House Republicans stall vote on Libya resolution
Girls pose for a photograph next to a tank used by other children to play during an anti-Moammar Gadhafi march in Benghazi, Libya, Tuesday, May 3, 2011.
/ AP Photo/Rodrigo AbdHouse Republicans are interested in admonishing the Obama administration for its handling of military operations in Libya -- but they're not interested in going so far as stopping U.S. participation in the war.
Republican leadership today postponed consideration of a resolution from liberal Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, which would require President Obama to remove armed forces from Libya.
Seeking to pass a resolution that expresses unhappiness with Mr. Obama's unilateral actions in Libya -- without calling for the removal of troops -- Republicans could bring an alternative bill to the floor Friday, CBS News Senior Political Producer Jill Jackson reports. A GOP leadership aide told Jackson House Republicans will hold special conference on Thursday to discuss their options -- including the consideration of Kucinich's resolution.
In a statement today, Kucinich suggested the vote was stalled because it would have passed.
"It's not surprising that some are now wondering if a preliminary vote count on my resolution came out in favor of defending the Constitution," he said. He accused House leadership and the administration stalling the vote "to buy even more time to shore up support for the War in Libya."
House leadership, Kucinich said, told him the vote was postponed "in an effort to compel more information and consultation" from the Administration.
The U.S. has played an integral role in the military operations in Libya, which are now led by NATO. While there are no U.S. ground forces in Libya, Mr. Obama recently said the U.S. is "committed to seeing the job through." It's unclear, however, what exactly that means, since the original United Nations mandate said the mission in Libya is to keep civilians safe. That has been difficult to achieve, given Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi's grip on power there. Mr. Obama said the NATO mission will compel him to step down.
Kucinich has maintained that the U.S. military involvement in Libya is unconstitutional, since only Congress has the power to declare war. Additionally, the War Powers Act requires the president to seek authorization from Congress within 60 days of beginning military action.
"The Administration wants to postpone and avoid this deliberation; however Congress cannot maintain its position as a co-equal branch of government if it willingly forfeits the decision-making on matters of war and peace," Kucinich said today.
Popular in Politics
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 126 Comments
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial 291 Comments
- McCain demands answers from Obama on "secret" email accounts 94 Comments
- Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voting law 691 Comments
- Amnesty Int'l calls for arrest of George W. Bush
- Obama in Europe for G8 as Syria crisis looms large
- On Syria, U.S. and Russia have different perspectives, says Obama
- Report: Obama's Africa trip could cost $60-100 million
He is not above the law. He can't pick and choose which laws he wants to obey.
Medicare needs reform, and Obama needs replacing.
True, Bush followed the constitution.
Obama threw it out the window.
by starving1968-3 June 2, 2011 10:54 AM EDT
How did Obama "throw it out the window"?
by justme2012 June 2, 2011 11:37 AM EDT
If you have to ask that, you need to read the constitution.
So NOW your claim is that it's "unconstitutional" for us to be a member of the UN and NATO?
Go read the constitution. Then come back.
Went over your head didn't it?
It makes no sense.
How so what? How did he engage in an illegal war by ignoring the constitutiona nd the War Powers Act? If you have to ask that, then you need first to go study both the consitution and the War Powers act. Then you can come back and talk with some knowledge of the issue.
Or if you are asking how the democrats aer fawning all over themselves to bomb em somemore. Just read the posts below.
It's a UN action. How is it illegal for us to participate in a UN action, when we're a member nation?
If Obama just did like Bush and decided to unilaterally invade a country for no apparent reason, then your point would be valid. But he didn't, which renders your point invalid.
So how is participating in a UN action "illegal" and a "violation of the constitution"?
Obama has engaged in an illegal war, ignored the constitution and the War Powers Act, and democrats are fawning all overthemselves to bomb em somemore.
How so?
Or if you are asking how the democrats aer fawning all over themselves to bomb em somemore. Just read the posts below.
True, Bush followed the constitution.
Obama threw it out the window.
How did Obama "throw it out the window"?
So they don't like the way that NATO is administering the UN campaign in Libya, and they're blaming Obama for it?
Could be that the house is looking at more than Kucinich's slap on the wrist and removal of troops.
Obama may find out that HE is not above the law.