Wasn't Obama a constitutional law professor before becoming a senator ?
It seems Absolute power indeed does corrupt absolutely !

Caesar also presented himself as a man of the people.

Let's see:

During his 2008 campaign, Obama's fund-raising operation could not distinguish between American citizens, entitled to contribute, and non-citizens who cannot legally do so. In every other respect, his website was state of the art. As I understand it, more than $400 million of his haul could be questionable. He was first to announce his candidacy for re-election, enabling him to start up the fund-raising machine, before anyone has been able to determine the extent of the illegal funding that went into the 2008 campaign.

His campaign posters actively evoked the image of 1984's "Big Brother."

He could easily dispel claims that he isn't an American citizen by birth by releasing his birth ceretificate, but refuses to do so. Likewise, the other credentials necessary to support his claims are all unavailable.

His campaign was an appeal to provide him with a blank check to do as he wished. At one point, a campaign spokeswoman appeared on NPR to announce that the campaign didn't think the voters needed to know what he stood for. My efforts to find answers about where he stood on issues of interest to me found none when I went to his vast website. This may not be illegal, but it is a violation of the democratic ethos.

Obama holds himself to be better informed about all issues than any of his advisors. He sees himself as a better politician, tactician, etc. than any of the people he has hired. They are there to take orders from him.

Now, he sees himself as being above the law when it comes to going to war. Americans would never have tolerated this from GW Bush, or any other president, but Obama doesn't consider himself subject to the same laws. Any bets that he will withdraw if the 60 days expire and Libya is a bigger mess? And what if proof emerges that we are actively assisting an al-Qaeda take-over of Libya?

He fooled us in 2008, and that's his fault. If he does it again in 2012, we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

I'm blaming you already for misrepresenting Obama in every respect.

The guy's a former constitutional law professor. Have we ever had a president who was a constitutional law professor? Yes, we have had at least one other, Pres Wm H Taft (Faculty of the University of Cincinnati) who before becoming president and then chief justice of the Supreme Court had been Secretary of War. The authors might have considered any statements, comments, lectures or opinions the distinguished gentleman Mr. Taft might have had in matters that could be related to this.

The two co-authors and another constitutional law professor who is now POTUS and CIC may not be on opposite sides here. How do we know Pres Obama disagrees with Profs Ackerman and Hathaway? As law professors, A&H surely know that there isn't a legal dispute until someone disagrees with you, usually by stating a cause of action in a court of law. When will the White House respond to the co-authors presentation of their politico-legal brief I just read?

The Senate tabled a resolution on Lybia earlier this week. The House has been officially silent as well. The Supreme Court rightfully remains unengaged as nothing in this has been brought before it, nor is anything in the present Lybia intervention along with our Nato and other allies - to include the Arab League - acting consistent with a specific UNSC Resolution, likely ever to interrupt the court's pending or future docket.

I don't see a disagreement here between profs Ackerman and Hathaway and Pres Obama. I have read the politico-legal brief by the two profs but their presentation reminds me of the old political ad, "Where's the beef?" France, Italy and Qatar already have recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of Lybia.

Congress is pretty jealous of its powers so If and when it comes time for the Congress to act, it will. Until then it's Pres Obama's constitutional prerogative as CIC and consistent with the War Powers Act to initiate and to conduct this limited UN sanctioned military operation against Col Gadhafi, his henchmen and other Gadhafi paid mercenaries.

The authors must show disagreement between the CIC and themselves to have a credible argument. They do not. Instead the authors would have us infer a disagreement, which I can find no reason to do.

From what I can understand through my reading of the War Powers Resolution, the President is already in violation of that act since his intervention in Libya was not initiated pursuant to either

"(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. "

Since this action has not been authorized by Congress, nor has the U.S. been attacked by the forces of Libya, it seems to me that Obama's actions constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of power that must be recognized and condemned, through impeachment proceedings if necessary.

Impeachment hysteria does not add to the invalid argument that the president in the international UNSC voted limited military operation in Lybia against the dictator Gadhafi is in violation of the War clause of the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution (RL 32267 of 1973).

Section 5(b) of RL 32267 requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities within 60-90 days after a report is submitted or required to be submitted under section 4(a)(1). On March 21 the president did submit such a report. This is the major and principal reason Congress officially remained silent since the inception of the international Lybian operation against Gadhafi.

The fact is that in this international operation against Gadhafi, and after almost 40 years of experience in Washington in respect to the War Powers Resolution the president and the Congress are getting along just fine. Time have been a lot tougher between the two concerning RL 32267.

