<p>This is not to stir up a political debate. I am rather trying to understand the rationale behind. Please do not turn this into a debate between whether it is right or wrong for the US to intervene in Libya.
I just don’t understand how it is constitutional for the president to engage in a war without congressional approval. Make no mistake, this is a war. Even defense secretary robert gates said that imposing the so called “no fly zone” is an act of war.
Any ideas?</p>
<p>Per CNN, my understanding is that Obama only had to give Congress notification, which he did.</p>
<p>While I think it’s fine to have political discussions, I don’t think the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor forum is the place to start them. Check out the College Life forum on College Confidential - it is a much more appropriate place to have discussions of this nature. This board should be reserved for questions pertaining to the University of Michigan!</p>
<p>There are two key things that make this ‘not a war’.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We haven’t declared war. We’re merely part of coalition forces that are trying to help the Libyan people.</p></li>
<li><p>If President Obama were to send in troops and declare war, the War Powers Act would allow him to do so without getting congressional approval for 60 days, and still be constitutional. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The likelihood of war being declared is near 0. As I said, we’re acting upon UN Resolution 1973, and acting as part of an international body, not the US alone.</p>
<p>Additionally, there’s a difference between an ‘act of war’, and war itself. An act of war is any aggressive act toward another nation that involve military movements. A war is when you declare an imposition of military action with a defined purpose, to reach a designated goal. Though they sound similar, and often go hand in hand, they are different in the sense that an act of war is usually one, or a few, actions, whereas a war itself is a commitment to impose might by any means possible.</p>
<p>If this was an actual war, it would not be one between the US and Libya, but rather one between the UN and Libya. Seeing as the UN does have the authority to declare war, this, by definition, cannot be one.</p>
<p>While I don’t agree with the intervention in Libya, if the question is whether it is constitutional, then I’d have to say yes. The President is in charge of the armed forces, and therefore can instruct to go where ever he wishes. </p>
<p>By the way, the War Powers Resolution would probably be seen as constitutional because it is a legislative veto. The only reason it hasn’t been tried is because the Supreme Court is not in the business of settling political disputes. I mean it’s on the books, but realistically Congress would not try to evoke it.</p>
<p>The President has the power under Article II of the Constitution as commander in chief of the armed forces to commit the military in police actions but only Congress has the power to declare war. The aged old question is “what is a war?” Congress never declared war in Vietnam - several presidents committed troops in Vietnam under the Article II police power even though we were clearly involved in a war. Congress passed the War Powers Act after the Vietnam War in an attempt to control the power of the President to commit forces in overseas conflict but it is questionable how much of the War Powers Act is constitutional.</p>