I have read your letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011 concerning your order that United States Armed Forces attack the nation of Libya. You cite the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and your "constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."

The Constitution clearly and unmistakably vests Congress with the sole prerogative "to declare war." Your letter fails to explain how a resolution of the United Nations Security Council is necessary to commit this nation to war but that an act of Congress is not.

The United Nations Participation Act expressly withholds authorization for the President to commit United States Armed Forces to combat in pursuit of United Nations directives without specific Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution states that the President's power to engage United States Armed Forces in hostilities "shall not be inferred . . .from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities..."

The War Powers Resolution unambiguously defines three circumstances under which the President as Commander in Chief may order United States Armed Forces into hostile action: "(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." Your letter cites none of these conditions.

Nor can the power to order an act of war be inferred from the President's authority as "Commander in Chief and Chief Executive." The Constitution's Framers were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton draws a sharp distinction between the President's authority as Commander in Chief as "nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces" and the authority of the British king "which extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies ~ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

With all due respect, I can only conclude that your order to United States Armed Forces to attack the nation of Libya on March 19, 2011 is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution and constitutes a usurpation of Constitutional powers clearly and solely vested in the United States Congress and is accordingly unlawful and unconstitutional.

Sincerely,

Tom McClintock
Member of Congress

Congressman Tom McClintock, Chairman of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, today made the following remarks on the House floor during consideration of a resolution directing committees to identify federal regulations that impede job creation and slow the economy

House Resolution 72
House Chamber, Washington, D.C

As Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee of Natural Resources, my colleagues and I are excited and eager to undertake the mission outlined in House Resolution 72: to identify the federal regulations in this field that are impeding job creation and slowing the economy.

The only problem is deciding where to begin.

A generation ago, the principal objective of our water and power policy was to create an abundance of both.  It was an era when vast reservoirs and hydro-electric facilities produced a cornucopia of clean and plentiful water and electricity on a scale so vast that many communities didn’t even bother to measure the stuff.

But that objective of abundance has been abandoned in favor of rationing shortages caused by government. 

The result is increasingly scarce and expensive water and power that now undermines our prosperity as a nation. 

Nowhere is that more evident than in the Central Valley of California.  The last Congress sat idly by as this administration deliberately diverted 200 billion gallons of water away from the most abundant agricultural region of our nation – all to satisfy the environmental left and its pet cause, a three inch minnow called the Delta Smelt. 

These willful diversions cost over 20,000 farm workers their jobs, inflicted up to 40 percent unemployment rates in the region; destroyed more than a quarter million acres of the most fertile farmland in our nation and forced up the price of groceries for us all. 

Or we could look to the Klamath, where this administration is pushing to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams that generate 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough to power over 150,000 homes -- because, we’re told, of catastrophic declines of salmon. 

When I suggested building a salmon hatchery instead, I was informed that there already is one: it produces 5 million salmon smolt each year – 17,000 of which return to that river as fully grown adults to spawn – but they’re deliberately ignored in the population counts.  To add insult to insanity, as they tear down these dams in the name of saving the salmon, they’re also tearing down the fish hatchery.

Or we could begin in Colorado, where they’ve sacrificed over 1,000 megawatts from the Glen Canyon Dam for the humpback chub – at the expense of a long neglected species called Homo sapiens. 

Ronald Reagan was right: in this crisis, government is not the solution to our problems – government is the problem.  The good news is that’s within our power to correct – and it was clearly the mandate of the American people in 2010. 

And we will act on that mandate beginning with a series of hearings and actions directly related to this much-needed resolution.