President Obama and the War Powers Act

Dear Friends,

President Obama's position on the hostilities in Libya and the War Powers Act is outrageous, intellectually dishonest and certainly in violation of the Constitution.  The New York Times editorial on June 17th (here) is essential reading on the subject.  The following are the first few sentences:

It would be hugely costly — for this country’s credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya — if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya. However, Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation.
The White House’s argument for not doing so borders on sophistry — that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops,” and thus are not the sort of “hostilities” covered by the act.
This country’s involvement in the air campaign is undeniably limited. Since the United States handed off command to the Europeans in early April, the Pentagon has provided refueling and surveillance for NATO planes, hit air defenses and sent in armed, remotely piloted drones.
But the 1973 act does not apply solely to boots-on-the-ground, full-out shooting wars. It says that 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress of the introduction of armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission.

As the end of the quote above says, "the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission."

Write the President (here).

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal