June, 20 2011, 03:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dallas Jamison, Senior Communications Director; cell: 720.333.1494; djamison@constitutionproject.
Obama Unilateral Action and Disregard for Legal Counsel Opinion on Libya Draws Condemnation
The Constitution Project (TCP) is very concerned by recent press accounts that the President disregarded an opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). OLC had correctly concluded that the military action in Libya qualifies as "hostilities" for purposes of time limits under the War Powers Resolution (WPR). TCP condemns President Obama's decision to continue military action in Libya without seeking and obtaining congressional authorization as wholly lacking any legal authority. The President's use of force in Libya violates both the U.S.
WASHINGTON
The Constitution Project (TCP) is very concerned by recent press accounts that the President disregarded an opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). OLC had correctly concluded that the military action in Libya qualifies as "hostilities" for purposes of time limits under the War Powers Resolution (WPR). TCP condemns President Obama's decision to continue military action in Libya without seeking and obtaining congressional authorization as wholly lacking any legal authority. The President's use of force in Libya violates both the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to obtain the authorization of Congress prior to initiating the use of force abroad except for a limited range of defensive purposes, and the statutory limits set by the WPR.
The following may be attributed to TCP's War Powers Committee's co-chairs, former Members of Congress Mickey Edwards (R-OK) and David Skaggs (D-CO):
"We deeply regret that the President has ignored the more considered advice of the Office of Legal Counsel and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense as to the applicability of time limits under the War Powers Resolution (WPR) for "hostilities" begun by the President without congressional authorization. For that matter, we believe the President had no constitutional authority to initiate this use of force abroad without congressional authorization to start with. That violation is aggravated by his decision - based on sophistry and semantics - to violate the WPR's statutory requirements. National security policy in such an important matter should not turn on such a tortured definitional exercise as was required to conclude that what we are doing in Libya does not constitute "hostilities." It is also a shame that Congress lacks the will or the votes to say either "no" or "yes" to this military action. From all we can learn, leaders do not have the stomach either to cut off funds (lacking the 2/3 needed to override a certain veto) or actually to authorize what we're doing, however belatedly."
In 2005, TCP's bipartisan War Powers Committee released a report entitled Deciding to Use Force Abroad: War Powers in a System of Checks and Balances, in which committee members recommended improvements to war powers decision-making designed to restore the proper roles of all three branches of government. On May 18, 2011, members of TCP's War Powers Committee wrote to President Obama, to express "grave concerns" over the President's "decision to conduct military action in Libya without prior congressional approval and to urge [him] to seek such approval in the event [he planned] to continue military operations there."
The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established in 1997 to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at https://constitutionproject.org/.
LATEST NEWS
'Right Thing to Do': FERC Delays Controversial LNG Export Terminal
"We are happy about the delay, but these projects don't ever need to be approved and neither does any other LNG facility," one frontline advocate said.
Dec 04, 2024
Frontline communities along the Gulf Coast were granted a "temporary reprieve" last week when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission moved to pause its approval of the controversial Calcasieu Pass 2 liquefied natural gas export terminal while it conducts an assessment of its impact on air quality.
FERC approved Venture Global's CP2 in late June despite opposition from local residents who say the company's nearly identical Calcasieu Pass terminal has already wracked up a history of air quality violations and disturbed ecosystems and fishing grounds in Louisiana's Cameron Parish, harming health and livelihoods.
"This order reveals that FERC recognizes that CP2 LNG's environmental impacts are too great to pass through any real scrutiny" Megan Gibson, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), said in a statement on Monday.
"FERC's pause on construction may give us some temporary reprieve, but this project never should have been authorized in the first place."
FERC's decision follows a request for a rehearing of its June decision filed by frontline residents and community groups including For a Better Bayou and Fishermen Involved in Sustaining Our Heritage (FISH) as well as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In their request, the groups and individuals pointed to errors the commission had made in its approval decision.
"With this order, it seems FERC is finally willing to acknowledge that it has not done enough to properly consider the cumulative harm on communities caused by building so many of these LNG export terminals so close together," Nathan Matthews, a Sierra Club senior attorney, said in a statement. "Prohibiting construction of CP2 LNG while FERC takes another look at the environmental impact of this massive, polluting facility is the right thing to do."
