PDA

View Full Version : Hearing on War Powers and Libya - Tues, 6/28




Valli6
06-28-2011, 08:37 AM
LIVE http://c-span.org/Events/Senate-Panel-Debates-Libya-War/10737422525-1/

Senate Panel Debates Libya War Panel will vote on Libya war authorization Tues, June 28, 2011
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds a hearing today on the President’s authority to conduct military operations in Libya. Some members of Congress have said the President acted outside his authority outlined in the Constitution and in the War Powers Act of 1973 by failing to seek Congressional authorization for prolonged military engagement with NATO partners. They challenge the President's argument that the U.S. is not engaged in "hostilities" in Libya.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a measure rebuking the President’s actions. They failed to pass a proposal that authorizes the President to fight a “limited” war, which would enable the U.S. to continue assisting NATO with the aerial raids and military mission, but expressly prohibits U.S. troops from touching Libya’s soil.*

State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, a staunch critic of President Bush's*engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq,*is testifying and will likely defend*President Obama's decision.* But according to Foreign Policy, members of the committee plan to challenge the President's actions.

Following the hearing, the committee will vote on a a measure similar to the one the House failed to pass last Friday. Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) co-authored with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) a similar measure that authorizes the President to conduct "limited" military engagement. Numerous amendments are likely to be offered to alter the proposal.


AND later today at 2:30 ET
"Mark-up of Libya War Authorization"

About The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
http://foreign.senate.gov/

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman- John Kerry
Ranking Member- Richard Lugar

Majority
Barbara*Boxer
Robert*Menendez
Benjamin L.*Cardin
Robert P.*Casey Jr
Jim*Webb
Jeanne*Shaheen
Christopher*Coons
Richard J.*Durbin
Tom*Udall

Minority
Bob*Corker
James E.*Risch
Marco*Rubio
James M.*Inhofe
Jim*DeMint
Johnny*Isakson
John*Barrasso
Mike Lee

sailingaway
06-28-2011, 08:45 AM
Rand should be on that and the Banking committee rather than the lightbulb, toilet and wasted money panel and the education panel given he wants to abolish the Federal Dept of education.

Well, we'll see what Mike Lee says. He has been a pretty staunch constitutionalist so far; I expect him to make things interesting.

Valli6
06-28-2011, 09:31 AM
Senator Mike Lee up now!
(Wants the term "hostilities" defined.)

sailingaway
06-28-2011, 09:39 AM
Lee is hitting the key point, it isn't the 'reporting' it is the inability to go in and bomb at all. Obama's point as a candidate is in my signature. This guy answering is spinning bs now he is essentially conceding Obama didn't follow the War Powers act he is saying it isn't 'exhaustive'. What utter crap. "Acting in good faith interpretation...." Yeah, why did Obama 'in good faith' decide what he had campaigned on was absolutely inaccurate? As a Harvard Law graduate and instructor at Chicago Law School, he hadn't thought it through?

This guy with his 'argue the facts when the law isn't on your side...' is right but he doesn't follow it to conclusion that it means the LAW is not on his side, and therefor the Obama administration's actions were illegitimate. It is a different thing to say 'we should be doing this' than to say 'Obama should have violated the Constitution and War Powers resolution' to do it. They went to the UN, the Arab league.... why did they not go to Congress? Argue THAT fact.

I wish Lee had Coons's on his toes arguing capability. Coons is wrong on policy and is really not even arguing the law permits this but is suggesting the law be changed, yet he doesn't quite say that, it is just the logical conclusion of everything he does say. Lee has the right position, though.

Valli6
06-28-2011, 09:53 AM
Senator Jim Risch (R-idaho) just read that statement.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
and wants to know if that's his position today.

tpreitzel
06-28-2011, 10:05 AM
Senator Jim Risch (R-idaho) just read that statement.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
and wants to know if that's his position today.

