Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Is Obama's Violation of War Powers Act Impeachable?

Though George Will doesn't use the word 'impeach' in his column, he does use the word meretricious to describe Obama's attempt to split hairs with regard to the 1973 War Powers Act, a law that says any President must seek congressional approval within 60 days of engaging American forces in military conflict, which is what's going on in Libya right now. Seemingly inherent in Will's indignation over Obama's violation of the law - the 60 day expiration occurred over a week ago - is the implication that in breaking the law, impeachment considerations should be a consequence.

Will writes, via the Washington Post:
Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, the WPR may or may not be wise. It is, however, unquestionably a law, and Barack Obama certainly is violating it. It stipulates that a president must terminate military action 60 days after initiating it (or 90, if the president “certifies” in writing an “unavoidable military necessity” respecting the safety of U.S. forces), unless Congress approves it. Congress has been supine and silent about this war, which began more than 70 days ago.

All presidents have resented the WPR but have taken care to act “consistent with” its 48-hour reporting requirement. So on March 21, two days after the administration took the nation to war in Libya, Obama notified Congress of this obvious fact, stressing that U.S. operations would be “limited in their nature, duration, and scope” in the service of a “limited and well-defined mission.” Months ago, before it metastasized into regime change, the “well-defined” mission was to protect civilians.

In his March 28 address to the nation, Obama said “the United States will play a supporting role.” But the WPR does not leave presidential warmaking utterly unrestrained if it is a “supporting role.”
Perhaps, in addition to continuing the debate about whether Obama is breaking the law, another question needs to be answered in light of how he's treated his ideological allies - Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright - as a result of his actions in Libya. Both were angry with Obama over the decision to go into Libya, as was the leader of the group the Obama Justice Department let off the legal hook in the Voting rights case - Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

Why is Obama going to the mat over Libya?

Read it all.

No comments:

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive