Holding the President Accountable on Libya
Listen to Rep. Ron Paul deliver this address.
Last week, more than 70 days after President Obama sent our military to attack Libya without a congressional declaration of war, the House of Representatives finally voted on two resolutions attempting to rein in the president. This debate was long overdue, as polls show Americans increasingly are frustrated by congressional inaction. According to a CNN poll last week, 55 percent of the American people believe that Congress, not the president, should have the final authority to decide whether the U.S. should continue its military mission in Libya. Yet for more than 70 days Congress has ignored its constitutional obligations and allowed the president to usurp its authority.
Finally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich was able to bring to the floor a resolution asserting that proper constitutional war power authority resides with Congress. His resolution simply stated that “Congress directs the president to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than the date that is 15 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.”
Opponents of the withdrawal resolution said the 15-day deadline was too abrupt. But as I pointed out during debate, the president attacked Libya abruptly—he didn’t even bother to consult Congress—so why can’t he order an end to military action just as abruptly? When members of Congress took an oath of office to defend the Constitution, we did not pledge to defend it only gradually, a little bit at a time. On the contrary, we must defend it vigorously and completely from the moment we take that oath. I was pleased that 87 Republicans were able to put the Constitution first and support this resolution.
House Speaker John Boehner offered his own resolution on the same day, which declared that Congress would not support the insertion of U.S. ground troops into Libya. Although this unfortunately was far from adequate to satisfy our constitutional obligations, it certainly was a step in the right direction and I am pleased that it passed in the House. Just days before Speaker Boehner’s resolution, an amendment to the defense authorization act prohibited the president from using any funds in the bill to insert U.S. troops into Libya. A separate amendment last week prohibiting any funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security from being used to attack Libya came within just a handful of votes from passing. All of these votes demonstrate that members of Congress increasingly understand that our foreign wars are deeply unpopular with their constituents. We are broke, and the American people know it. They expect Congress to focus on fixing America’s economic problems rather than rubber-stamping yet another open-ended military intervention in Libya.
I believe these resolutions and amendments indicate that the tide is turning in the right direction. I am confident we will see Congress move toward ending our unconstitutional wars. The American people are demanding no less. The president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful. This policy must be reversed.
Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
- What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi – May 13th, 2013
- Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston – April 28th, 2013
- Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty – April 21st, 2013
- Why Can’t We All Travel To Cuba? – April 15th, 2013
- Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future – March 24th, 2013
Bianca
June 6th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Both parties did a great job at PRETENDING that they want to stop war(s). With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, I do not trust the Tea Party ideology. These are the people that would vote to uphold the constitution when it is SAFE, and when such vote would not put in danger any global military adventure. Both parties are IDENTICAL. They just put on a show for the idiots, and voting is a great way to confuse us. The theater lately seen in Congress is a good coreography, as it became clear even to the thickest of them that everyone is fed up. Perhaps some polls told them so, and a little bit of Broadway on Capitol Hill has been staged to anaestestize the masses back into stupor.
Jamal
June 6th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
1- This is POLITICS played side by side for the few.
It is not the question if they do or they will have a strategy for peace or victory. US militarism regime is almost a 90 billion dollar industry, so here is the question: if there was a peace plan and by that US government brought all the US military home, even 50%, of 1.9 million solders home then what would they do with all the solders, where would they house them, how would they find job and what would they do with what’s left of those factory workers and engineers working at factories which by now need to be drown down or closed due to peace.
If there is a victory.., which although is the US and EU goals.., but with considerable argument and questions marks and then what..,? By then half of the world is ruined, 30-50 million people are killed, industries and in general countries infrastructures’ are no longer useable, disease and social problems are on the rise which by now these problem have created a situation for people arming themselves demanding a better life.., which in reality is the present human situations., countries after countries are poor and governments and people are struggling for everyday life and existence, such situation even exist in what is called “industrialized” countries, with more people unemployed and homelessness is on the rise; whereby the “estimated” victory we have achieved nothing and we are back in square one.
In another word, a victory comes with its problems and peace with yet another from of problem and here is the differences among those who want to continue the trend not having a long-term solution and those who want to stop all wars changing the entire system for peace. Hence, more wars creates more dictatorial social political system which is a proven fact, les war however have another form of social economical impacts which needs to be solved in time of peace. Here, with initiation of peace at least the killings and destructions have been stopped and war machineries’ complex going to lose their social political connection and influences.
War is a moneymaking industry.., part of US and EU economy is the war industry., and there is no moral involved.., those whom are for wars have no moral to begin with, otherwise they would work for democracy to function rather then creating wars.., here, as longs as governments can argue that war is good for working man and women and working people believe in it, then war is good for overall economy; therefore, the influence of war industry and while government taxing working people is what the war industry injects into the system for government to be at war/s while the war machinery and shareholders profiting in all directions.
There is a social psychological warfare coming from government institutions which have made wars a holy matter, a daily concept for people to understand that war is a good thing, as long as US and EU are at war it helps people to “think“ that a better life based on a grater “civilization“ is on the horizon, so government will lie telling the people that victory is on hand or peace is coming.., and by their continues lies people have lost their social political enthusiasm and therefore they don’t trust the system even if its called democracy, written or signed as the constitution which should and needs to be the law of land, hence the matter is if the law of land is respected by the governments…!
