Tuesday, September 28, 2021
HomeRecommendedAllen West Votes Yes To Kucinich and No To Boehner - Good

Allen West Votes Yes To Kucinich and No To Boehner – Good

There were two bills voted on in the US House on Friday, June 3, 2011, that had to do with the US military role in Libya. One was sponsored by Speaker Boehner as a way to head off passage of another one that was sponsored by Dennis Kucinich.
The Boehner bill: H.RES.292

Latest Title: Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other purposes. Directs the Secretaries of State and Defense and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies of any official document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication in the possession of each officer that was created on or after February 15, 2011, and refers or relates to: (1) consultation or communication with Congress regarding the employment or deployment of the Armed Forces for Operation Odyssey Dawn or NATO Operation Unified Protector; or (2) the War Powers Resolution and Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation Unified Protector.

Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] (introduced 6/2/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Date: Jun 3, 2011 1:40PM
Result: Passed 268-145

The Kucinich bill:
H. Con. Res. 51
Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.
Date: Jun 3, 2011 1:47PM
Result: Failed 148-265

Allen West voted No on the Boehner and then Yes on the Kucinich bill. He sent out a tweet message

I voted w/Rep. Kucinich today for Pres to w/draw troops from Libya in 15 days. I voted against Speaker Boehner – his resolution isn’t strong.

I agree with Allen West. The President is the only one who has Commander-in-Chief powers, and it is weak and meaningless for Congress to pass anything intended to tweak commander-in-chief powers about only deploying warships and drones instead of tanks and infantrymen too. I would have voted No on the Boehner bill. The Kucinich bill is a much stronger resolution rejecting the US Armed Forces in any capacity in Libya. It also leaves the impression that no money will be approved for this venture. The Congress controls government spending, and it is Congress that has the power to declare war. Allen West statement about Libya:

For every decision there are consequences and we have to sometimes analyze what could be those consequences. Just the same with operations in Libya – I cannot understand it. I don’t know what the goal and objective are.

No one can clearly tell me who these rebels or who the rebel leaders are – where they come from; what do they seek to have; what are they going to bring to the table different than Moammar Gadhafi. Moammar Gadhafi’s a bad guy, there’s no doubt about it but there are means by which you can contain him, instead of committing our Air Force and our Navy to be kind of like a ‘rent-a- force’ to them.

I would have voted Yes on the Kucinich bill for the same concerns Allen West offered in his statement. Kucinich is one of the goofiest members of the US House, and his ideas about a new US Cabinet, the Department of Peace, is as loony as they can get. Allen West and the 86 other GOP House members that voted Yes on his bill did not do it because they embrace Kucinich and all that he stands for. Speaker Boehner is one of the most mild mannered members of the House with an annoying habit of bursting into tears. Allen West and the 9 other GOP House members that voted No on his bill did it because it is not a strong bill, and not because of any other reason.

The 54 Tea Party Members of Congress who voted FOR limited government power by voting YES on Kucinich H.Con.Res. 51:
Rep. Mo Brooks (AL, District 5)
Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ, District 1)
Rep. David Schweikert (AZ, District 5)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA, District 4)
Rep. Edward Royce (CA, District 40)
Rep. John Campbell (CA, District 48 )
Rep. Richard Nugent (FL, District 5)
Rep. Clifford Stearns (FL, District 6)
Rep. Dennis Ross (FL, District 12)
Rep. Allen West (FL, District 22)
Rep. Sandy Adams (FL, District 24)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA, District 3)
Rep. Tom Price (GA, District 6)
Rep. Tom Graves (GA, District 9)
Rep. Paul Broun (GA, District 10)
Rep. Raul Labrador (ID, District 1)
Rep. Joe Walsh (IL, District 8 )
Rep. Dan Burton (IN, District 5)
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (KS, District 1)
Rep. Jeff Landry (LA, District 3)
Rep. John Fleming (LA, District 4)
Rep. Bill Cassidy (LA, District 6)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD, District 6)
Rep. Dan Benishek (MI, District 1)
Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI, District 2)
Rep. Justin Amash (MI, District 3)
Rep. David Camp (MI, District 4)
Rep. Frederick Upton (MI, District 6)
Rep. Timothy Walberg (MI, District 7)
Rep. Candice Miller (MI, District 10)
Rep. Todd Akin (MO, District 2)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (MN, District 3)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN, District 6)
Rep. Lee Terry (NE, District 2)
Rep. Frank Guinta (NH, District 1)
Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ, District 5)
Rep. Stevan Pearce (NM, District 2)
Rep. Howard Coble (NC, District 6)
Rep. Rick Berg (ND, At Large)
Rep. Tom Cole (OK, District 4)
Rep. Tim Scott (SC, District 1)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC, District 3)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (SC, District 5)
Rep. Phil Roe (TN, District 1)
Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN, District 8 )
Rep. Louis Gohmert (TX, District 1)
Rep. Ted Poe (TX, District 2)
Rep. Michael Burgess (TX, District 26)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT, District 3)
Rep. David McKinley (WV, District 1)
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (WV, District 2)
Rep. Sean Duffy (WI, District 7)
Rep. Reid Ribble (WI, District 8 )
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY, At Large)