The answer is sure to be a cliffhanger of .... silence or evasion. ;)

zerosdontcount
06-28-2011, 10:22 AM
did CSPAN stop showing it? I can't find it.

Valli6
06-28-2011, 10:28 AM
did CSPAN stop showing it? I can't find it.
They recessed just after 12 noon. I believe they will be back at 2:30 ET.

Brian4Liberty
06-28-2011, 12:04 PM
Interesting. They were just grilling Harold Koh, Obama's lawyer defending the undeclared war on Libya. Obama has a Korean-American lawyer too?

Bush had a Korean-American lawyer named John Yoo who defended the illegal use of torture.

Valli6
06-28-2011, 02:41 PM
Surprise. Surprise. :rolleyes:

Senate Panel Authorizes Libya War
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee endorsed the President's actions in Libya. The panel passed a measure that would authorize the President to conduct "limited" military engagement in Libya. The measure, cosponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), is similar to the one the House failed to pass last Friday, which was a rebuke to President Obama.

Meant to challenge President Obama's unilateral decision to engage the U.S. military in Libya, members of the committee offered numerous amendments to alter the Kerry-McCain proposal, but the panel failed to pass the most drastic*measure that would have restricted the President’s ability to fight the incursion. The amendment would have defunded much of the military actions, but only five members of the 19 members of the committee supported it.

Committee members did support*measures attempting to reign in the President's*authority. One measure*would require*the President to report back to Congress updates on the military mission and one that would prohibit the President from engaging U.S. troops on the ground in Libya…..

http://c-span.org/Events/Senate-Panel-Authorizes-Libya-War/10737422525-2/

How much weight does this carry? What next? :confused:

flightlesskiwi
06-28-2011, 03:46 PM
Surprise. Surprise. :rolleyes:

How much weight does this carry? What next? :confused:

yes, the Senate committee vote was expected.

from what i understand, the House will reconvene and attempt to attach an amendment that will absolutely, unquestionably defund military action in Libya onto the Defense appropriations bill. BUT, the way i'm reading that amendment, if it passes, is: it won't kick in until the new fiscal year of 1 Oct. (?)

flightlesskiwi
06-28-2011, 03:55 PM
to further (quotes from the article):


Koh said President Obama supports the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, but that the President decided not to seek Congressional approval because of the U.S.'s "limited" role in Libya: limited mission, limited U.S. casualties, limited chance for escalation and limited military engagement.

this is new. up until this point Obama's team has been silent on whether they feel the WPA is constitutional. but, as you see, that belief means absolutely nothing. they've rationalized a new kind of war, and they've used the WPA to do it:


Koh said the term "hostilities" in the War Powers Resolution "is ambiguous and is defined nowhere in the statute."

read these two quotes carefully. this should reveal to the careful student that, what we have here, not in Libya or Afghanistan, but here in the executive branch of government is what i will now refer to as a "quagmire". these simple quotes by Koh have shown that the administration fully believes, not only are they the executive, they also are the judicial and the legislative.

we officially, openly and undoubtedly now have a position of tyranny (the office of president) that is unquestionably supported by the armed forces within this nation.

if nothing is done, (and not much can be done, see the debt ceiling issue) if no serious action is taken to stop the rationalization of insanity in this administration, and if someone such as Paul is not elected (someone who would hold the office of president to its constitutional bounds), this run away abuse of power pushed by the executive will not stop.

imho, the republic is in its last death throes. and, in my ever so optimistic view, a more liberty-geared government is NOT going to replace it.

tpreitzel
06-28-2011, 05:17 PM
Laws only apply to subjects incapable of circumventing them. The criminals of the political class use the law as a means for skirting the law. In order for equal protection under the law, we, the people, must rid ourselves of as much law as possible. Minimal law is the way forward which has always been so and will always be so.

