With the above WPR quote of (d)(1), it was Congress’s intent in the WPR to not alter existing treaties with the WPR. Both the NATO treaty and UN Charter “treaty” were properly ratified before 1973. I could understand saying both need congressional approval, or none, but not just one. I still fail to distinguish a difference of why NATO assistance jives, but not a UN resolution.
For the UN Charter, Congress enacted the United Nations Participation Act. It’s 22 USC 287, but I can’t find it online to link it. Relevant section of 287 states: “…The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein…”
(All UN resolutions of force are brought under Art. 42)
I guess you could argue the WPR overrides that earlier statute. Not sure if that’s ever been ruled on or not, though.
For the record, no President has ever asked for congressional approval before employing forces per a UN resolution (they just inform Congress they did). I still think Congress needs to pass a US resolution to end the Libyan involvement or wait 60 days and they will presumptively not endorse it.
In the mean time the free world invented the internet, facebook, and cell phones which is going to bring him down without a shot. Technology is changing faster than a bunch of 6th century wannabes can deal with.
This stuff gives me a headache thinking about it. I haven’t had time to watch any of the usual talk shows (Matthews, etc.)., so I don’t know if the experts have weighed in or what they say. I only heard one so-called “expert” on NPR yesterday AM who said this action clearly violated the WPR. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find another “expert” who says it doesn’t,
If there’s on thing we learned under Bush, it’s that a president can pretty much do whatever he wants as long as there aren’t enough Congresscritters willing to impeach his ass.
We’d probably need another thread on the WPR. I’m trying to make it work under the WPR, but it’s highly likely the WPR is not even constitutional. It’s a pretty fascinating act. But anyways, the troops are there.
sniffMe desculpa, senora.* I know Peru and Combia have very ancient and honorable traditions of cultivation, and it is deeply rooted in their cultures and orifices.
Babelfish is useful. Hey, have you ever tried this fun thing you can do with Babelfish? Translate a block of text into a foreign language and back again to English. Try translating the Gettysburg Address into German and back, and then into Japanese and Chinese . . . the results are bizarre. In fact, a whole new form of Dadaism, if you like, could be based on it. What if you tried it with text that’s already bizarre to begin with? I don’t mean Finnegan’s Wake, that wouldn’t translate at all, I mean sniff something like “The Raven” or maybe some Ginsberg, or maybe some cult-scriptures. Or Scripture, that’d be a trip. Do you think Babelfish will ever get to the point where you can do this and you get just the same English text back? That’s probably the point when it becomes self-aware and turns on its makers. Indeed a primitive wedding of God and technology. I think I can feel my hair growing.
But he specified a country of 70 million so maybe it’s different with Libya because they only have 6 million. And he WAS very clear on what he said because… he said so.
Obama may be stupid enough to hand the Pubbies the means to cut his nuts off, but I understand that he has a passing familiarity with Constitutional law. Dabbled.
Oh, and exit strategy? If your entire military involvement is defined by firing missiles and launching airplanes, your exit strategy is: stop firing missiles and launching airplanes.
Except that’s not what the President said. His vision is:
“The exit strategy will be executed this week in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment.”
“We’ll still be in a support role, we’ll still be providing jamming, and intelligence and other assets that are unique to us, but this is an international effort that’s designed to accomplish the goals that were set out in the Security Council resolution,” Obama said.
I think that Pubs will find that even those of their base who have been slavering to impeach Obama for somethingorother since Day One are going to have second thoughts about impeaching him for this! I mean, this is the kinda thing Reagan might have done if he weren’t such a pussywimp!
I appreciate simplicity and brevity, John, indeed I do. But this post could have used a touch of embellishment. Perhaps a link? Yes, I think that would set it off nicely. Because, as it stands, we have a wide range of possibility.
“Bwahahahaha, you fools! My actions are blatantly and purposefully unConstitutional and there’s nothing you can do about it!”
“Well, if you take out your zircon-encrusted semantic parsing tweezers and give it a thorough brickering, you could squeeze out an aspect that, in a certain light and if you squint, could look unConstitutional. Sorta, kinda…”
Couldn’t be that quote from way, way back when he was a Senator criticizing Bush? No, that can’t be it, you wouldn’t be trying to pull a slow one. I’m sure you know that you have to get up pretty early in the afternoon to fool me.