The 33 other GOP Members of Congress who voted FOR limited government power by voting YES on Kucinich H.Con.Res. 51:
Rep. Donald Young (AK, At-Large)]
Rep. Jeff Flake (AZ. District 6)
Rep. Steve Southerland (FL, District 2)
Rep. Daniel Webster (FL, District 8 )
Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL, District 13)
Rep Connie Mack (FL, District 14)
Rep. Bill Posey (FL, District 15)
Rep. Thomas Rooney (FL, District 16)
Rep. Jack Kingston (GA, District 1)
Rep. Rob Woodall (GA, District 7)
Rep. Austin Scott (GA, District 8 )
Rep. Timothey Johnson (IL, District 15)
Rep. Donald Manzullo (IL, District 16)
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (IN, District 3)
Rep. Geoff Davis (KY, District 4)
Rep. Andy Harris (MD, District 1)
Rep. Chris Gibson (NY, District 20)
Rep. Tom Reed (NY, District 29)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC, District 3)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC, District 5)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC, District 10)
Rep. Jean Schmidt (OH, District 2)
Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA, District 16)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC, District 4)
Rep. Kristi Noem (SD, At Large)
Rep. John Duncan (TN, District 2)
Rep. Sam Johnson (TX, District 3)
Rep Ralph Hall (TX, District 4)
Rep. Ron Paul (TX, District 14)
Rep. Scott Rigell (VA, District 2)
Rep. Frank Wolf (VA, District 10)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (WI, District 5)
Rep. Thomas Petri (WI, District 6)

pilgrim
I am retired after 36 years of being a state of Indiana employee. I enjoy writing and reading conservative blogs.

8 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

8 COMMENTS

  1. Neither bill cuts off funds and West’s vote affirming the constitutionality of the War Powers Act could come back to haunt him if he runs for President. But I don’t begrudge Congress expressing the will of the people on the matter and doing what they can to persuade the President to change course. As I have stated before, I was against the initial action in Libya, but given the fait accompli of the President having exercised his Commander-in-Chief powers, it is better that we back the President until Gaddafy is removed for deterrence and other purposes – see former column entitled The Three Fillies of the Apocalypse… that a guy named pilgrim promoted…smile:

    https://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2011/03/23/1485/

    Certainly wars should not be fought according to statutory formulae and deadlines (enemies have no such artificial constructs), which is what so repels me about the Kucinich bill. Congress doesn’t run foreign policy well and they have few choices short of cutting off funds, which they rightly haven’t the “guts” to do. The last time they cut off funds was when we abandoned the Hmong and the South Vietnamese to slaughter. I wouldn’t want to see that repeated and under Republican majorities in the House, I doubt it would happen.

    I have no problem with Congressional hearings so long as our strategies remain top secret. But given the lack of the loss of American lives, the prevention of slaughter of innocents and the very real prospect that eventually we will drive Gaddafy from Libya and from power; and MOSTLY due to the fact that once America enters a conflict that we win it (despite the reluctance of the liberal weenie to use that language), I think the best activity for Congress would be to offering advice and support on how to hasten the victory, not threatening to cut off funds. But of course the threat is empty, as usual, and so is without much consequence….back to the economy and store brand peas and water….smile

    • There are times we disagree, but I love you like a brother. I remember when President Reagan used his Commander-in-Chief powers to deploy our military to Lebanon. He also used his Commander-in-Chief powers to remove our military from Lebanon. I do not trust Obama as much as I trusted Pres. Reagan. I doubt that this vote is going to haunt Allen West or Michelle Bachmann or any of the other 86 GOP. The hole that Obama has dug our country into and economic mess we are in is a reason I do not think cutting off funds to the Libya operation is an empty threat. Obama’s reaction to the GOP during the health care meetings are proof that he is not one who can be offered advice period.