"Still," Matthews continued, "FERC must take concrete steps to properly evaluate the true scope of the dangers posed to communities from gas infrastructure moving forward and avoid making unwarranted approvals in the future."
FERC's decision comes over four months after the D.C. Circuit Court remanded the commission's approval of Commonwealth LNG, also in Louisiana, over concerns that it had not fully assessed the impacts of that project's air pollution emissions. Now, frontline advocates are urging FERC to do its due diligence as it weighs the environmental impacts of CP2.
"Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we've seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe," James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said of LNG export facilities. "Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters."
Gibson of SELC said that FERC had already repeated some of the errors in its CP2 approval in its new order.
"This continued failure to fulfill its regulatory duty is not just an oversight—it is a failure to protect vulnerable communities and our economy from the real potential harms of this massive export project," Gibson said.
FERC's decision comes as the fate of the LNG buildout itself hangs in the balance. The Biden administration's Department of Energy is currently rushing to complete its renewed assessment of whether or not LNG exports serve the public interest. Environmental and frontline groups have argued that they do not because of local pollution, the fact that they would raise domestic energy bills, and their contribution to the climate emergency. CP2 alone would spew 8,510,099 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year, which is about the same as adding 1,850,000 new gas cars to the road.
While President-elect Donald Trump has promised to "drill, baby, drill" and is likely to disregard any Biden administration conclusions, a strong outgoing statement against LNG exports would help bolster legal challenges to Trump energy policy.
At the same time, Bill McKibben pointed out in a column on Tuesday that the administration's pause on LNG export approvals while it updates its public interest criteria has acted to slow the industry's expansion, and that FERC's reconsideration of CP2 could add to this delay.
"The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan," McKibben wrote. "It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that's good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow."
Ultimately, frontline Gulf Coast advocates want to see the LNG buildout halted entirely.
"I, along with the fishermen in Cameron, Louisiana, know firsthand how harmful LNG exports are, and see the total disregard they have for human life as they poison our families and seafood," said FISH founder Travis Dardar, an Indigenous fisherman in Cameron, Louisiana. "FERC's pause on construction may give us some temporary reprieve, but this project never should have been authorized in the first place. As far as anyone who believes in the fairytale of LNG being cleaner, we have paid with our communities and livelihoods. It's time to break these chains and turn away from this false solution."
Roisheta Ozaine, a prominent anti-LNG activist and founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, said that she, as a mother in an environmental justice community, saw "firsthand how LNG facilities prioritize profit over the well-being of our families. Commonwealth and CP2 are no different."
"We are happy about the delay, but these projects don't ever need to be approved and neither does any other LNG facility," Ozane continued. "My children are suffering from health conditions that threaten their daily lives, all while regulatory agencies and elected officials turn a blind eye. It's time for our leaders to put people before profit and prioritize the health of our communities over the pollution that harms us. We deserve a future where our children's health is safeguarded, not sacrificed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unsettling New Milestone': Top 12 US Billionaires Now Control $2 Trillion in Wealth
"The oligarchic dozen is richer than ever, and they are endowed with extreme material power that can be used to pursue narrow political interests at the expense of democratic majorities," according to the author of a new analysis.
Dec 04, 2024
Just 12 U.S. billionaires now have a collective net worth of over $2 trillion—a figure that amounts to a little less than a third of total federal spending in 2023—according to an analysis out Tuesday from Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
The $2 trillion number is also twice the amount of wealth that the top 12 US billionaires held in 2020, according to researchers at IPS, a progressive organization.
The full list of 12 billionaires includes Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, Steve Ballmer, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jim Walton, Rob Walton, and Jensen Huang.
"This is an unsettling new milestone for wealth concentration in the United States. The oligarchic dozen is richer than ever, and they are endowed with extreme material power that can be used to pursue narrow political interests at the expense of democratic majorities," wrote the author of the analysis, Omar Ocampo, a researcher at IPS.
