Reply #10: In other words, Obama's secured Congressional approval within 60 days?

[Igel]

If so, we've redefined 'secured'. Since it's not secured under the usual meaning of the word, under the WPA there's no authorization for any additional US action in Libya, whether through NATO or flying solo.

He's expressed approval of what others, on their own initiative, did to cover his ass. He's asked that steps already begun to cover his ass be passed. He didn't ask for the bill to be introduced. Given that he had 60 days for an operation that was to take days, not weeks, you'd think after 5 weeks a letter wouldn't have been too much to ask. Instead he waited almost 9 weeks, and made his sort-of-request at the last minute only *after* it had already become a political issue. The thing is, I'm not sure that if he *had* asked it would have failed.

It won't matter even if the legislation dies or fails to pass. If it were a (R) that was doing this, there'd be hell to pay. It's a president (D), so justification must be found in an act of circling the wagons and rallying the troops, and therefore justification will be found.

It was the same with "his" health care legislation. He let others propose it, others work out the language, others take the heat for it, others lobby and agitate for it, and others debate. Only at key points did he support others' work, and only at the end did he place his imprimatur upon it and say it's his own.

There is the argument that the WPA is unconstitutional. If so, then it should be subject to judicial review *or* it shouldn't have been signed into law. It's the ultimate signing statement--dclaring that a decades-old law that you said you were abiding by is unconstitutional and therefore subject to being disregarded.