I don't see what the big deal is. I mean if the US can illegally invade both Iraq and Afghanistan without so much as a blink of the eye what does Obama care about Libya. In fact Libya is substantially smaller than both Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of population and should be "easy" compared to the mess that is Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heck, I would be surprised to see the US illegally invade Yemen next since that place is suppose to be the next "Al-Qaeda" stronghold.

Does it matter, I mean the constitution is a dead letter anyway.

Israel must never give up control of the strategic Northern West Bank (Samaria).

See what a return to the '67 lines will mean for Israel:

http://shomroncentral.blogspot.com/

Let's at least not pretend that this is some kind of constitutional basis that goes back to the Founding Fathers' "checks and balances." The presidents have routinely ignored the War Powers act since it was enacted in 1973. It's a joke, a tantrum that Congress raised once upon a time. If Congress is so concerned about this "illegal war," then it has the power to stop funding military actions related to NATO's attack on Libya. You know this and everyone else knows this. To construct this argument that, because Obama didn't ask "pretty please," this becomes an illegal war is ridiculous.

If the "do nothing" Congress wants to stop it, it has the power of the purse. But no Repub will dare stop a military action in the fear of being seen as anti-military, and no Dem will go against the president (well, maybe except for Kucinich, but who cares about him). Stop inflating this to something that it's not.

Among the myriad things that will change in a re-conceptualizing of warfare in the 21st century, the authority to wage it will be foremost inside the US federal government. Asymmetry and the use of smaller, more lethal elements inside the US military and intelligence world will force a debate on whether the small, highly adaptable, highly mobile enemy must be met with a presidential authority to move forces on a global battlefield without authorization from federal legislative branch.

Like many of the opinion pieces appearing in the Foreign Policy blogs, this one deals with two rather distinct issues.

The first is what the requirements are for addressing the security challenges of the Twenty-first Century with its asymmetric warfare, terrorism, cyberwar, etc. This is a topic that merits deep thought and is thus a reasonable subject for Congressional hearings. Perhaps one of our glorious Congresspeople will choose to convene them.

The second is whether Obama can be constrained at all. He is a president who went to great lengths to prevent the public from knowing what he stands for. If there is no way to stop him, he is capable of doing anything, and justifying it by claiming we voted for it. As a self-claimed professor of Constitutional law, Obama of all people should be acutely attuned to the reuirements of complying with the Constitution and the law. What the Libya situation demonstrates, again, is that he has no respect for the law. That was worrisome when we knew what the president stood for; it becomes a threat to the continued existence of our form of government when we don't.

The question that is ultimately posed by this situaton is whether Obama's ignoring the War Powers Act constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" as stated in the Constitution and thus provides grounds for seeking his impeachment.

....as there is no mechanism for enforcement.

Congress can remove a president from office via impeachment, if necessary.

Reading the War Powers Act, I dissent from the oped by the two distinguished faculty members of my alma mater.
The loophole in the law is that no notice is required unless American troops are equipped for combat. After setting up the infrastructure for the no-fly zone, there are no reports that American troops have neither engaged in nor been equipped for combat, and the oped does not claim otherwise.

...is whether the Constitution is being violated by continuing to allow ideologues freedom to distort, exaggerate, tell half-truths or lie by ommision while posing as objective journalists and news-reporters.

The founding documants of the USA are very clear about the importance of having a fifth-estate dedicated to non-partisan, unbiased reiteration of the kinds of information neccesary for citizens of a democracy to vote into power those who see government as an extension of the will of the voter, and not someone who knows how to stoke our fears and prejudices in ways meant to produce hasty decisions about how much privacy we're willing to give up in return for a promise to keep us safe from terror attacks.

You see, an informed citizenry is one that knows that despite the mental trauma of witnessing the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon play out repeatedly for months, even years after, the chances that you, me or any one of our loved ones might die in a terrorist attack are so low that anyone who really stops to think it through would either realize the huge disservice being done to us by a news media more intent on selling copy by headlining scary words spoken by cave-hopping religious kooks hoping to gain notoriety for himself so he might someday move to a less drafty cave.

A poorly informed citizenry does things like allowing the government to continue taking taxes sufficient to fight and win the cold war but against a low-technology, poorly trained enemy that is few in numbers, prone to fighting among themselves, whose ideological motivation is one suggesting such low cognitive complexity that it must cross over into delusion as a means of rationalizing his own world to himself!.
Lets be clear here! The only thing more looney then them is a democratic nation willing to spend the same against the threat posed by AQ or the Muslim Botherhood as it did against trained Soviet Bloc soldiers using highly sophisticated satellite and spy technology, silent-running nuclear subs sitting 10 miles off both coastlines at any given moment, and the thousands of short, mid, and full ICBMs all fitted with multiple warhead technolgy making each of them capable of so much death and destruction that the WTC attack would be a welcome diversion by comparison.

And yet its Obama\s BC or timely invocation of war powers that get's stressed as something we must all worry could be undermining the Constitution to the extent it challenges democracy itself. ????

Man! I'd think people would be embarrased to carry on this way. And yet...