New to the "oligarchic dozen" is Jensen Huang, the co-founder and CEO of the tech company Nvidia. Nvidia, which became the most valuable publicly traded company this year, has seen its profits jump thanks to the world's ravenous appetite for the artificial intelligence chips that the firm produces. According to the analysis, Huang's personal wealth "has skyrocketed from $4.7 billion in 2020 to $122.4 billion—a mind-boggling 2,504 percent increase—over the last four years."
Each of the billionaires on the list "owns or is a controlling shareholder of a business that is investing billions of dollars in artificial intelligence," according to Ocampo, which raises concerns about their respective carbon footprints.
Fueling AI is energy intensive, and AI data centers in the U.S. are largely powered by fossil fuels, meaning their proliferation poses a threat to the environment and a transition to a green economy.
Ocampo also discusses the political reach of the billionaires on the list. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who respectively own X and The Washington Post, "have both purchased large media platforms, which has granted them the ability to set the terms of public debate with the hopes of influencing public opinion in their favor."
Musk specifically has established himself as a major power broker within the GOP. The billionaire spent hundreds of millions helping to re-elect Donald Trump and is now poised to play a major role in the president-elect's administration, helping oversee a new advisory committee tasked with slashing government spending.
As of early December, Trump had tapped an "unprecedented" total of seven reported billionaires for key positions in his administration, according to a separate piece of analysis by Inequality.org.
"We see the effects of this growing concentration of wealth and economic inequality everywhere—plutocratic influence on our politics, wealth transfers from the bottom to the top, and the acceleration of climate breakdown," Ocampo wrote on Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The People Will Not Forgive This': South Korean President Faces Impeachment After Martial Law Gambit
"The Yoon Suk Yeol regime has declared its own end of power," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 04, 2024
South Koreans took to the streets en masse Wednesday to protest conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol's brief imposition of martial law, a move that sparked an immediate political crisis and calls for his resignation or removal.
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) led marches Wednesday and vowed that its 1.2-million-strong membership would strike until Yoon steps aside. Prior to Tuesday night, martial law was last imposed in South Korea more than four decades ago.
Yoon's decree prompted the resignation of his chief of staff, defense minister, and other officials.
"While the stated reason for declaring martial law is 'to eradicate pro-North Korean forces and maintain the constitutional order,' all citizens except Yoon Suk Yeol understand the true meaning of this martial law declaration," KCTU said in a statement. "Yoon Suk Yeol has chosen the irrational and anti-democratic method of martial law to extend his political life as he has been driven to the edge."
"The people will not forgive this," the labor organization added. "They remember the fate of regimes that declared martial law. The people clearly remember the end of regimes that deceived the citizens and damaged democracy. The people never forgave regimes that suppressed citizens and violated democracy. The Yoon Suk Yeol regime has declared its own end of power."
VIDEO: South Korean protesters call for President Yoon's arrest after martial law attempt.
South Koreans gather at Seoul's downtown Gwanghwamun in a protest to demand the resignation of President Yoon Suk Yeol after he abandoned a short-lived attempt at martial law that plunged… pic.twitter.com/6b2y2i8tUH
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) December 4, 2024
Just hours after issuing it, Yoon withdrew the martial law order in the face of large-scale backlash from the public and members of South Korea's Legislature, who are now looking to impeach the president after unanimously rejecting his ill-fated declaration.
The Financial Timesreported Wednesday that "about 190 lawmakers from six opposition parties submitted an impeachment motion, intending to discuss the bill in parliament on Thursday before a vote on Friday or Saturday." For impeachment to succeed, some members of Yoon's party would have to support the president's removal.
"As pressure built on members of Yoon's own party to support the impeachment bid, thousands of protesters against the president gathered in central Seoul," FT observed. "South Korea's main opposition, the Democratic Party, labeled the declaration of martial law 'a clear act of treason' and 'a perfect reason' to impeach the president."
Lee Jae-myung, the opposition party's leader, said Yoon "is likely to make another attempt" at imposing martial law if given the opportunity.
"But we face a bigger risk where he can provoke North Korea and run the risk of an armed clash with North Korea by destabilizing the divided border," he added.
Cho Kuk, leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party, said Yoon should face investigation for treason and warned the president "is someone who can press the button to start war or declare martial law again."
"He is the one who can put South Korea in the biggest jeopardy now," he said. "We should immediately suspend his presidential duties by impeaching him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular