Obama Faces U.S. House Republican Challenge to Support for Libya Mission

Republicans in the House of Representatives will try today to restrict the U.S. military support President Barack Obama is giving the NATO-led bombardment of forces loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi.

Frustrated by what they term Obama’s insufficient consultation with Congress over Libya, House Republicans scheduled a vote to limit U.S. forces to aerial refueling, reconnaissance and search and rescue missions to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s bombing campaign.

The legislation will be debated along with a resolution that would formally support the mission for as long as a year under the 1973 War Powers Resolution -- a measure that lawmakers and aides predicted would be defeated.

“The president’s failure to consult with the Congress” and “to outline to the American people why we are doing this” put lawmakers “in a position to have to defend our responsibilities under the Constitution,” House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters yesterday.

MORE...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/obama-faces-u-s-house-challenge-to-support-for-libya-mission.html

This is more about their hurt feelings and the protection of their power than it is about the the necessity of our involvement in Libya's civil war. Aside from the fact that Congress can make it difficult for the president when it feels snubbed, this will set a precedent. If the War Powers Act can simply be ignored by the POTUS, then future presidents will also do it, perhaps in more dangerous circumstances than Libya.

If and when Presidents do choose to follow it, it's usually a political calculation.

The IWR, for example, was largely used as a political ploy to force the Democrats to go on record. And it fucked them over for two election cycles.

...so why not run over that twitching road kill one final time and further establish that the legislative branch has no authority over the war powers of the CiC. The Cheney legacy is strengthened yet again.

It's called the power of the purse. All they have to do is refuse to fund our intervention in Libya (or any other Presidential use of force) and it's over.

The courts refuse to uphold the War Powers Act, which means there is no way of enforcing it. Nothing to do with the Cheney doctrine, it's just legal reality .

What's new? If a Republican were POTUS they wouldn't care one wit about this. They'd be celebrating this as "spreading freedom" in the ME.

we need to support the President because he is our Commander-In-Chief?

Now, we can argue with his decision?

I don't like what is happening in Libya not because we're bombing it and not because I support that psycho in Tripoli (I am against all war). . .I'm just looking for the logical response.

When R bombs arabs, it's good. When D bombs Arabs, it's bad??? I'm confused.