A surpise late Monday vote saw the House of Representatives pass the Sherman Amendment to the military appropriations bill by a a vote of 248-163. The vote enjoyed strong bipartisan support, with roughly equal majorities on both sides of the aisle.
The bill was a redux of an amendment Rep. Sherman (D – CA) narrowly failed to get inserted into the Homeland Security bill, and bars any money appropriated under the act from being spent in contravention to the War Powers Act, making it a de facto ban on all funding for the Libyan War.
The war has been illegal under the War Powers Act since late May, when the president’s 60 day grace period for gaining congressional authorization for the conflict lapsed. President Obama did not even seek authorization until late on the 60th day, and so far neither House nor Senate has approved of the conflict.
The House has debated a number of resolutions related to this violation, and on June 3 granted President Obama an addition 14 day extension, ostensibly to “explain” the war to Congress. No such explanation was offered and this deadline too risks lapsing with no administration response.
Now its time for Obama and Hillary Clinton to listen to people and obey their demand.., NO MORE WARS not on peoples watch.., you want wars go and fight it yourself with those whom you are backing in this war.., Saudis and Arab Emirates.
When obama ignores this, will it be time for impeachment? Finally?
It was time for impeachment long ago, as you no doubt agree. This show will certainly go on, the only question is which circus act will take the center ring next?
"It was time for impeachment long ago…"
I grant you that the Libya war, without initial Congressional consultation or approval, if extended beyond the 18th of June when the 14 day extension expires, is grounds for impeachment. But what grounds for impeachment is there before that? Not being a Republican? Not being white? Not being born in the US (whacko birther insanity)? Help me out with this one.
AMEN! If WH ignores the people this time we will shut it down.
Wishful thinking, smdahl. Remember who the military works for. Plus, we're not as well armed as the Afghans, so even though there are MANY more Americans, most of your neighbors are – thanks to public "education" – docile as sheep. I know mine are.
Demorats will never impeach a democratic president. They will always find a way to speak about anything else.
There is a Republican majority in the House, so the question is whether Republicans will ever impeach a president over something that matters.
As much as this seems to be a positive step on the part of the House of Representatives, the first question that comes to mind is, "How can they de-fund something that was never funded?" This is a serious question, because what is not being discussed is the fact that Obama is making war with funds appropriated for something else. This means that the executive branch pays absolutely no attention to budget allocations and regards the money as being available to do whatever the president desires. Back in the 1990s, tellingly, there was some discussion in military legal circles over whether it was constitutional to do that. Considering that the rest of the Constitution is meaningless nowadays, there's no reason to expect the Congress's control of the "purse strings" to have any validity. Wonder what would happen if the Congress were to impeach the president? There's a good chance he would simply scoff at Congress's pathetic impotence, declare martial law and become a dictator formally.
The Obama administration appears to be pushing for an intentional conflict with Congress. I can only guess that they have counted noses and have concluded they will win, thereby establishing the precident that the War Powers Act does not apply to the President.
Once that power is established, I wonder if there can ever be any limit on Presidential power and if the Republic is officially dead.
>>The war has been illegal under the War Powers Act since late May, when the president’s 60 day grace period for gaining congressional authorization for the conflict lapsed.
Correction: the war has been completely illegal from day one. The WPA never applied at all, as it explicitly mentions only to direct threats to the nation.
I have struggled in vain to find word of this vote on the NYT web site this morning!! Certainly there are no headlines. Same with National Pentagon Radio.
They are no doubt working on the proper spin.
I recall, at a meeting to consider a Left/Right alliance against war and Empire in Feb. 2010, a skeptical Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation cautioned the Conservatives present that the Republicans had a long way to go to catch up to his Dems on the antiwar issue. Well here we are scarcely 16 months later and there are more Republicans voting against this war measure than Dems.
The Right/Left alliance has been born in the House of Reps!
John V. Walsh
If I were rich, I would make up a commercial and put it on TV using that slice from the Republicans debate where Romney says he'll end the war in Afghanistan "as soon as possible when the generals tell him it'll be OK" (I'm not exact quoting but pretty close) and then Ron Paul tells Romney, "I won't take orders from the generals. I'm the Commander in Chief. I'll tell the generals what to do." Then I'll run a screen with the words: "Who will lead?"
Its not a commercial for Ron Paul but to make the point that deferring authority to "the generals" is not leadership. Obama does it, too. They are using a convenient technique to avoid leadership.
Hate to rain on everyone's impeachment parade, but it ain't gonna happen. Obama is merely operating under the Unitary Executive theory (expanded Executive power) that really began under George Bush the 2nd. No one impeached that simple-minded joke of a Pres. so don't hold your breath waiting on impeachment for this mutt either.
Who really imagined Obama would roll back the powers consolidated during the Bush Reign in the executive branch? These will be used and expanded no matter who is the President. I for one am not comfortable with either Party ignoring the system of checks and balances – but I see many who abhorred Bush doing it have no problem when Emperor O does it.
And people who abhor obomba for doing it had no problem when bush did it. It'll never end.
"No one impeached that simple-minded joke of a Pres. [Bush] so don't hold your breath waiting on impeachment for this mutt either."
Dems had a majority in the House and Senate back then, but they took impeachment "off the table" to allow Bush to continue his Iraq/Afghanistan clusterf*ck right up to the 2008 election. Then, the Dems calculated, they could win big in 2008. Which they did cynically — Mission Accomplished — over the corpses of dead soldiers and on the backs of much abused taxpayers. But more to the point, the Dems are nutless/gutless/spineless/clueless (with the possible exception of Tony Wiener, for whom there is photographic evidence), and incapable of any courageous or principled act.
All the wars are illegal. Iraq. Afghanistan. Serbia. Etc.
Grandstanding politicians aside, does anyone here really think the money will just stop flowing? Truman already won this argument.
It's not over till the fat lady sings. The MIC will have the last word on that one.
Barack Bush (sic) today produced his explanation. His view is that the WPA does not apply because the US is only playing a support role and there are no US troops on the ground. This argument is disingenuous in the extreme. It could have been written by John Yoo. It's basically like saying, "I didn't participate in the bank robbery because I just drove the get-away car."
You can download the document from the page below: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-powe…
Joe Biden should be the president till January 20, 2013. In other words, Barack Bush needs to be removed from office.
You people just (for some reason only known to yourselves) cannot understand that your country is NOT involved in ANY WARS at this time! They are ALL INVASIONS, quite a large difference wouldn't you think?
I can't speak for others, but I certainly understand that. I also understand that WE are also under occupation.
Sorry my friend, but this sort of semantic quibbling won't cut it. Everyone has a notion of what constitutes a war, and will readily jump at the opportunity to employ semantics to say "it is" or "it ain't" in accord with their agenda. Employment of warplanes, warships, bombs, rockets, rapid-fire cannons, attack helicopters, predator drones, etc is quite "warlike". Agenda-driven declarations of certitude regarding what does or doesn't constitute war are to be expected in these circumstances. I don't claim overarching authority, but my own criteria re" is it or isn't it?" boils down to whether the landscape is littered with human bodies shattered by military death machines.
YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).