The following excerpt is furnished exactly as written in the War Powers Act of 1973:
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 2:
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (emphasis added)
————————————————————————————————-
The following are excerpts from the Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 6/17/2011. Questions are in blue; Answers in red
Q One quick follow on Libya. The 90-day mark is Sunday. Should we expect any kind of flurry of engagement between the White House and the Hill between now and then?
MR. CARNEY: Is there some magical association with the 90th day that I’m not aware of?
Q Yes.
MR. CARNEY: No, I don’t think so.
Q Yes.
MR. CARNEY: Wasn’t it 60?
Q It’s 60 and then you have 30 days to withdraw.
Q Sixty plus 30.
Q So it’s 90 total.
MR. CARNEY: Well, there’s no — we’re obviously not changing our position. We — NATO extended the mission a number of weeks ago by 90 days. We are participants in the NATO mission, and our position is very well known.
Q I have two topics: Libya and golf. On the timing issue on Libya, just to make sure I am aware or understand the White House’s view on this, is it the view that this could go on indefinitely? This operation could go on as long as NATO keeps extending it, and you never — even if it lasts until the fall or through the summer, into next year, you wouldn’t need congressional approval?
MR. CARNEY: What we have said is that our role in this mission, our support role and the kind of engagement that we have right now, does not meet — in our legal analysis does not meet the threshold set by the War Powers resolution that requires congressional action. I’m not going to speculate about what the Libyan situation will look like in 30, 60, 90 days, or six months, or anything like that. But we are participants in this coalition. NATO has extended the mission to continue to fulfill the goals set forward by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, and we continue to participate in it.
Q Well, just to put this issue to rest, since it doesn’t seem like it’s going to go away, they’re not going to drop it, I don’t think, on the Hill, why not get congressional approval? Is there a real concern that that it wouldn’t happen?
MR. CARNEY: I have said from the day the hostilities began, when the United States was in the lead — a matter of days, not weeks — and from the day that this mission began that we would welcome congressional support. And I’d remind you that in March, prior to the beginning of this mission, there was a Senate resolution asking for us to do just that.
So the — we would welcome, as I just said, I think, in answer to a question earlier, that — and support a resolution along the lines of the one put forward by Senator McCain and Senator Kerry, and we have throughout this process appreciated the support for the goals set forward by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 that we are participating in, which is to protect the civilians of Libya from massacre initially and from harm at the hands of the Qaddafi regime, to enforce a no-fly zone, and enforce an arms embargo.
Q But certainly welcoming a resolution and seeking approval are two different things. It seems to suggest that there’s a concern that you wouldn’t get it.
MR. CARNEY: I have said — I don’t think we’ve been beating around the bush about the fact that we would welcome, we support, we endorse, we would appreciate this — a resolution like the one — I mean, it’s for Congress to take the action, obviously. So — and we would welcome if they did.
Q So I wanted to ask a separate question. You were talking yesterday about the President being a constitutional lawyer himself and weighing in on this interesting issue about the War Powers in general. Can you remark on the President’s learning curve as someone who came from the legislative branch, which has been unusual in our history in more recent years, to the executive, and what he has learned about his constitutional executive powers that he didn’t perhaps recognize before as the legislative branch?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m sure that there is much that he has learned about the executive branch. I think that would be true of anybody who becomes President. It’s not a job that there’s a lot of training for or experience that’s similar to.
So I don’t — I haven’t had a discussion with him about the — especially as it relates to the War Powers resolution about a different perspective you might have. I think that the point I was making yesterday is that we do not believe that — as a legal matter, that the — our engagement in this mission meets the hostilities threshold set by the War Powers resolution and therefore it does not apply, does not need to be invoked.
So it’s not a — we’re not questioning — this is not — we are not making an assessment on the constitutionality, the President is not, through this legal reasoning, because we do not believe it applies.
By way of summary, this president, purportedly a constitutional scholar, has placed American lives in harms way for now over 90 days ABSENT: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
The sheer arrogance of this White House is monumental and this president’s disdain for the Congress and the American people is nothing short of criminal.