Continues:
Jamal
June 6th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
2- Having said that: any government needs to function for its people, which is the foremost government obligation toward its people, otherwise why people have a government/s…! so goes for democracy, democracy needs to be functioning, based on its social economics and political principals, here blending the capitalism economy system with democracy results in what you got., a non functioning democracy based on capitalism economic principals.., a governing institution based on capitalism social economic regime withstanding its militarism to crush any and every kind of “civilizations” into what is called “nation building“. What is missing here is the cheating aspects of the wording, in one way it declares that other nations are not “civilized” so “morally” it has become the US “moral superpower” or EU obligation to build nations.., forgetting the fact that; nations are there with their culture, traditions and languages intact; hence what is missing is democracy, a functioning democracy created by the people and for the people, here when US politicians speaking of being a “superpower” and therefore it is the superpower “moral” obligation to act is just another lie. US is a police state to start with.., so where is democracy or for that matter the respect for constitution where it prohibits president to start wars! Therefore, there is no victory nor there is going to be a peace unless the entire social economic and political system is changed. Here I am not saying what Barack Hussein Obama or president before him have said.., Change.., I mean a total change for better where there is a change in democracy itself and for a functioning system based on functioning democracy.., not a kind of change where a new war is created or moved from one area to another. Libya war is one of those “changes“ which has changed nothing. This is a non functioning democracy having nothing to do with moral values, is a excuse for the elite of capitalism who are in control in having wars and expending it. Here again.., there is no morally correct issues involved here.., by using the word “superpower” the entire matter becomes immoral because the indication is based on a militarism regime acting as “moral superpower” to enforce what and where the system sees fit to be called moral wars.., here is a question for those democrats and republicans whom believe in “moral superpower”, George W. Bush and his entire staff were made of those whom lied to American people and the world about Iraq war, where is your moral in bringing those who are responsible for what is done to Iraq demanding for justice and prosecuting the responsible ones, or for that matter those who ordered the torture in Iraq and killings and etc.
To some extend the world and its social political and economies is not on the hand of people nor in practical terms is for the people, the international economy is not balanced and there are much less people benefiting from international economic cooperation then the general populations, there are more and more hunger and homelessness, shortages of everything in the world then there is this problem creating jobs; nonetheless, there are more and more ideological wars among those who call themselves communist (China) and those who work for capitalism or the religious political aspects of it then the practical solutions. Here, China is presenting a cheap labor and cheap products which “thought” to be the “communist economic“, meanwhile there are more and more capitalist created in China then any other country in the world, so the Chinas political hierarchy is only presenting those who can make a deal with US or EU capitalism social political nature; however, Chinas cheap labor and cheap products is what “poor people” in US and EU are using, this is not because they want to, but because they cannot afford the capitalism products at home; therefore, these little wars are capitalism – Chinas wars paid and supported by China to open a new market for itself, these little wars are about natural resources and whatever the other countries have or kind of market that can be provided to China, USA and EU and for US and EU to keep their war machinery operational, these little modernized wars are not about democracy nor is about peoples freedom from Capitalism or Chinas “stylish communism” or for that matter the religious dictatorial regimes.., nor there is any moral involved.., but rather is a social political aspects of the game where capitalism and Chinas “stylish communism” benefits from.
Having said that: if there was a functioning democracy in US or for that matter in EU.., or China was a communist institutions then there shouldn’t be a economic cooperation where China is paying for these little wars and EU/US is eager to barrow more money for upcoming wars competing for market shares.., or for that matter there shouldn’t be any homeless by millions of people in US or EU, there shouldn’t be any lack of jobs or healthcare system and paid by thousands of dollars to educational system to be educated. Then again, this is how the capitalism system works, you want to serve your country you either pay it with your life joining army and entering a war and then get paid.., or have a military education.., or you pay for your education to work for the system.
Geo1671
June 7th, 2011 at 4:37 am
LIKE canadian politicks-When a stinker law is up for vote–the vote is always for 51% and 49% againist. Just like Judges decisions in high courts–3 to 2 or 6 to 4–means zip all. Americans/Canadians are such doltz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU
Bruce Richardson
June 7th, 2011 at 6:33 am
Rep's Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are two of an extinct breed…honest-to-gosh statesmen with the interests of their country over those of personal wealth and power. In a perfect world, they would hold higher office and restore the Republic.
RickR30
June 7th, 2011 at 7:37 am
At this rate it will take yet another illegal for Congress to do something about it. The American people ought to kick all these "Congressmen" out who didn't support Kucinich's resolution out and hire some people who deserve the position. Of course that won't happens as AIPAC vets every candidate to public office in the US.
fedupandsick
June 7th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
The thing I find most disgusting is that ONLY 55% think the president should abide by the constitution.
Also, the only bitch is that the president didn't consult with congress because no more than a handful oppose intervention
dink
June 7th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Lets not fool ourselves: Many republicans besides the 87 who voted against Mr Kucinich's resolution voted to give the president more power. This was a delaying tactic, a scam. The momentum is against them. Doc Paul is right..
dink
June 7th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
excuse me, "Many republicans besides the 87 who voted For "