Libya Action not Covered by the War Power Act

How is it possible that people can still be disgusted with Bush and not with Obama? Whether one thinks that Iraq made sense or not - it was approved by Congress and it followed numerous UN resolutions. I would not have started the Iraq War but once started it needed to be finished. That said - does anybody think for one second that actions such as exist in Libya aren't covered by the War Powers Act?

According to the White House the “U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops", therefore this operation does not require the Obama Administration to ask for Congressional approval under the War Powers Act. I have not parsed the War Powers Act but if the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were considered acts of war by the US then isn't understood that launching missles are also acts of war?

And, if it can be argued that the Libyan actions do not contravene the War Powers Act as flying sorties does not equal introducing American forces into hostilities and that the examples of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are irrelevant to the argument then at least, isn't it interesting that the whole argument comes down to original intent? Listen to what Mr. Harold Koh, the State Department legal advisor, said:

"We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

Sounds like an original intent argument to me. Isn't it delicious to hear Democrats and fellow-travellers arguing over original intent? My understanding of the "original intent" of the War Powers Act was that Presidents couldn't unilaterally take us into war; that such actions required Congressional approval. If this action in Libya is not covered by the War Powers Act then we must amend and update the act to include such actions.

The quotes come from a New York Times article: White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.

James Madison
Elliot's Debates
Friday, June 6, 1788.

"I don't worry about the Constitution." Phil Hare, Democrat (IL-17)

And you think the Tea Party and other small government types are crazy?



"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Nancy Pelosi, Democrat (CA-8)



"We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it." Nancy Pelosi, Democrat (CA-8)

You still think we're crazy?

Are we citizens or are we subjects?

Last year Paul Begal wrote that April 15th is Patriots Day.

Begala seems to have the idea that patriotism means that the individual serves the state. How wrong he is and how far we have fallen. The purpose of the state is to protect individual rights; to protect the social contract namely: "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take my stuff."

Now we have people who want to flip this ideal on its head: that the government is not here to secure your individual rights but is instead here to protect you from yourself.

Government should be as big as it needs to be to do what it has to do. If there are no limits then there are no individual rights, no individual liberty. Therefore the questions of the day are: "what is the purpose of government?" and "what are the limits placed on what government can do?"

It seems to me, Paul Begala, that these questions were answered over 200 years ago with the writting of the US Constitution. It is you, and those like you, who have forgotten this and are trying to, slowly but surely, subvert the founding ideals and the US Constitution.

This is what people are protesting.

We must all ask ourselves: are we citizens or are we subjects?

Do You Have a Right to Self-Defense?

People ask, why am I opposed to Obama? Here's one: nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who doesn't believe in an individual's right to self defense.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is asked if she sees the right to personal self-defense. She doesn't see it; doesn't see a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that. Now that's just a little slippery of her, isn't it? Just because the Supreme Court hasn't had to address it doesn't mean that it is not part and parcel of the agreed upon social contract (The US Constitution). Maybe the Supreme Court hasn't addressed it because no one was foolish enough to question it.

We have had, for the last several generations, a concerted, and quite silly argument against the Right to Bear Arms. And yet through Rebellions (Whisky) and Civil War we maintained -- until the Progressive Era -- a Right to Bear Arms. Now we get a Supreme Court justice who doesn't believe in Americans having a Right to Defend themselves.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot,

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Of course to Sotomayer, and her ilk, these statements mean nothing. The only thing that matters is what can be parsed from earlier Supreme Court decisions. As there was a Protestant Revolution in the 16th C there will be a Constitutional Revolution. We must reinclude "Original Intent" or there will be no constitution left to defend.

The Most Important Phone Number of All (for Americans)

See if you can remember this phone number 10-4-3-4-1-1-1. (yes I know 10 isn't a typical phone number).

I was having a conversation with a high school kid and was appalled that she barely knew the US Constitution, even though she was taking a "Constitution" course. She knew about robber barons and Jim Crow but close to nothing about the Constitution. I explained how easy it was to grasp. It's in 7 parts: the first deals with the power of the legislature (that's the Congress), the second with the executive (the President), third the judicial branch (the Courts). What else would the framers need to consider? The States and their relation with the Federal Government; the fifth Article deals with how to make changes to the Constitution (the Amendments); the sixth Article is about pre-existing debts and obligations owed by the states and clearly states that the US Constitution is supreme over all state laws. Finally the seventh and last Article deals with how the existing states were to ratify this constitution.

Do you remember the phone number?

It's a mnemonic to help remember the US Constitution. There are seven Articles in the US Constitution and each Article in the Constitution is made up of Sections. Ten in the first and so on.

What's the phone number again?

If you want to challenge Socialists, and their gentler breathrens Progressives and Liberals you need to know the Constitution.

California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

I'm 100% in favor of gay civil unions but 100% against the decision made by the California Supreme Court. This is a matter for the California legislature not the courts. We all know that the legislature and the courts are in constant battle but here is a classic case of the courts overstepping their constitutional bounds.