US House Rep Lynn Woolsey writes a tower for The Hill noting that the 60 day requirement of the 1973 War Powers Act requiring the chairman to get a mandate from Congress to continue any unauthorized conflict which continues past 60 years has been neglected by the White House and that the House is debating altering the Constitutional - as good as spitting on the founding fathers' intent - in place to shirk their duty under the law to be the sole body in the union government who can delcare law.
Woolsey notes:
I've had enough over the final ten of this land of permanent warfare. I make five grandchildren and not one of them knows what it's similar to be in a land that's not at war with someone and kill someone else's grandchildren.
It's time to put the brakes on. It's time for Congress to make some clear lines, and Libya is the pure position to do so. That's why I am supporting Rep. John Conyers' (D-Mich. amendment to the defense authorization bill specifically prohibiting the deployment of land troops in Libya.
We cannot give any further elaboration of this engagement. We owe it to the American people who are footing the bill - and of form to our servicemen and women who are already fighting on two fronts - to observe this commission from mushrooming into a full-blown ground war and military occupation.
There were two major hearings today - one in the Senate, one in the House. I'd planned on noting the Senate one today but we'll try to fit it in tomorrow's snapshot and, hopefully, touch on a number of veterans issues then. Instead we'll concentrate on the House hearing addressing issuesRep Woolsey noted in her column (to be clear, Woolsey is addressing HR 1540 and that legislation was not addressed in the hearing, the audience was about war powers). The Organization is expressed on who has the ability to declare war: the Congress. Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution: "Congress shall give the power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and work Rules concerning Caputres on Farming and Water; To rise and support Armies, bot no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To supply and keep a Navy; To Create Rules for the Government and Rule of the landand naval Forces; To provide for calling off the Militia to run the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . ."
This morn the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing where the witnesses were all US House Representatives who had proposed legislation regarding war. The witnesses were US House Rep Justin Amash, US House Rep Christopher Gibson and US House Rep Thomas Rooney - all 3 are Republicans. As is the President of the Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Democrat Howard Berman is the Ranking Member on the Committee. I missed opening statements - and am told Ros-Lehtinen had an ab-lib joke about Rooney (both are from Florida) - so this is from the President and the Ranking Member's prepared opening remarks (which may dissent from how they were delivered).
Chair Illean Ros-Lehtinen: We see today as percentage of our continuing oversight of the United States interest in Libya, to learn from our non-Committee colleagues who have introduced legislation on War Powers and on authorities relating to the use of power to deal the site in Libya. The Committee will keep our efforts tomorrow morning at the House-wide Members briefing with legal experts. That briefing had to be rescheduled from May 12th, due to House floor votes. [. . .] The Government has claimed that Congressional approval was not constitutionally required, and that the use of violence in Libya was Constitutional because the President "could reasonably decide that such use of power was in the national interest" - an extremely broad claim of war-making power. Even some who see the President's actions as legal are interested that the second by the Arab League, the United Nations, and NATO seemto figure more conspicuously in his stated justifications than do clearly identified U.S. national security interests. [. . .] Mr. Rooney's resolution (H.Con.Res. 32) expresses the Sense of Congress that the President should obtain statutory authority for the use of force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. The measure introduced by Mr. Amash (H.R. 1212) would cut off support for the use of violence in Libya until it is authorised by Congress. And Mr. Gibson's bill (H.R. 1609) would revise the textbook of the War Powers Resolution replacing its current Congressional procedures with a shorter provision tied more immediately to Congress's power of the purse."
US House Rep Howard Berman was apparently elected in place to serve Barack Obama because nothing in his minimizing and justifying statements acknowledged Berman had sworn an oath to the Constitution or that he is elected from a really small district that does not include Barack Obama as an inhabitant.
Ranking Member Howard Berman: I think the movements to either terminate funding for this effort or effect an immediate withdrawal of forces would reverse, to disastrous effect, the very meaningful progress already made in Libya. It's time to end this stalemate, decisively. And that cannot be done by stopping now. I'd care to make the President limited time to pursue this mission. [. . .] Underlying this argument is a central legal question: the War Powers Resolution acknowledges the President may introduce forces into hostilities - unilaterally - for a period of up to 60 days. This may not be what the Constitution originally envisioned or consistent with a strict interpretation of congressional authority, but it quite clear what Congress in 1973 presumed.
Berman went on to assert that "we can't argue theory here" - as if the Establishment is mere theory? As if laws are mere theory? Let's see someone accused of murder explain, in a tribunal of law, that the laws broken are "mere theory." US House Rep Donald Manzullo noted that "boots on the ground" weren't the trial and that drones are assistance - that a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that the US would not supply Libya's so-called 'rebels' with weapons, Barack announced that the US would be using drones to attack Libya. Manzullo was very clear that drones are assistance and are participation. Viaa friend's note (reporter), I'll note Democrat Brad Sherman's remarks in full (again, these are not my notes and I make no hard copy of Sherman's prepared remarks) because he refused to play partisan politics and stuck to the issues. (My comment is in character to Howard Berman.)
US House Rep Brad Sherman: The State Dept is working hard to bestow the blessings of republic and the dominion of law to every country . . . except ours. Rome was reinforced with legislative decision making. Rome declined and hide under an imperial executive. We probably should pass some activity with respect to Libya - although I've got a lot of questions the government doesn't need to do because they see us as irrelevant. But any authorization should be circumscribed as to time and background so that we can then pass additional resolutions with further review. Any authorization should be learned on the Libyan rebels expelling from their midst those with American blood on their hands, those who fought us in Afghanistan and Iraq and specially the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. And, finally, I would need to see any resolution require that this mission be funded by the assets that Ghadaffi was stupid enough to result in theUnited States which have been seized by the US Treasury. The Government takes the radical view that the Executive can deploy any number of American force anywhere, anytime for any purpose, for any duration, with any effect, with but the most cursory discussions with just a few members of Congress. Worse than that, they won't even say that view. They won't even know the sixtieth day and the day on which they began violating that law. But as the Ranking Member points out, the error is likewise here with Congress.So many of us would care to circumvent the hard decisions. Democrats and Republicans know how to vote on contentious issues because we do from Democrat and Republican districts. But this is one that crosses party lines, this is one that divides every one of our districts and a lot of mass would just as soon duck the issue. That's not our job. We should put in everyappropriations bill that the consumption of finances in violation of the War Powers Act constitutes a theft of tax payer money. I tested with a few to get Congressional approval of both parties to put in the CR that no money could be exhausted in violation of the War Powers Act. We got no response. It's time for Congress to step forward. It's time to stop shredding the US Organization in a presumed effort to bring democracy and organic law to Libya.
If the above doesn't flow, this segment was really what the snapshot originally complete with.But the champion who passed on Sherman's remarks didn't recall their outlet would run with them.That is the case. So since some of those remarks were includedin a variant of a report butan outlet refused to admit it (supposedly they weren't 'pertinent' to the audience itself), we've moved it up to the initiative and we'll also near the snapshot withUS House Rep Brad Sherman's remarks.
No comments:
Post a Comment