Libyan "Conflict" Deemed Unconstitutional, But House Still Funds It

The House of Representatives finally spoke out against President Barack Obama’s authority to wage a war against Libya; however, there were no steps to stop the funding of the unconstitutional decision. This movement reflects both political differences and the uneasiness over the American involvement. In a repudiation of their commander in chief, House members strongly rejected a measure to authorize the Libya mission for a year while for a year while prohibiting U.S. ground forces in the North African nation, a resolution that Obama said he once considered, according to the Washington AP.

The vote, which proved unbelievable responses from all sides, was 295 – 123, which also had 70 Democrats abandoning the president just one day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had made an unusual appeal to rank-and-file members. This socialist approach set before Congress is very disturbing. There is a proposal for the Senate committee to consider the same resolution next Tuesday and is expected to show even more support, which in terms will create an entire tirade of conflicting messages from Congress.

It is apparent during Friday’s votes that lawmakers had great concern about an open-ended U.S. commitment to a civil war between Muammar Gaddafi and rebel forces looking to rid of him, which adds to the amount of weariness and stress among the Americans with drawn-out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vote showed the anger within Congress towards Obama’s decision for failing to seek their consent for the operation within 60 days, which is stated in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Republicans and Democrats that the Obama’s decision was rash as he ran over the Constitution total disregard to the authority of the legislative branch that the founding fathers bequeathed to the branch, enabling them the power to declare war. President Obama and the administration have not declared Libya to be a war, yet the Act only empowers grounds and means of war. So what has been enacted? What is Constitutional about the decision? With that in mind, Obama has further incensed lawmakers last week when he stated the he didn’t need authorization because the operation did not rise to full-blown hostilities. The War Powers Resolution has been quite the burden and has stained the power of the free world.

"I support the removal of the Libyan regime. I support the President’s authority as commander in chief, but when the president chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I, as the speaker of the House, will defend the Constitutional authority of the legislature,” said House Speaker John Boehner. If Boehner really wanted to defend anything Constitutional, he would listen to the arguments of the House. You see, there is no balance in the positions throughout our structures. If you are going to be the speaker of the House, then speak for the House, not yourself.

There was an effort to cut funding from the Libyan stalemate, however it was defeated with a 238 – 180 vote. So, the House cries about the War Power Act, yet funds the battle to continue. I am sure this has nothing to do with profit and gains because I am sure right now, you could ask a member of Congress about the Libyan rebels intent. I am sure the Congress would be able to tell us what the plan would be once Gaddafi is ousted.

The biggest issue is that there are legal issues that need to be addressed. A majority of Americans would say, “Well, they do this all the time. Everyone breaks the law and regulations.” To them I say, if you continue to let these laws and regulations become broken, then there are no laws and regulations. There will be no Constitution. It would be amended into a cluster of gibberish that would erase the existence of the only nation of freedom. We must stand! Our leaders must lead! Justice must be served and responsibility must be taken. Set the example for us…for America.