greyseal
06-28-2011, 08:59 PM
" Congress is in Charge of the Military, when Congress declares war, Congress commands the Military through the President, making him Commander in Chief
of the Military. The President has no "War Powers". U.S. Supreme Court, Youngstown Sheet v. United States.
The Armed Forces is not the Military

The real laws are the Statutes passed by Congress, the code lists the amendments to the Statutes, but the code is not the law. Several Court decision confirm this. The codes are merely a classification systems, the United States Code does not vest a franchise of authority in any officer, department or agency of the United States, and does not create a liability or benefit for anybody. Any given section in the United States Code is separated from its title, enacting clause, and other essentials necessary to determine application.
There is a reasonably simple way to unravel the United States Code to demonstrate proper application of any given section: Following each section, there are Historical and Statutory Notes. These notes provide the history, and cites in the Statutes at Large where the original act and major amendments are located. By going to the Statutes at Large, the original cite can be found, then that cite and/or the popular name of any given piece of legislation can be found in the Distribution Tables in the Code Titles. The Distribution Tables provide a section-by-section breakdown of the bill published in the Statutes at Large, providing a stating point for the legislation reproduced in the Code Titles.

Title 10 USC and 32 USC contain the Military in the definitions as part of the Armed Forces, however in the notes following the definitions, the various branches of the Military were simply inserted for legislative convenience.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 101 Armed Forces

Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

101(1)
101(2)
101(3)
101(4) *should be here
101(5)




101(6)
The definitions in clauses (3), (15), (18)–(21), (23)–(30), and (31)–(33) reflect the adoption of terminology which, though undefined in the source statutes restated in this title, represents the closest practicable approximation of the ways in which the terms defined have been most commonly used. A choice has been made where established uses conflict

In clause (4), the definition of “armed forces” is based on the source statute instead of 50:551(2), which does not include an express reference to the Marine Corps. The words “including all components thereof” are omitted as surplusage.
In clause (5), the term “Department” is defined to give it the broad sense of “Establishment”, to conform to the source statute and the usage preferred by the Department of Defense, instead of the more limited sense defined by 5:421g(a) and 423a(a), and 10:1a(d) and 1801(d).

TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 1 > § 101 NATIONAL GUARD

In clause (2), the term “armed forces” is defined for legislative convenience and is defined the same as that term is defined in section 101 (4) of title 10, United States Code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The entire section defining the terms used in title 10 USC and Title 32 National Guard is based on nothing. In clause 4, the Army, Navy, and Air Force is included in the definition of Armed Forces by adoption of terminology, there is no statute. The entire section is null, and is perhaps, the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. Even President Bush’s handlers knew better than to use the word Military, in the E.O reproduced below. He ordered emergency construction, in Iraq because that’s what the armed services do. The men in the Military were simply deceived.



National Emergency Construction Authority Executive Order 13235, 66 F.R. 58343, 10 U.S.C. 2808 note
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I declared a national emergency that requires the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, by Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001, because of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and because of the continuing and immediate threat to the national security of the United States of further terrorist attacks. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to respond to that threat, and in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), I hereby order that the emergency construction authority at 10 U.S.C. 2808 is invoked and made available in accordance with its terms to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments
CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE UNDER DECLARATION OF
WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY
Pub. L. 97-99, title IX, Sec. 903, Dec. 23, 1981, 95 Stat. 1382, which authorized the Secretary of Defense, in the event of a declaration of war or the declaration of a national emergency by the President, to undertake military construction without regard to any other provisions of law, was repealed and restated as section 2808 of this title by Pub. L. 97-214, Secs. 2(a), 7(18), July 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 157, 174, effective Oct. 1, 1982.
The National Emergency Act (50 USC 1631) is administered through the U.N. Treaty. Formally 50 USC 1601 TO 1603 listed below, also known as the Disposal Act. Section 1601 to 1603 was implement during W.W.2, and was repealed after the war.
National Emergencies Act, as amended 1
Public Law 94–412 [H.R. 3884], 90 Stat. 1255, approved September 14, 1976;
as amended by Public Law 95–223 [International Emergency Economic
Powers Act; H.R. 7738], 91 Stat. 1625, approved December 28, 1977; Public
Law 96–513 [Defense Officer Personnel Management Act; S. 1918], 94 Stat.
2835, approved December 12, 1980; Public Law 99–93 [Foreign Relations]

