The 'Legality' of the Act of War in Libya

Liam Ryan presents a very good argument that the Obama administration's participation in a military strike on Libya is legal.

There is, of course, room for debate about many constitutional powers.  Even the War Powers Resolution is subject to interpretation.

I also see a number of Republicans defending President Obama's actions as consistent with his powers as Commander in Chief.  I read that the Commander in Chief has the inherent, unilateral power to engage in military acts short of a declaration of war, the latter being a power conferred in Article I of the Constitution upon Congress only.

Consider, however, this one fact:  the last time the United States declared a "war" was in 1941.  Is it conceivable -- is it credible -- that the United States has not been at war since 1941?  Of course not.

The Tea Party and the constitutional conservative movements are not at all monolithic, but perhaps the biggest single driving force for them has been that the United States has gotten away from a government limited by the Constitution.

The Executive branch claims domestic powers unforeseen by the Founders.  Some in Congress mock the Constitution.  The courts -- ugh -- have upheld government power in contravention of express provisions of authority, and in ways that harm individual rights that the courts are supposed to protect.

There's precedent for this abuse of power and that abuse of power.  Our rights are governed more by lawyers than the People.

We are in a moment of history, however, where citizens are beginning to push back and reclaim what has been lost.  We are clarifying what big government has muddled and usurped.

The Commander in Chief must have the power to use military force for the self-preservation of this nation and its people.  A conservative reading of the War Powers Resolution seems to suggest it is an attempt to clarify the role of the Commander in Chief, not to expand it.

A non-emergency attack on a sovereign nation is not consistent with the unilateral power of the Commander in Chief to act without the express authority of Congress.  To consult with a few Members of Congress is not the same as getting the authorization of Congress, which acts as a single body.  We are a nation of laws and not men.
Liam Ryan presents a very good argument that the Obama administration's participation in a military strike on Libya is legal.

There is, of course, room for debate about many constitutional powers.  Even the War Powers Resolution is subject to interpretation.

I also see a number of Republicans defending President Obama's actions as consistent with his powers as Commander in Chief.  I read that the Commander in Chief has the inherent, unilateral power to engage in military acts short of a declaration of war, the latter being a power conferred in Article I of the Constitution upon Congress only.

Consider, however, this one fact:  the last time the United States declared a "war" was in 1941.  Is it conceivable -- is it credible -- that the United States has not been at war since 1941?  Of course not.

The Tea Party and the constitutional conservative movements are not at all monolithic, but perhaps the biggest single driving force for them has been that the United States has gotten away from a government limited by the Constitution.

The Executive branch claims domestic powers unforeseen by the Founders.  Some in Congress mock the Constitution.  The courts -- ugh -- have upheld government power in contravention of express provisions of authority, and in ways that harm individual rights that the courts are supposed to protect.

There's precedent for this abuse of power and that abuse of power.  Our rights are governed more by lawyers than the People.

We are in a moment of history, however, where citizens are beginning to push back and reclaim what has been lost.  We are clarifying what big government has muddled and usurped.

The Commander in Chief must have the power to use military force for the self-preservation of this nation and its people.  A conservative reading of the War Powers Resolution seems to suggest it is an attempt to clarify the role of the Commander in Chief, not to expand it.

A non-emergency attack on a sovereign nation is not consistent with the unilateral power of the Commander in Chief to act without the express authority of Congress.  To consult with a few Members of Congress is not the same as getting the authorization of Congress, which acts as a single body.  We are a nation of laws and not men.

RECENT VIDEOS