As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.
From Wikipedia, it states that...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
- [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Jason Ditz reports that, in a 10-0 vote (with five members abstaining), the United Nations Security Council Thursday approved an attack on Libya, urging nations the world over to use “all necessary measures” to move against the Gadhafi regime.
The resolution, UNSC Resolution 1973, mandates a no-fly zone and authorizes strikes against Libyan territory, but explicitly excludes, in Paragraph 4, the possibility of a “foreign occupation force of any form.” It is unclear if this rules out a ground invasion, or only requires them to be “temporary” deployments.In the instance of attacking Libya, under the guise of UN Resolution 1973, not only has President Obama used military force unconstitutionally, but also against the Charters of the UN.
The Charter of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members." The U.N. is violating its Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty, and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty.
Article 2 refers repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya. Can this organization be trusted?
From LewRockwell, Mr. Rozeff states that:
The Charter perhaps leaves itself a loophole, where it says that "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." However, that Chapter refers again and again to "international peace and security." By no stretch of the imagination or by any legal maneuvering or mumbo-jumbo does this mean the internal affairs of Libya. International peace means between two nations or among several nations. Libya’s civil war is within Libya. It is not breaking the international peace. The term "international security" is not threatened either, to the extent that this term can be comprehended.
If some countries think that they must have Libyan oil in order to maintain their security, they should have managed this risk in other ways before this time. They shouldn’t be using the U.N. and U.N. force to bail them out of their own bad risk management of the past. Even if they impose such force, they might end up making matters worse for themselves.