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the members of Meet the Press that Libya was no threat to the US and of no vital importance to us. Shortly thereafter, President Obama dragged us into the middle of a Libyan civil war to aid Al Qaeda-backed rebels fight a Libyan Dictator, mommar Qadaffi... without funding or Congressional approval. At that point Obama had 60 days for his 'kinetic military operation'. NATO may have just declared they are extending their operation against Qaddafi for 90 more days, but the US Constitution does not give President Obama that luxury. His 60 days over, President Obama is now violating the US Constitution, specifically the War Powers Act, and is in breech of his Oath of Office, to uphold and defend the very Constitution he is now violating. I am amazed that so many media sources care enough about the Constitution or that a President would break the law so openly and consider it a non-story. A nation that has been lulled so deep into sleep and malaise that it doesn't blink an eye when its President violates laws, gnores and breaks its Constitution, and demonstartes such a disregard for his oath of office is in serious jeopardy! Tloerance is all well and good as long as we are not willing to tolerate such Un-Constitutional and ILLEGAL action, especially when it involves the President of the United States!

Mike Haas, good point...if it were true. The US DOES have troops on the ground. The Obama administration has already admitted that it has sent in members of the CIA; however, we have Spec Ops on the ground. Another 'loophole' attempt I have heard is that NATO is 'at war', and we are just supporting NATO. Uh, no. WE started this and then asked NATO to take over...and our troops are still fighting in this war. Another excuse I've heard is that we aren't at 'war' - Libya is a 'kinetic military operation'. Well thank you, 'Bill Clinton, for that pathetic definition of 'IS'/'Sex' defense attempt! Obama railed against Bush for 2 unfunded wars while Liberals called Bush's wars illegal. Now Obama is not only responsible for a 3rd unfunded war, but his truly IS Illegal!

Why, after 2 1/2 years of the Obama Presidency, would anyone be surprised by his stand on the Constitutionality or legality of his Libyan intervention? After all to Obama the Constitution has been nothing but a hindrance to his attempts to transform America into his concept of what this nation should be as a reflection of his personal ideology.

There will be decade upon decade of legal and historical wrangling over the many illegalities condoned by his administration and enacted by his appointees. Unfortunately if left unchallenged he will have established a new pattern of administration for any and all successors and not only weakened the power of the Constitution but also the power of the Legislative branch. Three legged stools become hazardous when there are only two strong legs.

Ok, so, let me get this straight. If we go to war unilaterally, and nobody shares the cost with us, you blame the rest of the world for being a bunch of pansies and appeasing an autocrat. This time, France & England take the lead, and now you're whining that the U.S. is considering the opinions of other major world powers and is partaking in a multilateral effort that won't result in universal hatred towards the U.S. karmaloop codes. The Washington Times editorial staff is like those kindergarten kids who won't share their toys, pee their pants, and then start fights with all the other kids.

The strange thing about the way the administration has handled this since March is that Congress would have likely signed off Private Label Rights eBooks on the Libyan war if it had been asked to debate and vote on it. There must normally be enough Republican hawks

Yes, it is illegal. Congress actually has the power to stop funding military actions related to Libya. To blame on Obama is just an excuse. Congress has the power of the purse but no Republican will dare stop a military action lest he be seen as against the military. n

They are scared, but I know there are still reasonable people among American lawmakers who want to work for the country and not for some dirty plans. You just have to stick together, build up a good free relationship reading and do the right thing. Kusinich's proposal will have to be reconsidered again and they won't be able to hide it.

After all to Obama the Constitution has been nothing but a hindrance to his attempts to transform America into his concept of what this nation should be as a reflection of his personal ideology.There will be decade upon decade of sázkové kanceláre legal and historical wrangling over the many illegalities condoned by his administration and enacted by his appointees. Unfortunately if left unchallenged he will have established a new pattern of administration for any and all successors and not only weakened the power of the Constitution but also the power of the Legislative branch. A poorly informed citizenry does things like allowing the government to continue taking taxes sufficient to fight and win the cold war but against a low-technology, poorly trained enemy that is few in numbers, prone to fighting among themselves, whose ideological motivation is one suggesting such low cognitive complexity that it must cross over into delusion as a means of rationalizing his own world to himself!.The loophole in the sázkové kanceláre law is that no notice is required unless American troops are equipped for combat. After setting up the infrastructure for the no-fly zone, there are no reports that American troops have neither engaged in nor been equipped for combat, and the oped does not claim otherwise.

Libya is important, but the U.S. Constitution is ultimately what we're fighting for. Mike Haas, good point...if it were true. The US DOES have troops on the ground. The Obama administration has already admitted that it has sent in members of the CIA; however, we have Spec Ops on the ground. Another 'loophole' attempt I have heard is that NATO is 'at war', and we are just supporting NATO. Uh, no. WE started this and then asked NATO to take over...and our troops are still fighting i check this To stand in the rigid point of view that is the Congress the unique entity authorized to decide when and how making war is a perilous way. The strategic scenary of 21th century is dominated by new threats, though is ingenuous to believe the federal government of the USA can confront them keeping strictly under the limit mark by the laws. Weren't the federal government be able early deter the new t