SHOULD THE U.S. ENTER INTO A WAR ACTION IN LIBYA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS?

[J.R.]

It's interesting to see the diversity in the authority upon which the United States has engaged in military actions since World War II, which was the last war that was officially declared by the Congress of the United States, through the authority vested in it by the U.S. Constitution. In 1973, following debate about presidential power with regard to troops having been deployed to Vietnam without a declaration of war, a compromise was reached by passage of the War Powers Resolution, which clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the U.S. and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress explaining the status of such deployments and limited the extent of time American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

I believe Congress acted unconstitutionally in passing a war powers act (law) that established circumstances and conditions under which the President of the United States could deploy troops to foreign nations, thus ceding Congress' sole constitutionally-mandated power and authority to declare war. In doing so, Congress ceded an enormous amount of its own mandated military authority and power to the President. This resolution was passed AFTER the Vietnam "War" was over. By passing the resolution, Congress handed to one person, a power that was constitutionally mandated to belong to the collective 535 members of the U.S. Congress, who represent all citizens of the United States as their voice in government. The founding fathers would likely roll over in their graves if they knew the escape of kingly powers their countrymen fought and died to achieve had been handed by Congress (the Legislative Branch) to a temporary chief executive in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government without an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, Congress abdicated its role the Constitution clearly gave only to them as representatives of all the people of this country. 

Below are some links you may find helpful in understanding how many military actions were actually engaged in by the United States, including some that were definitely wars, without a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. We have called them "wars," but the Korean "War," the Vietnam "War," the Persian Gulf "War," the Iraq "War," and the Afghanistan "War" were not constitutionally authorized by the U.S. Congress as declared wars. Further, it is important to note that the U.S. Constitution does NOT give the United States the authority to police the world or to prosecute wars under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations that should go the way of the League of Nations... into the dustbin of history.

War Powers Resolution

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States 

[JL Gawlik]

Here is a President that operated within the Constitution against Libya, he kept Gadhafi quiet for about 30 years, if you discount the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, in 1991 the U.S. Justice Department indicted two Libyan intelligence agents for the bombing. One has to question, what happened to our ability to gather such great intel when Reagan was President until after the Clinton years on 9/11? 

 

President Reagan:

 

[JL Gawlik]

J.R., 

I had heard from a friend that on one of Glenn Beck's shows during November, or December during the Christmas Holidays, he had a young man on his show, that is seeking a law degree and for some reason he decided to write a interpretation of the Federalist papers so that they would be easier for someone without a law degree to understand. I hope it gets published. We all need to understand our history, and all of our documents that created this great country in order to preserve it for future generations. 

[J.R.]

Alexander Hamilton believed that a strong defense of the constitution was required and that the plan must be defended in the press. James Madison joined with Hamilton and John Jay to craft one of the most remarkable pieces of political thought ever written by Americans. Writing under the pseudonym "Publius," the three men set out to defend the constitution. The first essay was published on October 27, 1787, in The Independent Journal in New York by Hamilton. By the end of the run, Hamilton had written 51 essays, Madison 29, and Jay 5. The first essay written by James Madison, Federalist #10, appeared in The Daily Advertise on November 22, 1787. In Federalist #38, published January 12, 1788, he discussed the situation found in America as that of a patient suffering from an illness. The patient has sought advice from a chosen gathering (the Constitutional Convention) and now receives advice from others (the Anti-Federalists) that to follow the recommendations would be fatal. His last contribution, Federalist #63, appeared in The Independent Journal on March 1, 1788.

 Federalist Paper #10.The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (contd.) Federalist Paper #38. The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objects to the New Plan Exposed Federalist Paper #44.Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States Federalist Paper #51.The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.

 

This is a link to The James Madison Papers:

 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/titleM1.html

[J.R.]

FCTP member and member of the FCTP Educators Group, Frankie Anderson, has put together a presentation/workshop on the U.S. Constitution, which she fairly recently presented in either Middleburg or Green Cove Springs.  She more recently broke her wrist and had to have surgery, but is very knowledgeable on this subject and could, perhaps, do a workshop in Jacksonville after her wrist has healed. I'm not volunteering her, but it's something that could be inquired about in a couple of months.  It is very definitely much needed and should be well-publicized when and if it occurs.  I would be more than happy to help her, if she does agree to do this.

[JL Gawlik]

Note to Roma&Tom Cox, just go and read the below recommended reading list of our documents, and the plan is laid out quiet simply.

 

 

[JL Gawlik]

J.R. isn't the James Madison Papers part of the Federalist papers? That was a ongoing argument for the application of the U.S. Constitution.

[J.R.]

