Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Conyers Applauds Overwhelming House Vote Opposing Deployment of Ground Troops in Libya


Conyers Applauds Overwhelming House Vote Opposing Deployment of Ground Troops in Libya
                                                               
(Washington)— Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement today following the adoption of his amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the U.S. House of Representatives.  The amendment prevents funds authorized in the NDAA from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of Members of the Armed Services or private security contractors on Libyan territory.  The Amendment was adopted by a vote of 416-5.   
  
With today’s overwhelming bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives has clearly stated that the current stalemate in Libya will not escalate into an unaffordable occupation that would harm our country’s national security.  Today’s vote also shows that Congress is reasserting its rightful authority under the Constitution to determine matters of war and peace and place boundaries on the use of our military forces overseas.       

I encourage my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to heed today’s vote and join our efforts to ensure that the conflict in Libya does not become another Afghanistan or Iraq.  The American people have grown weary of open-ended military adventures that place our troops in harm's way and add billions to our national debt.  Today, we have signaled that we hear them and that we will act on their behalf.   

#05-26-2011#

Conyers and Nine Members of Congress File Suit Over Illegal Libya Military Engagement


Conyers and Nine Members of Congress File Suit Over Illegal Libya Military Engagement

Washington, D.C. — Today Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and nine other members of Congress filed a suit in federal court against President Barack Obama, challenging U.S. military commitment in Libya without the required constitutional legal authority.  

“It’s the law,” said Conyers.  “The President cannot unilaterally take the country to war.   The American people have grown weary of open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm’s way and add billions to our national debt.  This is one of the reasons why the President initially limited the scope of our military presence in Libya to exclude the use of American ground troops.”

The lawsuit calls for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from the following:
(1) policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution 
(2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress
(3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress
(4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries
(5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya.

The questions raised in the lawsuit will be critical to challenge the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution.
The lawsuit was signed by Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI) Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL) and Dan Burton (R-IN).

#06-15-2011#

Conyers: President Lacks Power under Constitution to Launch U.S. Into War in Libya

cid:image001.png@01CBE241.9370B5A0
Contact: Nicole Triplett, 202-226-5543                                                                                         
Monday, March 21, 2011  
                                                                
Conyers: President Lacks Power under Constitution to Launch U.S. Into War in Libya
Seeks Emergency Session of Congress

Washington, D.C.— Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, today  issued a following statement today calling for an immediate emergency session to debate the authorization of military force in Libya.

            “Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress – not the President – the power ‘to declare war,’ stated Conyers.  While the legislative and executive branches have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war, the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance.  That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the President.  I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in calling for an immediate session of Congress to review United States military engagement in Libya.”  Conyers also pointed to a line of legal precedent and history supporting this proposition.

            The courts have issued numerous opinions to the effect that under the Constitution. the President’s role is to conduct war that Congress has authorized.  As far back as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S.  (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), a case interpreting congressional authorization for the U.S. Navy to intercept ships bound for French ports, the Supreme Court ruled that interception of ship from a French port was illegal as it went beyond the use of military force that Congress had authorized.

           The seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) rejected the President’s claim that he had authority as Commander-in-Chief to unilaterally seize steel production plants.  Justice Douglas’ concurring opinion contained an important and timely recognition of the importance of separation of powers during times of war: “All executive powers – from the reign of ancient kings to the rule of modern dictators – has the outward appearance of efficiency.  Legislative power, by contrast, is slower to exercise ...  We therefore cannot decide this case by determining which branch of government can deal most expeditiously with the present crisis.  The answer must depend on the allocation of powers under the Constitution.”  Id. at 629-630 (Douglas, J., concurring). 

            There have also been a number of important lower court decisions expressing skepticism of unrestrained executive power concerning both the military action in Vietnam and the invasion of Cambodia.  In Mottola v. Nixon, District Court Judge Sweigert observed that a “strong case can be made for the proposition that compliance with the Constitution of the United States and its plain provision that the power to declare war lies, not in the President, but in the Congress. 318 F. Supp. 538, 553 (N.D. Cal. 1970). 

            Similarly, in enjoining the Secretary of Defense from engaging in military actions in Cambodia, Judge Judd of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Holtzman v. Schlesinger that “there is no existing Congressional authority to order military forces into combat into Cambodia or to release bombs over Cambodia, and that military activities in Cambodia by American armed forces are unauthorized and unlawful.”  484 F.2d 1307, 1308 (2d Cir. 1973).

In the same vein, the Founding Fathers were clear that the power to engage our troops in war should rest solely with the legislature:

·         James Madison, one of the key architects of the Constitution on separation of powers, said that "this requirement for Congress to be able to declare war is one of the most important provisions of the Constitution."

·         John Jay further explained that requiring legislative deliberation provided a critical check on the tendency of “absolute monarchs” to engage in wars “not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of [their] people.”

·         George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, explained ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’

·         Constitutional Convention delegate James Wilson echoed this view:  ‘‘This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power in declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.’’

Rep. Conyers is also an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 31, which states that it is the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya.

###