None of the two House votes were to end U.S. involvement in Libya mission

[ProSense]

None of the bills were about ending the U.S. involvement.

First vote: H J RES 68

Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya

That vote failed 123 to 295


Second vote: H R 2278

To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law

That vote failed 180 to 238

Kucinich voted for it.

What was the second vote about: Boehner to Obama: I will defend Congress's war authority when challenged

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday called on members to support a bill limiting funds for Libya operations, and said he is essentially duty-bound to bring the bill to the floor in order to reassert congressional prerogatives over the ability to declare war.

"I support the removal of the Libyan regime," Boehner said. "I support the president's authorities as commander of chief. But when the president chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I, as Speaker of this House, will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature."

Boehner said the House is only in the position of considering Libya bills today because President Obama failed to seek authorization for the Libya mission. He also said he believes the bill in question, H.R. 2278, is a "reasonable approach" because it would allow the U.S. to play a limited support role that does not undermine NATO's efforts to contain Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

<...>

MSNBC: House maintains funding for Libya

The House on Friday afternoon rejected legislation that would have prohibited the funding of military operations in Libya with only a few exceptions.

The 180-238 vote against the bill came after a debate in which both parties were split on how best to handle U.S. involvement in Libya, even as they seemed to agree that President Obama should have involved Congress in that decision at a much earlier stage.

As expected, most Republicans support the bill: 144 voted in favor of it, but 89 voted against. These vote totals changed at the last minute several times as members altered their votes.

Democrats were less divided: 36 voted for it, and 149 voted against.

<...>

Both bills authorized the same thing: limited U.S. involvement.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Separation of Powers question.

Only Congress can declare war, but it didn't today.

1. Can Congress authorize any other military actions besides war?
2. If it can't, does that mean that the President as Commander in Chief can make any arbitrary assignation of American military without consultation of another government branch?

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Yes, Congress can authorize military action short of "war"

No, The President may only introduce armed forces of his own volition in three cases: after a Declaration of War, after an authorization by Congress or if we're attacked.

Period.

The UN Participation Act further states that he may only send forces pursuant to an Article 42 call-up if he's already gotten an authorization vote on a Special Agreement for providing forces that he's made with the Security Council. The UN Charter is NOT a self-actuating treaty; all cases of providing troops for combatant duties MUST be approved by vote of Congress.

Basically, what an authorization does is provide the President the nimbleness to react quickly in a rapidly changing situation: he says that we should pop this bad guy, and I'd like your permission to do so if it becomes necessary. He then puts this under his pillow and if, at some unlimited time in the future, feels that it's warranted, he may initiate action. Then the clock starts running and he has 48 hours to deliver in writing the action taken, the forces used, the plans for the operation and the further forces intended. All operations must cease 60 days after this letter is delivered, unless Congress either authorizes further time or declares war. He may request, in writing, a further 30 days for WITHDRAWAL of forces, but this is not aggressive action, and must be approved by Congress.

All of this has been deliberately obfuscated and cheapened by precedent, but these are the facts of US law.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Thanks. Bookmarked.

[tekisui]

2. The first vote you listed was a vote against authorization

of the Libya actions. It expressly was not an authorization of limit US involvement.

Of course, it does not cut off funding, so nothing is going to change...yet. It is a sign of Congress' disapproval of the action, and evidence that they are gaining support on ending the actions.

[ProSense]

4. The first vote was for authorization and it failed. The

second vote limited funding and authorized limited involvement. It also failed.

[tekisui]

6. Exactly what I said, it was a vote against authorization.

It was not, as you characterized it, a vote for limited US involvement.

[karynnj]

25. It was BOTH

The authorization was for a limited US involvement. This does not mean that it limits what Obama can now do - and that is the crux of the problem. The President CAN and historically has taken the country to war many times without consulting Congress. The War Powers Act was written to change this, but very administration since Nixon has challenged it.

The confusion is that many voting against it do not want to give Obama ANY authorization on this - some because they are against the war for a variety of reasons; others simply are angry that Obama did not consult Congress and don't want to give him the cover that this would have provided.

The second bill was convoluted as well. It cut the funding for some, but not all of the things that Obama has ordered done. (I think the one big thing we are doing that would be defunded is the use of drones.) But, it could be taken that that bill oks the permitted expenditures. (This may be why Ron Paul voted against it)

So, one summary could be that two bills, that would have specified limits on Obama both failed. At the same time, there was no authorization that could have ended a political problem for Obama failed.

What are the long term ramifications:
- this becomes another data point where the President did not ask for or get authorization. This further diminishes the likelihood that the War Powers Act is taken seriously.

