Read that a bipartisan group (uh-oh) including Dennis Kucinich (Uh-oh) recently filed suit against Barack Obama (UH-OH!) for violating the War Powers Act by staying in Libya. An interesting breakdown of the case’s chance for success here, but I was surprised to see a certain name on the list — Mike Capuano.
Leaving aside how difficult it was to find a list of the plantiffs in the traditional media that went beyond “Kucinich and some other guys), what do you think of this move by Capuano? Especially considering that nothing so far in the Senate campaign would preclude Capuano’s membership in the top-tier should he declare. Especially especially considering that it is plausible that both Senate seats will be up in 2012. Is suing the president an automatic loser in Massachusetts? Is Libya still a “good war” in people’s eyes?
How do you think this plays, folks?
I think that as war powers violations go, there have been some much clearer ones that nobody in Congress challenged in the past few decades. American involvement in this war is as part of NATO, under NATO command, with UN Security Council authorization. NATO is a treaty organization, and the Senate ratified the treaties. It also ratified our UN membership.
On the other hand, given how little Congress has tried to defend its war power authority in recent decades, it’s nice to see any attempt to do so, even if it’s far from the best case. Personally, I don’t think it’s wrong for American military forces to act as part of NATO with Security council authority *without* separate authorization from Congress, but I do think it’s wrong that Congress has neglected this issue for so long, and testing its limits in court (even though I think this one falls on the right side of the limit) is a good thing.
Politically: Capuano probably stands to gain in a Democratic primary for US Senate from this. Since we still (*grrrr!*) don’t have IRV or any preference voting system in place, any primary for the Democratic nomination for an open seat is likely to have multiple progressive contenders, and if one of them doesn’t consolidate the progressive grassroots & activist community, the result would be a split of the progressive vote that would make it easier for one of the more mainline/centrist candidates (of which there would likely be fewer in the race) to win a plurality. A move like this can help Capuano get progressive organizers early.
If he actually wants to run, and declares early, that is.
After spending a few moments wondering what Capuano’s participation means — 1) Pander to the left, meaning he’s running, or 2) Saying screw it, I believe this, indicating he’s not running — I come down to this. Suing? These are members of Congress. Why not do something Congressional, like cut the funding?
I agree with cos that it’s nice to see Congress attempt some defense of the principle of balance of powers. I’m not a Tea Partier, but it’s awfully hard to square the present situation with the Constitution’s interpretations of war declarations.
A lawsuit has a far better chance to make a positive impact than “not funding ammo for our troops” or whatever.
That’s what they do.
They could, for example, set a withdrawal date after which funding stops. The White House would scream, but that is their Constitutional check on presidential power, should they choose to exercise it.
continue to send troops without being able to feed or pay them, or send them into battle without bullets or some such thing. If Congress wants to end combat, they should be able to do so.
Daniel Ellsberg’s revelation not pertinent? Mr. Ellsberg now admits all the things Nixon wanted to do to him are now legal or within executive orders. (Is it not odd that the current Executive is the great denier of civil rights?)
I, too, fear the litigation will fail. Perhaps it will serve to bring attention to the strangulation of our laws by the Executive.
Now, as much as in other great threats to our form of government, we need a powerful legislative branch. It should be more than a place to drop one’s pants. Otherwise we just have a unitary executive and glorified bicameral clerks. The power of Congress is in the pocketbook. Use the power. Stop the blank check funding of the endless war and it’ll go away.
We need more Capuano, Kucinich, and their breed. We can get rubber stamps anywhere.
“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” –George Washington
Regardless, as another commenter mentioned we are doing this under international auspices.
I’m more curious about whether this is the right thing to do than whether it will advance or hold back his political career.
1. We are at war with Libya. If you think we’re not at war, think about what you’d call it if Libya was launching daily strikes on the White House and other US targets for a few months. It’s war. And even if it’s not, it seems like even “hostilities” qualify under the War Powers Act.
2. The War Powers Act seems to be pretty straightforward – read it here. Seems like if Congress doesn’t authorize within 60 days, hostilities must end:
Am I missing something here? If not, then the President is violating the law, and I hope that SOMEONE does SOMETHING, and I’m glad Cap is doing something.
That’s the key. The administration’s argument is that “hostilities” within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution have ended. Here’s their basic argument.
Whereas, blah, blah, bullshit, blah…therefore, the Executive can do whatever he wants.
But then again, INAL.
Heh … that seems to be the one thing that all presidents in US history can agree on.
But the word “hostilities” seems pretty straightforward. I don’t see any qualifiers in the Act of the sort that Obama sees. I don’t see “blowing up stuff with drones shall not count as hostilities under this act”, or similar.
I think he was of the opinion that a certain amount of blowing stuff up was peaceful, if it was done for peace, to stop aggression and save lives.
Personally I think it is for Congress collectively to check the President through the legislative process (ie pass a resolution making it clear they do not consent) rather than for a subset thereof to sue in court. Plus, the US is not at war with Libya. NATO might be and I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to pick and choose once we sign a treaty. Treaties along with the constitution are the supreme law so if a treaty conflicts with ordinary statute such as the War Powers Act, the treaty should prevail.
provision granting only Congress the ability to declare war. I’m of the opinion that this was a crucial provision, and Congress’ attempted abdication of its responsibility vis a vis war is probably unconstitutional, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with me. Treaties that imply “automatic” entry into war upon some specific circumstance or other- those are a little more complicated, I guess. Probably the framers conceived of such things- not sure whether they would have approved of them, though. The power to make war is so dangerous that a president who abuses his authority in this regard should be subject to impeachment, removal, and even prosecution. Think: someone who presses “the button” in a drunken stupor or to cover up a scandalous affair or something.
Without the War Powers Act I think my argument is stronger because the constitution only refers to war, not all hostile action. At least in my own mind, not every deployment of troops constitutes a war. When I think war I think full societal mobilization such as rationing, commandeering peacetime factories for wartime use, purchasing war bonds, the draft. (For the latter I DO think Vietnam should have been formally declared if we were going to go that route.) Simply telling some of our troops, “Go help NATO with this thing they’re doing in Libya for a while.” does not constitute war.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve said that … 😉
A former boss of yours probably shares that lament
I prefer this much more than just saying he hates what’s going on but can’t do anything about it. At least he is trying to do something.
Go Mike!