Obama’s War Powers
Congressional concern for President Obama’s commitment of US forces to Libya is building, but the next step is unclear. Should he be required to comply with the War Powers Act?
The War Powers Act was voted into law in 1973. It arose from concern about the President’s ability to deploy US forces independently, and it limits how long troops can be sent to conflict zones before getting a rubber stamp from Congress. At 60 days, the executive branch must either obtain congressional authorization to levy the armed forces for war or bring the forces home.
Since President Obama formally notified Congress on March 21 that the US would intervene militarily in Libya, the 60-day deadline was May 20. The week prior, with no sign that the President would seek congressional approval for continued operations, senators scrambled to figure out how to respond. The issue could be raised as a budget point, with Congress threatening to cut funding for the war. President Obama had so far funded the Libya operations—the bill for which is currently inching toward $1 billion—entirely out of the $600 billion DoD budget.
On May 18, GOP senators circulated a letter requesting compliance with the War Powers Act.
On May 20, the President issued a letter to Congress in response. He framed the operations in Libya as a humanitarian intervention for the protection of civilians. He emphasized that leadership of the operations had been transferred from the US Africa Command to NATO, and he asked for confirmation of the bipartisan resolution proposed by six senators to support continued NATO efforts.
Asking for congressional support was not, however, a request for the authorization of war.
The President had differentiated between the initially aggressive US role as leader of the military intervention beginning March 19—at which point the White House cited the War Powers Act as the basis of its legal authority—and the more “limited” role it had assumed since early April. “The US role is one of support [for NATO],” a senior administration official told ABC News, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
Therefore, the Obama Administration did not believe the operations in Libya warranted a congressional declaration of war to continue.
Congress responded to President Obama’s letter with two separate resolutions.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) proposed a resolution allowing two weeks for the President to either ask for congressional authorization (including an explanation of US security interests and objectives) or disengage US forces. Speaker Boehner’s resolution explicitly concluded that “Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding.” Alternatively, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) proposed a resolution simply giving the President 15 days to remove US forces from Libya.
Speaker Boehner argued that the Kucinich resolution could negatively impact our relationship with NATO:
“If [the Kucinich resolution] passes, it will have an impact on Afghanistan. From a NATO perspective, we’re trying to hold the alliance together and advance a common agenda in Afghanistan. We will have turned our backs against our NATO partners who have stuck by us for the last 10 years.”
On June 3, Speaker Boehner’s resolution passed the House with bipartisan support, rebuking the White House for “’failing to provide Congress with a compelling rationale’ for the military campaign in Libya,” and giving him two weeks to do so.
The White House called the vote “unnecessary and unhelpful.”
Rep. Kucinich’s resolution was rejected.
Two days later, Sen. Lugar (R-IN) sharply criticized the Obama Administration for its “disdain for Congress and constitutional principles.” Sen. Lugar warned that forgoing congressional authorization in favor of a supporting resolution would set a dangerous precedent by granting the White House a symbol of political support that would neither satisfy the War Powers Act nor hold any legal meaning.
The Senate, however, is struggling to draft a consensus resolution. At least three separate, bipartisan camps have emerged. A Kerry-McCain proposal would endorse the Libya operations; a Corker-Webb proposal would take a more critical stance; still others would prefer to remain silent.
Unfortunately, what was initially perceived by many as a minor issue has snowballed such that some are now calling it a threat to the checks and balances of American government. Significantly, President Obama seems adamant against framing the operations in Libya as war, and that has become an important point of dispute.
A bigger fear, however, is also driving the otherwise procedural debate: that President Obama is dangerously overreaching, and that “future presidents will simply cite Libya when they unilaterally commit America to far more ambitious… campaigns.”
Tell us what you think: do the operations in Libya currently constitute an act of war, under the jurisdiction of the War Powers Act? Should President Obama have handled this differently, or has the White House satisfied its legal obligations? Alternatively, does the War Powers Act unfairly limit the President’s authority as Commander in Chief?
