The War Powers Act is Dead.

[Wooster]

And Barack Obama is the one who killed it.

Is this a good or bad thing?

I personal think it is great. WPA is a unconstitutional power grab. It is especially delightful that a Democrat is the one who killed it.
The no-fly zone over Libya was an atrocious idea, but there are always silver linings.

[Bacon]

If I am understanding the concept of the WPA, it's unconstitutional because congress has to explicitly approve of the war or the troops have to be recalled within 30 days? Which would effectively not make the President Commander and chief?

Secondly, how is it being killed?

[Kreegah!!!]

Now if all martial law were repealed...

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Bacon

If I am understanding the concept of the WPA, it's unconstitutional because congress has to explicitly approve of the war or the troops have to be recalled within 30 days? Which would effectively not make the President Commander and chief?

Secondly, how is it being killed?

60 days actually sort of. Anywho yes, unless there is adirect threat to America, the Act states a US president needs the approval for any military conflict. The constitution names the President Commander-in-Chief, and only says that Congress can declare war. Most presidents have abides by it while stating they do not have to. Bush had congress pass resolutions for both the War on Terror and Iraq. Obama never tried to get anything passed for Libya. Same as Reagan for Grenada, but that was only a week, so within the limits of the WPA.


Because 60 days are approaching and Obama never asked for approval from congress. Congress is out of session, and I don't see Obama removing US troops from the NATO forces by Friday, so he will have blanatly ignored this law.

[Bacon]

Well being the commander and chief doesn't mean that the president "should" be able to employ the troops without justifiable cause. Well, that's how I interpret that part of the constitution, plus it has a lot to do with the separation of powers and the checks and balances. If you've ever read any of Thomas Paine's "common sense", he conveys a sense of paranoia when it comes to kings and arbitrators. So it's not too surprising that the president is allowed to direct the United states forces,but not initiate war on a whim.

As for law being dead I see what you mean,but doesn't Obama have 30 days after Friday to pull the troops?

[Danielle]

Illegal Kinetic Military Action? What does that even mean...

[assassin]

the wpa was the checks and balance that legislation(the senate) had on the executive(the president).

Honestly, I believe congress is allowing obama to do this(because it's mostly republican) so that they can kick him out of office for breaking the law.

But who knows? I'm no politician

[Bacon]

Originally Posted by Danielle

Illegal Kinetic Military Action? What does that even mean...

It's political jargon,but I think it's a fancy way referring to hot wars.

Originally Posted by assassin

the wpa was the checks and balance that legislation(the senate) had on the executive(the president).

Honestly, I believe congress is allowing obama to do this(because it's mostly republican) so that they can kick him out of office for breaking the law.

But who knows? I'm no politician

No, it's a power grab by the legislation.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Danielle

Illegal Kinetic Military Action? What does that even mean...

It's what to call a war, when you don't want to call it a war. Obama is good at double speak! Or in otherwords,

"I don't care, Obama is awesome." *winning*

[White Zetsu]

Obama should be called out on it if hes violating an act. in my opinion a president should not be able to send troops somewhere or declare war unless A. The US is directly under attack B. Congress is for some reason unable to respond C. it will only be a small attack and last less than 30 days it is just stupid to give our troops to NATO hes supposed to be a democrat who doesnt like war now we are engaged in three wars whether anyone wants to admit it or not Obama should be punished by congress when it comes back into session or the supreme court

[Danielle]

Originally Posted by Wooster

It's what to call a war, when you don't want to call it a war. Obama is good at double speak! Or in otherwords,

"I don't care, Obama is awesome." *winning*

I thought that was a police action, aka Korea. >.>

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Danielle

I thought that was a police action, aka Korea. >.>

That's when you don't want to proclaim you are really fighting a proxy war with a country of nearly 1 billion people.

[Jutsu Junkie]

Originally Posted by Wooster

And Barack Obama is the one who killed it.

Is this a good or bad thing?

I personal think it is great. WPA is a unconstitutional power grab. It is especially delightful that a Democrat is the one who killed it.
The no-fly zone over Libya was an atrocious idea, but there are always silver linings.

Breaking a law doesn't kill it. However, this is a matter for the Supreme Court to settle, since there is a Constitutional matter at stake. All Congress can do is withdraw funding, unless Obama has managed to fold existing funding into the Libya action.

Originally Posted by assassin

the wpa was the checks and balance that legislation(the senate) had on the executive(the president).

Honestly, I believe congress is allowing obama to do this(because it's mostly republican) so that they can kick him out of office for breaking the law.

But who knows? I'm no politician

It would never work, because of his position as Commander in Chief (which as mentioned above makes this a matter for the Supreme Court, not the Justice Department), and more importantly because they are aiding and abetting the so-called illegal action over multiple administrations including the present one.

I don't think the WPA will stand up in the present Court, and so the President won't be called out on it in the first place. At most, the war will be defunded, but probably not even that ultimately.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

Breaking a law doesn't kill it. However, this is a matter for the Supreme Court to settle, since there is a Constitutional matter at stake. All Congress can do is withdraw funding, unless Obama has managed to fold existing funding into the Libya action.

Unlikely this will ever be brought before the Supreme Court.
Future presidents will just site Obama when they don't feel like following this law.

Yes, congress can always do that, which is the power the constitution gives them. They just don't like that because it may put troops in danger, so the WPA was passed. However, that is unconstitutional. Likely, presidents will continue to be in accordance with it, but subject to it.

It would never work, because of his position as Commander in Chief (which as mentioned above makes this a matter for the Supreme Court, not the Justice Department), and more importantly because they are aiding and abetting the so-called illegal action over multiple administrations including the present one.

I don't think the WPA will stand up in the present Court, and so the President won't be called out on it in the first place. At most, the war will be defunded, but probably not even that ultimately.

Incorrect, the presidents swear to uphold the constitution. He is not bound to follow anything that is unconstitutional and ,indeed, obligated not to.

For a law to be brought before the Supreme Court someone has to be harmed. The only likely way I see this happen is if soldiers would claim they are fighting in an unconstitutional war and either were injured or lost pay some manner like that. Unlikely to happen, so this law is for all intents and purposes dead.

[Jutsu Junkie]

Originally Posted by Wooster

For a law to be brought before the Supreme Court someone has to be harmed. The only likely way I see this happen is if soldiers would claim they are fighting in an unconstitutional war and either were injured or lost pay some manner like that. Unlikely to happen, so this law is for all intents and purposes dead.

Unlikely things happen everyday. For example, the officer who openly defied deployment orders claiming that Obama wasn't actually the President (he was/is a birther), and therefore could not compel him to deploy. Now, that was an indefensible argument, and one would think it was therefore unlikely, but it happened anyway. That is our system: if you don't have the conviction to complain, you can eat it. But we are a litigious society: someone is always willing to complain. So if it can come before the Court it probably will. The only question is whether the Court will employ its power of judicial review and simply refuse to see the case, which is always possible and requires no explanation on their part.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

Unlikely things happen everyday. For example, the officer who openly defied deployment orders claiming that Obama wasn't actually the President (he was/is a birther), and therefore could not compel him to deploy. Now, that was an indefensible argument, and one would think it was therefore unlikely, but it happened anyway. That is our system: if you don't have the conviction to complain, you can eat it. But we are a litigious society: someone is always willing to complain. So if it can come before the Court it probably will. The only question is whether the Court will employ its power of judicial review and simply refuse to see the case, which is always possible and requires no explanation on their part.

That is almost certain. They leave it up to Congress and the Executive branch to settle the matter. Of course, they didn't do that for Boumediene v. Bush, but I guess that is because it involved "habeas corpus."