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. > DISPOSAL > ACT > §§ 1601 to 1603
War Relocation Authority
CREATION AND AUTHORITY. -The War Relocation Authority was created within the Office for Emergency Management by Executive Order 9102 of March 18, 1942. Executive Order 9423 of February 16, 1944, transferred the Authority to the Department of the Interior to be administered as an organizational entity under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of the Interior.

The Director consults with other Federal agencies such as the War Manpower Commission, War Department, Navy Department, Department of Justice, and Federal Security Agency, on problems connected with the fields of their jurisdiction. He cooperates with the Alien Property Custodian in formulating policies to govern the custody, management, and disposal by the Alien Property Custodian of property belonging to foreign nationals removed under Executive Order 9102 of March 18, 1942, or Executive Order 9066 of February 19, 1942. He may assist other persons removed under either order in the management and disposal of their property

CFR parts for which 50 USC 1631 provides authority

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Parts 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 560, 588, 594, 595 32 Part 719
The authority of the Military departments referred to are listed in 5 USC 105
With the regulations as 32 CFR PARTS 700-700

CFR parts for which 5 USC 105 provides authority Title 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade.
§ 105. Executive agency
For the purpose of this title, “Executive agency” means an Executive department, a *Government corporation, and an independent establishment
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 105
NOTES:
Source
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 379.)
Historical and Revision Notes
The section is supplied to avoid the necessity for defining “Executive agency” each time it is used in this title
CFR parts for which 5 USC 105 provides authority
15 CFR 19
Title 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade
PART 19—COMMERCE DEBT COLLECTION
Subpart A—General Provisions
Source
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 379.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Derivation U.S. Code Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large

5 U.S.C. 22. R.S. § 161.
Aug. 12, 1958, Pub. L. 85–619, 72 Stat. 547.

The authority of the Secretaries of the so called Military Departments referred to in President Bush’s E.O. listed above is 5 USC 105, enacted by Public Law 89-554, the regulation for 5 USC 105 is 15 CFR 19.
The classification Act of 1949, which dealt with Alien Property Custodians in the Philippine Islands was repealed by Public Law 89-554 , which became Title 5 USC. See below.

§ 6 TITLE 50, APPENDIX—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Page 14
CODIFICATION
Provisions that limited the salary of the alien property custodian to not more than $5,000 per annum have been omitted as obsolete and superseded. Sections 1202
and 1204 of the Classification Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 972, 973, repealed the Classification Act of 1923 and all other laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the 1949 Act.
The Classification Act of 1949 was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, § 8(a), 80 Stat. 632, and reenacted as chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Section 5102 of Title 5 contains the applicability provisions of the
1949 Act, and section 5103 of Title 5 authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to determine the applicability to specific positions and employees.
CODIFICATION
Words, including the Philippine Islands, and the several courts of first instance of the Commonwealth of
the Philippine Islands shall have jurisdiction in all cases, civil or criminal, arising under this subdivision in the Philippine Islands and concurrent jurisdiction
with the district courts of the United States of all cases, civil or criminal, arising upon the high seas’’ following ‘‘to the jurisdiction thereof:’’ in subsec. (b)(3) were omitted upon the authority of 1946 Proc. No. 2695, which granted the Philippine Islands independence, and which was issued pursuant to section 1394 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. Proc. No. 2695 is set out as a note under section 1394 of Title 22.
The National Military Establishment was established in the Philippine Islands, transferred to Title 40 USC PUBLIC BLDGS, PROPERTY & WORK S.
The regulation for Title 5 USC are 32 CFR 736 Department of the Navy Disposition of property


40 USCS § 501
HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES Prior law and revision:
40 USCS § 501 PUBLIC BLDGS, PROPERTY & WORK

The words "Department of Defense" are substituted for "National Military Establishment" in section 201 (a) (last proviso) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, because the Department of Defense was deemed to succeed the National Military Establishment under section 12(a) and (g) of the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (ch. 412, 63 Stat. 591). The words "or which may be taken" are omitted as unnecessary.

