Corner for the video)



Paul talks about the War Powers Act and specifically highlights his proposed resolution is, in fact, the exact words of Barack Obama in 2007 and the purpose of this resolution, according to Paul's office is "the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

....To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

At the 3 minute 48 second mark in the video Rand expresses that "I am appalled that the Senate has abdicated their responsibility".

The specific wording of the War Powers Resolution:

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

What Rand Paul did was attach this amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill that the Senate was to vote on.

This put Harry Reid in the position of having to allow the Senate to be put on record either agreeing with Barack Obama in 2007 or agreeing with him now since he committed our U.S. armed forces to actions in Libya without receiving congressional permission to do so.

So, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did what he does best.. he ran. Reid adjourned the upper chamber and postponed all pending votes until Monday.

NRO reports:

“Paul’s Libya amendment has brought the Senate to a standstill because Reid doesn’t know how to handle it,” one GOP aide tells me. “If he allows a vote, Democrats are forced to either disagree with then-senator Obama or with President Obama. It’s possible that Reid just yanks the bill or files cloture, seems he may do anything to avoid a vote on Paul’s amendment.”

Following up on the issue, Paul has issued a press release of a letter he has sent both Reid and McConnell:

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell:

As you know, Senator Paul recently made a motion to have the Senate vote on the following sense of the Senate:

“The President does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The motion Senator Paul made has the vote as the pending business in the Senate, ready for a vote at any time. He did not ask for extended debate, and his motion would take up a maximum of 30 minutes of the Senate’s time.

Though brief, it would be an important 30 minutes for the Senate. It will be the only 30 minutes spent on discussing and voting on whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to attack another country without congressional authorization.

We believe the answer is that he does not. We also believe Congress has an obligation to stand up and declare whether or not we intend to hold the President to his constitutional oath.

While we realize there are other matters the Senate had planned to work on, it is our belief that there is very little we are doing that rises to the level of a constitutional question regarding war. Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and we believe the Senate is abdicating its responsibility at this very moment.

The bombing and military action against the Libyan government will be two weeks old by the time we return to session next week. That means congressional debate on this war is two weeks overdue.

We feel strongly enough about this matter that we are writing to inform you of our intentions. The Senate has already agreed to move a bill on Tuesday morning. In order to ensure our rights are protected, we will serve notice now that upon completion of H.R. 4, we will object to further votes on amendments to S. 493 until such time as the motion on presidential war authority is scheduled for a vote. We are happy to work with the leaders of both parties on the timing of the vote for next week, and would be happy to allow other business to proceed as soon as an agreement is reached.

Lest it be said only Republicans and Conservatives are concerned about Barack Obama's complete disregard for congressional authority over matters of war, Liberals are also highlighting the matter vehemently.

TPM:

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.

Andrew Sullivan:

Many of us supported this president because he promised to bring back the constitutional balance after the theories of Yoo, Delahunty, et al put the president on a par with emperors and kings in wartime. And yet in this Libya move, what difference is there between Bush and Obama? In some ways, Bush was more respectful of the Congress, waiting for a vote of support before launching us like an angry bird into the desert. Hillary Clinton, channeling her inner Cheney, said in a classified Congressional briefing that her administration would simply ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that requires the president to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of the conflict starting. If the congress voted against continuing the war, it would be irrelevant to the administration. Beat that, King George II.

[SNIP]

The president is violating his constitutional duty to enforce the laws (to himself as well as anyone else). He has no constitutional right to simply waive the War Powers Resolution. In my view, we need a debate in the Congress on this as soon as possible.

Glenn Greenwald concludes after his typical diarrhea of the keyboard:

Most Democrats, liberals, and even traditional conservatives and libertarians purported to find such lawlessness outrageous and dangerous during the Bush years. It isn't any less so now.

Bottom line, Harry Reid, as evidenced by the opening quote of this post, agreed that his caucus, his Democratic Senators, were "entitled" to "do more legislatively," in regards to Obama and the War Powers Resolution but when a Republican Senator does just that, using Barack Obama's own words, Reid runs for the hills and refuses to hold a vote on it.

As a side note, I find one particular statement by Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones to be quite disturbing:

But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.

I find that statement incomprehensible. A person should never abdicate their own intellectual thought. A person should never give in to the "he is smarter than me so I will accept whatever he says" mentality.

You listen to both sides of an argument, sometimes another person's view will help you adjust your own thinking, clarify issues you hadn't previously considered and perhaps even change your mind once the facts and opinions are laid out.

But you never, ever, simply give up your right to individual thought.

It is people like Drum that gave way to creation of the term "Obamabot."

“Consider the reasons which make us certain that we are right... but not the fact that we are certain. If you are not convinced, ignore our certainty. Don't be tempted to substitute our judgment for your own.”--- Atlas Shrugged

.