The New York Times and other media are reporting that the House of Representatives has sent a strong rebuke to President Obama for failing to consult Congress about his decision to involve the US in military action in Libya.
The Times says the House voted 268 to 145 in favor of Speaker John Boehner's resolution objecting to Obama's action, and, the Times says, directing the administration to "provide detailed information about the cost and objectives of the American role in the conflict."
Democrat Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal members of the House, had proposed a stronger measure, ordering Obama to withdraw troops from action in Libya. That proposal was defeated.
As I have noted in previous blogs and in my columns, I continue to be conflicted about our involvement in Libya. But in a blog last month, I cited a Washington Post opinion piece by Yale Professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, raising an additional concern: their belief that in getting involved in Libya without Congressional approval, Obama has violated the War Powers Act.
The Post piece - written on May 17, just before a deadline specified in the War Powers Act - is well worth reading. Obama isn't the first president to assume power that the Constitution doesn't give him. Obama is arguing that the act doesn't apply to his actions in Libya, but presidents have used similar arguments before. And as we become involved more and more in less "traditional" war, it's important to have a national discussion about military action and presidential power.
And it's important for Congress - acting in a bipartisan way, which it did today - to recapture the power and the balance that the Constitution mandates.
You Might Also Like :
0 comments:
Post a Comment