- If Gaddaffi remains in power, it diminishes the perceived power of the UN/NATO/the USA. This will have the Republicans calling Obama's decision to go in as he did and then "lead from behind". (This might be why the Republicans failed to vote to cut funding as they would lose the ability to make this charge.)

- If Ghaddaffi is kicked out, the Republicans will likely question if the replacement is "better". They have set the groundwork on this.

[still_one]

3. From the republican perspective it was pure poltical grandstanding. They didn't want to end the

mission, or at least most of them didn't.

They are trying to play it both ways, in some respects similar to the way the IWR was done, but from the Democratic perspective

[ProSense]

7. Republican grandstanding

gamed Democrats. They just got Kucinich and 29 other Democrats to vote for limited authorization, which likely included regime change based on Boehner's comments.

It failed, but they're on record.

[still_one]

8. As far as I can see this is a theater. They will not stop funding. /nt

[ProSense]

9. The other interesting thing is that

Ron Paul voted against limiting funding.

[still_one]

12. That is interesting /nt

[former9thward]

13. He voted that way because the bill authorized the action however limited.

He is opposed to the action so he voted against it. Not unexpected at all.

[ProSense]

14. Then

explain Kucinich's vote. Didn't they join forces to sue the administration?

[former9thward]

16. I can't explain DK's vote because I don't think it follows from his stated position.

If I were DK I would have voted no on both.

[joshcryer]

27. Bunch of weasels.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. We've gotta keep the pressure on Congress and the President...

...to end US involvement in Libya.

I will do my part on DU and I will continue to contact the White House and Dem leaders in the House and Senate. I've been doing the same for Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

This needs to end. We have too many problems here at home.

[Thrill]

15. Democrats are Stupid. I don't care how you want to defend them.

They never learn to play the game of politics. They are enabling the Republicans. And only hurting themselves and the President. Never in a million yrs would you get Republicans to go against Bush on something like this. NEVER

[johnaries]

17. The funny thing is that they tried to de-fund everything we had already

stopped doing!
:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. The biggest dog & pony show, signifying absolutely nothing. Why any Dems..

went along with this, is just astounding to me. Was it to embarrass the leader of their party? I mean, WTF? Other than Kucinich, who's a nut, I can't figure what the others were thinking. :shrug:

[politicasista]

19. Are these bills related to the controversial

Kerry/McCain amendment that people are complaining about the other forum?

Not up on these issues like others here because of not having anything meaningful to add of late, but is this the same one or is that a different bill? #curious



edit word

[karynnj]

20. The authorization one is the House version of Kerry/McCain

A good summary of the purpose of that bill is to get Obama out of a problem of his own making - that failed. Both Kerry and Durbin thought Obama should have asked for authorization - even as they argued that past history suggests that it is not unusual to not do so. They (and McCain) obviously hoped to end this issue with the amendment.

My perspective is that under Clinton, the State Department has NOT been as responsive to Congress as it should be. I think knowing how controversial this could be Obama and Clinton should have made the case and had a vote - that likely would have passed (per McCain) months ago. This is an imperial President move and I am not impressed.

[politicasista]

21. It sounds like a lack of communication

with the State Department (the WH) and Congress (if that makes sense). DC, especially Congress and the media has become some wild and kooky that these issues (Foreign Policy and the role of the UN) look and sound very complicated.

[karynnj]

24. I think it is more than a "lack of communications"

The very mild mannered, cordial Senator Lugar complained in his opening comments in the one of 2009 hearings on Afghanistan that the administration would not make anyone available - and that AFTER they made their decision, Clinton would be willing to appear. Earlier this year, there was another set of hearings on Afghanistan - and again they had no State Department witnesses.

I think that in the first two years, with both Houses led by Democrats, Clinton (and Obama) got away with this, but here, I think that high handedness may have come at this political price. If Libya is resolved soon, the cost may not be high - but if it isn't or if there is chaos after Gadaffi falls, it could be high - with the Republicans pointing out they never got approval.

[politicasista]

28. Interesting analysis n/t

[Vattel]

22. I hate it when I agree with Boehner.

[ProSense]

23. So

<...>

"I support the removal of the Libyan regime," Boehner said. "I support the president's authorities as commander of chief. But when the president chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I, as Speaker of this House, will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature."

Boehner said the House is only in the position of considering Libya bills today because President Obama failed to seek authorization for the Libya mission. He also said he believes the bill in question, H.R. 2278, is a "reasonable approach" because it would allow the U.S. to play a limited support role that does not undermine NATO's efforts to contain Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

<...>

...you agree?

Good to know!

[joshcryer]

26. So, how many of you feel played by the GOP congress?

[sudopod]

29. Boo silly hippies.

HOORAY BOMBS

*Red Stripe*