In 1983 for instance eleven Members of Congress filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of President Reagan's invasion of Grenada. A US district judge held that courts should not decide such cases unless the entire Congress used the institutional remedies available to it, i.e., require a report and conduct a vote. On August 7, 1987, Representative Lowry and 110 other Members of Congress filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to declare that a report was required under section 4(a)(1) in respect to Pres Reagan's decision to defend Kuwait merchant ships against Iraqi attacks. The following December 18 the court dismissed the suit, holding it was a "nonjusticiable political question," and that the plaintiffs' dispute was "primarily with fellow legislators." On December 13, 1990 Judge Harold Greene of the Federal district court in Washington denied a request of some certain Members of Congress to enjoin Pres Bush deploying US troops in Operation Desert Shield, holding that the controversy was not appropriate for judicial constitutional resolution.

The courts thus have had little role in the interpretation of the Resolution, judiciously preferring to leave the matter of war and peace to their constitutionally prescribed branches of government, i.e., the executive and the legislative.

Section 5(b) of the Resolution further requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain in such situations. Pres Obama has done this and doing this on a continuing basis.

As a reminder, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea (previous to the War Powers Resolution being voted by the Congress). This solidary presidential Cold War behavior over time precipitated the Congress to enact the War Powers Resolution against Pres Nixon and SecState Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam War, in 1973.

Directly of relevance and material substance in the present instance of Pres Obama, Lybia and Gadhafi, however, is Section 8(b) of the Resolution which states that further specific statutory authorization (beyond the extant provisions of the Resolution) is not required to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands, commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of the joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

During the dance of legislation that produced the Resolution this section was added by the Senate to make clear that the resolution did not prevent U.S. forces from participating in certain joint military exercises with allied or friendly organizations or countries. The conference report accompanying the Resolution stated that the "high-level" military commands meant the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, (NATO), the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the United Nations command in Korea. (The North American Air Defense Command - NORAD - is now the North American Aerospace Defense Command.)

After the end of the Cold War in 1990, the United States began to move away from unilateral military actions toward actions authorized or supported by the United Nations. Under the auspices of U.N. Security Council resolutions, U.S. forces were deployed in Kuwait and Iraq, Somalia, former Yugoslavia/Bosnia, and Haiti.The Son of Bush presidency proved to be the failed and foreseeablyr discredited exception.

US miltilateralism such as we are experiencing in the Obama presidency had already raised the new issue of whether the War Powers Resolution applied to U.S. participation in U.N. military actions. (It was not a problem during the Cold War because the agreement among the five permanent members required for Security Council actions seldom existed. An exception, the Korean war, occurred before the War Powers Resolution was enacted.)

The more basic issue--under what circumstances congressional authorization is required for U.S. participation in U.N. military operations--is an unfinished debate remaining from 1945. Whether congressional authorization is required depends on the types of U.N. action and is governed by the U.N. Participation Act (P.L. 79-264, as amended), as well as by the War Powers Resolution and war powers under the Constitution. Appropriations action by Congress also may be determinative as a practical matter.

On March 21, 2011, the President submitted to Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” a report stating that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011,” he had directed U.S. military forces to commence “operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

And, finally at last in this post here is the bottom line: The War Powers Resolution requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 4(a)(1); into foreign territory while equipped for combat, Section 4(a)(2); or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation, Section 4(a)(3). Once a report is submitted “or required to be submitted” under Section 4(a)(1), Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 to 90 days or the forces must be withdrawn.

There just isn't any problem in respect to Pres Obama, the Congress and the UN-NATO operation in Lybia. The CCP in Beijing just failed in egging on the African Union-Beijing position to allow Gadhafi to talk and bargain, a position just yesterday rejected by the rebel forces the international community of democracies and the Arab League supports.

Quit the bellyaching and the histrionics. This is a non issue.

.

There's no question about it: The president must ask Congress to approve the Libya intervention. So why is Obama resisting?. From what I can understand through my reading of the War Powers Resolution, the President is already in violation of that act since his intervention in Libya was not initiated pursuant to either "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. " Since this action has not been authorized by Congress, nor has the U. S. "In the modern era, all U. S home security systems. conflicts have been limited wars. The last time Congress pledged to devote "the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government" was when it declared war on Germany in World War II. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War (perhaps the most scarring limited war), Congress saw the need to passthe War Powers Resolution, which aimed to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States" by ensuring that the "collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" would control the use of force. " At one point, a campaign spokeswoman appeared on NPR to announce that the campaign didn't think the voters needed to know what he stood for. My efforts to find answers about where he stood on issues of interest to me found none when I went to his vast website. This may not be illegal, but it is a violation of the democratic ethos.

After the end of the Cold War in 1990, the United States began to move away from unilateral military actions toward actions authorized or supported by the United Nations. Under the auspices of U.N. Security Council resolutions, U.S. forces were deployed in Kuwait and Iraq, Somalia, former Yugoslavia/Bosnia, and Haiti.The Son of Bush presidency proved to be the failed and foreseeablyr discredited exception. foreclosures list There just isn't any problem in respect to Pres Obama, the Congress and the UN-NATO operation in Lybia. The CCP in Beijing just failed in egging on the African Union-Beijing position to allow Gadhafi to talk and bargain, a position just yesterday rejected by the rebel forces the international community of democracies and the Arab League supports.