With That In Mind ...

A commenter at Weasel Zippers stated the following:

To quote Ann Barnhardt…

“If Israel tries to defend itself against muslim aggression – which remember has been agitated by Obama himself – or defend its sovereign territory, Obama/Soros will cast these actions of Israeli self-defense and self-preservation as “human rights violations” and move in.

DO WE NOW FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LIBYAN ACTION WAS? It was simply to establish a precedent.”

It is no coincidence Hussein Obama called for Israel to retreat to '67 armistace lines precisely at the same time he established this precedent challenging the 1973 War Powers Act he cited when he began bombing targets in Libya.

With Germany backing Obama's push for 1967 Israel border deal,the UN is likely to follow. Should Israel attempt to defend her current borders, Germany, America and France (Sarkozy will be along any minute - as Abbas is negotiating in Paris as I write this http://tinyurl.com/69c29wx ), the OIC block – together under the UN umbrella – will assist the Muslim hoards in their endeavor to eliminate Israel.

Samantha Powers last seen drooling in anticipation . . .

With that in mind:

OBAMA: 'Limited' US Role in Libyan War Means No Need For Congressional Authorization...

I DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION

Chairman Obama just abolished the "War Powers Resolution"

 (Cato).By John Samples

Today is the 60th day since President Barack Obama notified Congress “U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 said that within 60 days of notifying the Congress of the use of force “the President shall terminate the use of United States Armed Forces” unless Congress has declared war or authorized the use of force, extended the 60 day period, or is physically unable to meet because the nation has been attacked. 

President Obama has a few hours to go, but I doubt that he will stop American air attacks in Libya. Indeed, the attacks have spread to Libyan ships to counter Qadaffi’s forces.

Like earlier presidents, Obama said his notification of hostilities in Libya was “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”  

Now the administration has apparently decided to ignore the law completely. Obama has not sought congressional approval for the bombing. He follows the example of Bill Clinton, who ordered air strikes in Bosnia in 1995 without seeking congressional approval.

Even if you put aside the War Powers Resolution, the U.S. Constitution clearly requires congressional approval of our war in Libya. The legal scholar Michael Ramsey notes:

Every major figure from the founding era who commented on the matter said that the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to commit the nation to hostilities. Notably, this included not only people with reservations about presidential power, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but also strong advocates of the President’s prerogatives, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. As President, Washington on several occasions said that he could not undertake offensive military actions without Congress’ approval. Hamilton is especially significant, because his views on the need for a strong executive went far beyond those of his contemporaries. 

Yet Hamilton made it very clear that he read the Constitution not to allow the President to begin a war — as he put it at one point, “it belongs to Congress only, to go to war.”Candidate Barack Obama agreed in 2007 that “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.” 

Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, of course, posed an imminent threat to Libyan nationals engaged in the recent civil war in that nation. How did the Colonel or his army threaten Americans? 

This time around, Congress has offered less resistance than in earlier presidential uses of force in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. They have not roused themselves even to pass a non-binding “sense of the Congress” resolution that the President should seek approval. In the 1990s, there were actual debates in Congress about the wisdom and constitutionality of various wars. Now, silence. 

It is easy to violate the constitutional domain of a body that is unwilling to collectively defend its powers and unwilling to take up the responsibility of their exercise. 

The War Powers Resolution never worked in practice as intended. It is now moribund and should be replaced by a new effort in the courts or Congress to apply the original public meaning of the Constitution and thereby right the balance between starting and making war. 

Read the full story here.