War Powers

Two Republican congressmen, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (IL) and Rep. Justin Amash (MI), have introduced legislation to the House of Representatives that would prevent the United States from carrying out further military operations in Libya until such actions were authorized by Congress.

Johnson and Amash claimed that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional authority to launch a military assault unless there was an imminent threat against the country.

"The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war and to provide for the Armed Services," Amash said Monday in a statement. "The President cannot constitutionally order an offensive military operation without Congress’s authorization. The argument is not about ‘consultation’ with Congress. It’s more fundamental than that. It’s about whether the President by himself can order an attack on another country when that country has not attacked or is not about to attack the U.S. The Constitution plainly forbids such action."

The Restoring Essential Constitutional Constraints for Libyan Action Involving the Military Act - or RECLAIM Act - would force President Obama to cease the use of force in Libya unless Congress specifically authorized such use of force. The bill would also block funding for the operations.

  Raw Story

First of all, the President has the cover of semantics behind him. The Constitution may forbid him from declaring war…

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces.[citation needed] In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.

  Wikipedia

…but I haven’t heard anything about any such declaration. In fact, I don’t believe we’ve ever declared war on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan either, but we certainly are making war on them.

Secondly, why do we need another piece of legislation? Why don’t we just enforce the Constitutional provision and the (redundant) legislation we already have?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a [Nixon] presidential veto.

Why isn’t the president (and those before him who have done the same) impeached?

Thirdly, Congressional approval is only a rubber stamp. If the president had gone to Congress asking for authorization to bomb Libya, he would have gotten it. He will certainly get it before his 60 days are up.

The only reason these two GOP representatives are presenting this legislation is to make a name for themselves and a stink for Obama. If we had a Republican president, it either wouldn’t be happening or it would be happening under the names of two Democrat reps.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.