Obama’s War on Libya: A Constitutional View

In the end , THE POWER LIES IN OUR HANDS. Who were the pilots who flew the bombing missions? It's just that simple. The president can violate the constitution all he wants but we have to go along with it.

President Obama

He taks his walk-But does not Walk his Talk-He always finds an end run around of the US Constitution
Like Senate-Congress-Courts www.wastewatchersinc.org

Maybe the UN should look at the USA and put in a No-Fly zone, as the US has some of the most dangerous cities in the world. Also the Arabs wanted a No Fly zone why didn't they do it themselves.

Another POTUS Constitutional violation .. should one of us go u[ and Read the damn thing to him????

From Rob Natelson:
http://constitution.i2i.org/2011/03/24/obama&rsqu...

Where in the Constitution do you get the idea that declaring war is not necessary??? I would argue it if it were not so absurd a statement. Ignorant, at best...intentional lie in support of the regime at worst. Which is it?

Our military has become the servants of a psuedo-king and the UN+NATO+Intl. Bankers (NWO). When will we stop this crap?

Part 2
Mr. Mason was ag[ainst] giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."

On the motion to insert "declare" - in place of "make," it was agreed to.

N.H. no, Mas. abst., Cont. no *, Pa. ay, Del. ay, Md. ay, Va. ay, N.C. ay, S.C. ay, Geo. ay.

* Mr. King remarked that "make" war might be understood to "conduct" it which was an Executive function, Mr. Elseworth gave up his objection, and the vote fo Cont. was changed to ay."

The bottom line is the drafters of the Constitution thought of all this stuff, debated it, and came to a common understanding. They eventually agreed that the Executive could not "make" or "declare" war, but could "repel" sudden attacks. There have been no amendments since 1789 changing this seperation of powers.

Part 1
I found James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention very enlightening concerning "To make war" in Article 1, Section 8. The following comes from those notes as recorded by the future President (spelling differences included):

"To make war.

Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to insert "declare," striking out "make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

Mr. Sherman thought it stood very well. The Executive sh[ould] be able to repel andnot commence war. "Make" better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.

Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.

Mr. Ellsworth. There is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It sh[ould] be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration, peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.

Because past presidents and past congresses have acted in direct violation of the Constitution (i.e. without Constitutional authority), in no way does this authorize Mr. Obama or future presidents to continue such violations. Only Congress has the power to declare war (Article 1, Section 8). The 1973 War Powers Act was an attempt to AMEND the power to declare war and transfer it over to the executive branch. If Congress wishes to amend the Constitution, a specific means of Amendment is authorized by the Constitution itself. A Constitutional Amendment requires a vote by 2/3 of the Congress followed by ratification of 3/4 of the states. Either the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" or we exist at the whim of executive decree, judicial fiat, and legislative over-reach. Return to constitutional governerance. It is the only chance we have to remain free.

Since Congress has abdicated all authority to presidents since Truman and Korea, and no one has done anything about it, presidents just go ahead and do what they please when it comes to going to war. The general public just looks on with our hands tied since our so called "representatives" seem more than willing to let the executive branch do what it will in these cases. Or worse still, we follow like sheep to the slaughter. It's pathetic.

The Constitution is the supreme law of our nation. No treaty with any assembly of nations, or an individual nation, can superceed our Constitution. Any person in any branch of the Federal Government, nor any sitting judge whether Federal, State, or local, elected, or appointed, has the right to violate the Constitution. Any resolution granting powers forbidden by the Constitution is null and void, period. We The People need to educate ourselves and our children by studying the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers and discover what our Founding Fathers said regarding the Constitution. They explain it all. They wrote our governing document, therefore they should know best how to interpret what they meant. Corrupt politicians will but a spin on the words of any article or clause to justify grabbing more power, or pushing through legislation that is unconstitutional. Stand by our Constitution and demand your elected and appointed officials follow every jot and tittle. If they do not then vote them out as if your life depended on it.

Neither is the President authorized by U.N. direction, as some would acclaim in accordance with U.S. Constitution Article VI. Treaties or other international agreements do not supersede our Constitution. http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/...

Of all the founding fathers country, I think Thomas Jefferson was the wisest of them all. He said,
Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” To me, that means that the president does not have the power to act aggressively toward another country but only has the power to aggreesive defend ours. Since Mr. Obama acted aggressively without the sanction of Congress, it appears that even though he may have done the right thing, he was wrong in his action. It is all about the oil anyway. His comment about not standing idle while Libya kills its own people was merely a smoke screen. It's all about the oil.

ALL true Americans must come to this realization QUICKLY: Mr. Obama has it set in his own mind that HE will be KING of the United States of America!
If you cannot believe that, and WILL not attack his agenda from that perspective, then ALL of your rantings and plans will be worth NOTHING!
WE MUST ATTACK HIS SENSE OF LORDSHIP!!

Pertaining to international law vs constitutional law, lets get one thing streight. The president of the u.S.A takes an oath, with his hand on the bible, so declaring God as his witness, that he will protect and defend the constitution of the u.S.A.. Period. International law does NOT superseed the constitution in any way. The Constitution is a contract which basically tells the govt. what its limitations are. The presidency is the weakest link in the balance of power and NOT the strongest. This protects us from dictatorship. The president quotes from, not the constitution, but from international law when he claims the right to send troops hither tither throughout the world at his whim. He has broken his oath to God and lost the trust of the American people. He is just one in a long line of presidents that have not kept their oaths. It is up to us to vote people of strong character into congress and a constitutional President. Otherwise it may soon be too late.

If he had enough time to talk to the UN about this issue, he definitely had enough time to talk to our congress about it. Quite obviously now, is the fact that our country is no longer finding it necessary or desirable to be a separate soverign country. The very fact that Obama could never prove his birth place to satisfy everyone, and the republicans let him get away with it, and now he leaves the country declaring a war in another country without the consent of our congress proves beyond a doubt we are heading toward one government rule over the globe. I read recently that we are headed toward dumping our constituion in favor or a world govt, with appointed rulers from several countries and the law of the world will be INTERNATIONAL LAW based on the approval of a tribunal of sorts. Its coming, and there is not a damn thing you or I could do about it. The rest is just commentary. By the way, I think its a mistake....remember the tower of babel........it fell.....

WHY ARE WE THE TEAPARTIES WORKING SO HARD.TO GET PEOPLE ELECTED ..THEY HAVE NO POWER.WITH THE UN ORDERING OUR SON AND DAUGHTERS TO KILL AND TAKE OVER THE MIDDLE EAST FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT..BRING THEM ALL HOME//////////

To hell with international laws ! I`m sick & tired of our military doing the fighting & dying for the ideas of the United Nations, many of which are not in our country`s best interest. We should ONLY be obeying & following OUR nations constitution. Stop paying 85% of the U.N`s bills so they can tell us what we can or cannot do as a soverign country. What happend to minding our own business & letting other countries mind theirs, unless attack us ? Was Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Libya trying to land troops on our shores ? George Washington was right about staying out of foreign entanglements, look at what its gotten us so far.

do not acy suprised, Lincoln violated the Constitution when he did not pull the troops out of a fort sumpter whidh was in a foreign country the southern confederate states. he knew that president buchanan signed the agreements of which forts and islands and borderlines were either north or south. sumpter was the souths property as by agreement. Lincoln wanted war with the south.and would not remove the troops from sumpter.. that was an act of war by Lincoln. the south was acting properly. when did congress authorize a declaration of war? the constitution is and has been constiantly violated with impunity.

Their Oaths to the Constitution require 100% of Congress vote for immediate impeachment of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama our fraudulent based psuedo-President sailing under his false flag fraudulent "birth" certificate, with admitted British "alien" father from Kenya!! Congress should stop all of the present "fake" wars based on our own government's 9/11 False Flag operation in N.Y> white washed by the instigators!! Is Congress brain DEAD??? Treason carries the death penalty, see Constitution of the U.S.A. It is Treason by Congress to stand by and allow an Imposter-President to declare War, even a LAWFUL President violates the Constitution when he exceeds his granted Powers.

The founding father did not include any penalties for the violation of the Constitution, Why so? I would like to see a discussion on the use of penalties when the Constitution is wrongfully abused.

I love this commentary. It is sobering, thoughtful and gives me hope that a growing number of Americans sufficiently understand the Constitution that a return to constitutional order may yet be possible. If only our "representatives" were as learned and faithful to the Constitution.

Why doesn't congress arrest him or why doesn't someones arrest congress and Obama.They arrest us for wrong-doing. Their matters are much more serious,

Nice to see someone commenting here who knows what they are talking about regarding the difference between color of law and common law. Color of law is a method commonly used by the federal government and private corporations like the IRS to usurp 'power' and overstep it's bounds/jurisdiction over the American people. What is not clear to me is WHO is responsible for stopping the President or out of control executive branch of government from exercising these so called 'powers' through color of law and WHY aren't they doing anything????

It seems quite obvious, having read the comments submitted that the issue before us is : do we exist as a UN nation or an American Republic? Have we given up our sovereignty to the point that our leaders SWEAR AN OATH, prior to accepting their position in government, to UPHOLD THE U.S. Constitution and then accept whatever the U.N. says as orders or justification for our actions. The uprising in Libya is a civil war. Our involvement is unlawfully taking sides in a sovereign country's civil war. Ask yourself why so many countries hate us. Then, look at the record of voting IN the UN to see that 75% or more of the world's nations vote AGAINST the U.S. every time. Yet we grant them foreign aid and bail them out when in traouble. Who is left to bail US, the U.S. out now that we have bankrupted ourselves ? That whole area of northern Africa would not be free were it not for U.S. involvement and sacrifice in WW II. Think about General Patton and Montgomery vs Gen Rommel ...

The President CAN go through with foreign policy actions before Congress is fully informed about it. Congress then has to decide weather to support the action or not. If Congress chooses to stop the action, the President has 60 day to begin withdraw from the foreign country (allowing 30 days for complete removal.) All of this is allowed under the War Powers Resolution, which has not been deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. Overriding all of this is the fact that everything is being done under U.N authorization. The U.N has made it clear their goal is to protect Libyan civilians; If that requires taking out weapons that are harming civilians then any force aiding U.N efforts has the ability to do so.

When Germany declared war on the United States three days later, Roosevelt again appeared before a Joint Session of Congress. Congress responded by formally declaring war on Germany. This Declaration gave Roosevelt separate authorization and control over the military forces of the United States. Each Declaration was distinct from the other.

If the president, as commander in chief, had the constitutional authority to initiate war, as some now claim, then there would have been no need for President Roosevelt to have appeared before a Joint Session of Congress on two separate occasions in 1941. He could have simply by-passed Congress by invoking his authority as commander in chief. In addition, if a president has unlimited control over the military forces of the United States, then why did it take two separate declarations of war in 1941 to authorize and direct President Roosevelt to employ the military forces of the United States against Japan and Germany? If the office of the president had independent power over the military, through the commander in chief provision, then President Roosevelt could have authorized and directed himself to employ United States forces against these nations.