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior—General, 30 CFR Part 201.
Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior—Records and files
maintenance, 30 CFR Part 212.
Department of the Navy Disposition of property, 32 CFR Part 736.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education—Disposal and utilization of
surplus Federal real property for educational purposes, 34 CFR Part 12.
Federal Management Regulation—Utility services, 41 CFR Part 102-82.
Federal Management Regulation—Transportation management, 41 CFR Part
102-117.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior—Competitive leases, 43 CFR Part 3120.

Listed below is the regulation for Public Law 89-554, it has nothing to do with the Military.

Pub. L. 89-544 32 CFR § 716: Title 32 -- National Defense; Subsection A -- Department of Defense; Chapter VI -- Department of the Navy (Parts 700-799); Subchapter C -- Personnel; § 716, Death gratuity.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The act of August 31, 1842 (5 Stat. 579; 5 U. S. C. 429), abolished the Board of Navy Commissioners and established the Bureau of Navy Yards and Docks, Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and Repair, Bureau of Provisions and Clothing, Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography, and Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. The act of July 5, 1862 (12 Stat. 510; 5 U. S. C. 429), established the following organizations: Bureau of Yards and Docks, Bureau of Equipment and Recruiting (later changed to Bureau of Equipment and still later abolished), Bureau of Navigation (now Bureau of Naval Personnel), Bureau of Ordnance. Bureau of Construction and Repair, Bureau of Steam Engineering (later changed to Bureau of Engineering, which, together with Bureau of Construction and Repair, was abolished on June 20, 1940-now Bureau of Ships), Bureau of Provisions and Clothing (later changed to Bureau of Supplies and Accounts), and Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, is also under Pub. L. 89-544, found at 28 U.S.C. § 535., It is reproduced in its entirety below:
§ 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers and employees; limitations.
The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate any violation of title 18 involving Government officers and employees –
(1) the authority of the military departments to investigate persons or offenses over which the armed forces have jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10)


Title 50 USC
§ 408. Applicable laws
Except to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of title 4 of the Revised Statutes as now or hereafter amended shall be applicable to the Department of Defense Title 4 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in text, was entitled ‘‘Provisions Applicable to All Executive Departments’’, and consisted of R.S. §§ 158 to 198

R. S. § 159; Feb. 9, 1889
TITLE 5.—EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec.
100. Prosecution of claims for supplies for Military Estab¬lishment.
Word " department." The word " department " when used alone in this chapter, and chapters 2 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of this title, means one of the executive departments enumerated in the preceding section. (R. S. § 159; Feb. 9, 1889.

Pasted below is the Revised Statute located on microfiche.

50th Cong. 25Stat. 1889— Feb. 9..... Title *7 Agriculture
• (note) Agriculture is a division of Dept. of Interior Puerto Rico

The new title 5 USC is administered by the Bureau of Budget, amended in 1979, P.L. 96-54 substituted President for Director of the Bureau of the Budget(Sec. of Defense)
AMENDMENTS

1979 - Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96-54 substituted "President" for
(a) "Director of the Bureau of the Budget".
5 USC Sec. 5541Sec. 5541. Definitions

In paragraph (1), the terms "Executive agency" and "military
department" are substituted for the references in former section
901(a) and (e) to the executive branch, including Government-owned
or controlled corporations, and the General Accounting Office in
view of the definitions in sections 105 and 102.


It would appear that Title 5 USC has nothing to do with Federal Government employees.