Links to news of Libya "War" and reactions to same:

"To my Dear Obama, our son", says Gaddafi, defending attack on rebels...
http://www.timesnow.tv/Gaddafi-defends-attack-on-rebels/articleshow...

 

John Boehner to President Obama: Define the mission 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51617.html

Gaddafi may become target of air strikes, Liam Fox admits
Coalition forces accused of mission creep and disproportionate action against Tripoli
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/coalition-criticism-ara...

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bomb...

Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

[J.R.]

J.L., Roma and Tom:  I would suggest adding The James Madison Papers to the must read list.  The below link is to The Library of Congress.  The page linked-to gives an overview of what is in the extensive collection and provides further links. 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/

Well, with the multitude of missile attacks on Libya yesterday, the United States is now in the biggest war action since the Iraq "War."  No telling how long this undeclared war will last.  

[JL Gawlik]

It is a great investment, i brought quiet a few of them and gave them out as Christmas gifts, quiet a few to friends of my children. One young man that is a liberal, more of a artistic liberal, we have had discussions about politics, race, el etc., and i have told him the group you support, IF you make it in the music world, they want to tax you a lot higher even if though it has taken a lot of hard work, years of going without, and working 60 plus hour work week and they want to redistribute your wealth instead you making your own choices of who to give money to or the causes. Many young people are not aware of that. He was so excited when i gave it to him along with a book "George Washington's Sacred Fire" by Peter A. Lillback,  he said "Mrs. Gawlik i am going to be calling you all hours of the day, to ask you questions on the Constitution." I told him, no you want because you will understand it, and it is up to you to protect it and teach others and pass it down to the next generation to know and to protect also. It is almost April and i have not heard a peep from him. I think all Americans should have this and a copy of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.

[JL Gawlik]

 

Here it is J.R., The analysis was from Robert G. Natelson, a great expert on Constitutional Law and our U.S. Constitution, i was bothered by a poster who was indicating that our Constitution would allow a agreement or a treaty with the United Nations to override our laws, which is totally wrong:

 

Referring to Article VI, Claus 2:  QUALIFICATIONS ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY: THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE:
The Supremacy Clause imposed the following rule on all state courts:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.

 

The Supremacy Clause thereby described a hierarchy by which state (and federal) judges would prioritize federal and state enactments. Technically, the Supremacy Clause merely clarified rules that would have prevailed even without the Clause. However, the rule was spelled out to minimize future disputes. (In accordance with the maxim, Abundans cautela non nocet ("Overflowing caution does not harm")

 

The most obvious prescription of the Supremacy Claus was that the Constitution and duly-enacted federal laws and treaties were superior to state constitutions and state laws. The Supremacy  Clause further suggested the relative rank of different kind of federal enactments. The U.S. Constitution was mentioned first-before "Laws...made in Pursuance thereof"- to indicate that the Constitution was superior to statutes. Statutes listed second and treaties third, but the Founding-Era understanding was that treaties and statutes were of equal force. (Continental Congress 727; congressional notes of James Madison for March 21, 1787.) As was true of successive inconsistent statutes, a later enactment (whether treaty of statute) could repeal an earlier one (whether treaty or statute).

 

The Supremacy Clause referred to laws "in Pursuance" of the Constitution but to treaties as "made, under the Authority of the United States." The latter was to affirm the validity of treaties negotiated by Congress before the Constitution was adopted. This was a matter of concern, since during the 1780's most states had passed laws contradicting some of the terms of the peach treaty by which Britain had recognized the independence of the United States, thereby jeopardizing the national interest. (31 J. Continental Congress. 781-874 October 13, 1786; containing the report of Confederation Foreign Secretary John Jay; 32 id at 124-25 March 21, 1787 & 177-84 April 13, 1787 communication by Congress to offending states.) Accordingly, the Constitution also included a grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts to adjudicate treaties "which shall be made, under [the United States'] Authority. (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1)

 

Thus, states and federal courts were to apply sources of the law in the following hierarchy:

 

Highest: The U.S. Constitution

 

Next Highest: U.S. laws and treaties, duly made within the scope of federal power.

 

Next: State constitutions

 

Lowest: State Laws

 

Federal actions taken outside the scope of federal power were not, of course to be law at all.

 

Reference "The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said And Meant" by Robert G. Natelson

Hope this helps all to understand what that article actually says, great book by the way.

 

This is why it is so important that we UPHOLD and DEFEND our U.S. Constitution. The oath that our elected representatives swear to before taking office (personally i would love to see a law IF you break your oath of office, you are thrown out of office and loose any benefits and retirement.):

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

 

I have heard many leaders and many people state that our U.S. Constitution is one of the most incredible documents ever to be written by man, and the more i read it and understand it, it is truly a miraculous document, that took so much thought, history, into it's creation. One can clearly see that we are a nation under God.