Posted Monday, March 21, 2011, at 12:31 PM
The Republicans who
out-and-out oppose attacks
on Libya without congressional authorization are few, and their names are not surprising anyone who follows debates over war funding. Here's freshman Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich, who was backed by Ron Paul last year.
It's not enough for the President simply to explain military actions in Libya to the American people, after the fact, as though we are serfs. When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected Representatives in Congress. No United Nations resolution or congressional act permits the President to circumvent the Constitution.
Rep. Walter Jones
, the "Freedom Fries" congressman who has, since then, become a reliable anti-war vote:
I'm actually on Ron Paul's legislation that he intends to introduce that says that America should not take the lead on no-fly zones unless they come to Congress and ask permission. I just don't want to see America take the lead on anything dealing with Libya. I think it's fine if we want to encourage other countries but for this country to get involved is absolutely unacceptable.
We’re involved in two wars right now, and I don’t think we really need to be involved in a third war. I do think the questions of war are the most important decisions we make as a country and as representatives, and that needs to be something that is considered and voted on in the Senate and the House.
I think [the president] has a responsibility and a duty to come to Congress.
And this is largely it. There are no Republicans applauding the action full-stop -- the typical gripe is that it took too long, and that's not off-base. But Republican criticism of the intervention on constitutional grounds is muted.