Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

The War Powers Resolution gives the President unilateral choice in committing armed forces if the U.S. is?

"already under attack or serious threat." In the case of Libya, I fail to see the connection in either case, under attack or serious threat. Did I miss something? Any potential national security advisors here who can enlighten me on this??

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I guess he considers the UN Charter and UN Participation Act sufficient "specific statutory authorization," notwithstanding the part of the War Power Resolution that says they aren't. But if you skip that clause and read like three clauses down, there's another clause that says the WPR is not intended to alter the terms of any existing treaty. So take your pick, the President is violating the WPR by not getting specific statutory authorization, or he's obeying the intent of the WPR by acting in accordance with a pre-existing treaty. Or perhaps he now believes in a strongly unitary executive and just doesn't care what the other branches of government say?

    Does your quote come from the WPR? The closest I could find is, "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The President could have at least provoked some kind of Gulf of Tonkin incident to create an emergency.

    That's all barracks lawyering, of course. I don't see any danger to the United States in Libya. Maybe the wizards at Langley know more. Maybe they have another slam dunk like the WMDs.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes. You did. The petroleum industry investments in Libya are threatened. Big Business wanted its assets protected in Libya like they did in Iraq, Kuwait, and every other petroleum producing nation that provided the excuse for Desert Storm and the War on Terrorism... I doubt that any of them care if or if not you are enlightened... Like you, I am having a hard time at excusing this new police action taken by the USA.

  • 1 decade ago

    Below link is an excellent history and legal lesson on the war powers act.

    It seems to me that this is yet another example of Congress delegating its power in a way which, upon properly brought challenge, would be found unconstitutional. Another example wold be 1913 when Congress 'shared' its power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" to the bankers (Federal Reserve).

    But of course the party line about Libya is that it is not a war. It is a humanitarian act. Or so they say....

  • 5 years ago

    OH hhaa ha ha ha ha - right wingers are quoting Dennis Kucinich! Mfffh ha ha ha Nearly every recent President has authorized brief military actions on their own authority. The President has that authority. And that resolution is an overreach that has never been acknowledged by the Oval office.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Dennis Kucinich was on TV saying to impeach!

    Source(s): rah rah shish goom bah
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    .

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.