Just a bit of happy news… there are some issues where the deeply divided parties can come to some sort of an agreement. And in this case, it’s an official slap on the wrist of the POTUS for his arrogance in ignoring the mandates of the War Powers Resolution. See also Curt’s post on Congress silent on Obama’s refusal to comply with the War Powers Resolution.
In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.
The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.
~~~The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.
Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.
It seems that Kuchinich’s stronger resolution, demands US troops withdraw immediately, was bypassed in order to give the POTUS a chance to follow the law.
You can see which Congressional House members voted no on H Res 294 as well as the text, at the GovTrack site. No surprise that female DNC gaffe’master, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, joined Pelosi is a nay vote.
Introduced on Jun 1st, and sent to committee is FL Rep Thomas Rooney’s H Con Res 57, that simply states the POTUS is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, and is co sponsored by 16 other GOP House members.
On May 25th, Sen. Rand Paul introduced S J Res 16, stating that Obama exceeded his authority with the Libyan action. Again, sent to committee. Text is not available, and no co-sponsors at this writing.
Reuters reports that on Monday, May 23rd, a resolution in support of the Libyan action was introduced, but stopped short of officially authorizing the action. Sen Res 194 is sponsored by John McCain, and is co sponsored by Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]; Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]; Lindsey Graham [R-SC]; John Kerry [D-MA]; Carl Levin [D-MI]; and Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
…. another lesson for the GOP to be diligent not to nominate another RINO.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
They should be impeaching him. WTF are they afraid of?
mccain should be locked in the Alzheimer unit immediately.
Impeach him…then who are they gonna golf with.
Glad to see Kerry co-sponsored a resolution supporting military action in Lybia. Now he can go ahead and stab those troops in the back too when it’s politically advantageous to him.
I hope they get them back soon.and pay GADAFI what is rightfully belong to him,because one thing has nothing to do with the other, what’s right is right not wrong
This article makes a case that the War Powers Act isn’t really the central issue here. In the case of our involvement with the UN-sanctioned NATO action in Libya, the President’s constitutional authority actually resides in treaty obligations and the supremacy clause.
Whether or not what we’re doing will turn out to have been a good idea is another matter.
BTW, just slightly skewed off topic:
Intelligence sources close to the Assad regime in Lebanon say that Syrians storming through the Golan Height next to the Quneitra crossing are Syrian farmers who have migrated in recent years from the drought-stricken northeast Syria to the south.
The regime has paid hundreds of these farmers $1,000 each to show-up and $10,000 to their families should any of them succumb to Israeli fire.
In Syria, an average salary is about $200 a month and to these impoverished farmers, such a one-time sum can keep them economically afloat for six months.
Such tactic was used in the past by another defunct Ba’ath Party in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, to pay Intifada-driven Palestinians the sum of $25,000 to their next-of-kin should they die throwing stones.
That measure had a worldwide impact and it seems the Assad regime is using the same play from a twin playbook.
MORE HERE
Nan G, hi, ISRAEL won’t have any choice but to shoot them if they come as a mob, like they did in their own country to demote the LEADER , I think for ISRAEL, they will be more in number taking all those around plus IRAN support, anf if obama is with them asking ISRAEL to give in, that will be very dangerous scenario to envisage, I think the first that just took place was just an exersise of checking like a trial for the next one,