      • Congress won’t cut off funds no matter how high unemployment or the debt gets. The Supreme Court won’t get involved.

        We have been thru this dance scores of times since 1973. Don’t hold breath thinking any Congress would so embarrass a President thru the cut-off of funds.

        I am proud that Boehner didn’t cite the unconstitutional WPA (unless even his also refers to the WPA? I don’t know. I am limiting myself to the facts laid out by a Presistant Cuss. If Boehner’s bill also cites the WPA, then that fact is vital and should be in the story. just saying…My research time must be rationed more than health care…smile) in his resolution that attempts to express the attitude of Congress and We the People to the President. I do think that Col.

        West caved (more to frustration than the beltway crowd) to use an un-constitutional device to express his disdain with the policy. He should not have done that.

        Yes, the power of Congress is limited given the drastic remedy of totally cutting off funds, but that is no excuse fro resorting to citing an obviously unconstitutional law that will never be enforced by the courts.

        The WPA has been on the books for nearly 40 years and has never been acknowledged as binding by a President and has ever been used to directly alter even one executive act of war. (The 1975 vote that did abandon the anti-communists was a cut-off of funds. Congress needs no statute to do that. It has Art 1)

        The WPA will remain a dead letter on the books that is occasionally resorted to by frustrated glorified yea/nay voters that aren’t 535 Commanders in Chiefs. Presidents conduct and end wars for all kinds of reasons, including public opinion as expressed by Congress, but never due to dead letter laws that West consorted with Dennis (Impeach Bush) Kucinich.

        Hauntings of votes? I don’t know what that means.

        I do know what honesty means and would a President West or Bachman surrender the full executive power of the Commander-in-Chief that our framers carefully broadened when they replaced the Articles of Confederation with Art II of the US Constitution, by adherence to war by timetable and artificial statutory WPA deadlines rather than the imperative to win and facts on the ground? I don’t think so, and given that, one cannot deem their votes to impose the WPA on the present CINC as honorable or honest. It was a cheap, opportunistic vote that should be beneath serious adherents to the Constitution.

        I don’t hold Kucinich to this high a standard because I think he really is quite ignorant of what war powers are granted the President, but I doubt West and Bachman agree with Dennis on that. If they do, then they are disqualified from being Commander in Chief. I would say that Bachman’s statement about innocents killed in Libya with Gaddafy’s spokesman as the source should already “haunt” her. She was making the leftist argument in a “gotcha” way against the President due to innocents killed in collateral damage; in the same way that the Left sought to discredit the Iraq War due to innocents killed when we were attacking the monster mass murderers of Saddam and al Qaeda.

        Whew, and yes, I still love you brother. I also love my liberal part-time girlfriend…smile

        BTW Pilgrim, do you remember that other vote West took a month or so ago that we were both surprised with on a domestic issue?

        • Thank you for the suggestion to include that the Boehner bill does indeed cite the War Powers Act as did the Kucinich bill. I expect you would have wished for Boehner to not introduce a bill at all and try to whip opposition to the Kucinich bill. What Boehner did was too clever by half in my opinion. We just have to see if business as usual takes place in the US Congress or not. One thing we agree about is these times we live in are nothing like they used to be.

  2. So the ones who voted for the resolutions voted for “limited government power”? I’ll say. Words are quite limited. But how is a vote against a resolution that portends to acknowledge the grant of extra-constitutional power to “wage” war to Congress, somehow “for” unlimited government power. Of course, when one adds the power of the purse to the powers of Commander-in-Chief, one has the unlimited government power to wage war. Under the Constitution, Congress has the absolute power to fund or not fund a war and the President has the absolute power to wage or not wage a war. What the War Powers Act seeks to do is amend the Constitution via an improper application of the separate and quite limited congressional power to “declare” war, which is an 18th Century legal device quite unrelated to the matters at hand and also quite unconstitutional and while I respect West’s criticisms (and agree) of our lack of strategy as per Gaddafy’s opposition and the preferred containment policy, I wish he hadn’t hitched his wagon to the WPAct. It looks like one of his other votes this year as opportunistic caves to the beltway crowd. I forget what his other vote was on a few months ago or so. more later

    • I think the War Powers Act is a turf fight between the President and the Congress. Usually when the two branches have an ongoing fight like this the Supreme Court is very reluctant to render a decision. I will admit if I am wrong about the Supreme Court, but this is how I see it. You may see any legislator who votes this way as just caving in to the beltway crowd, but the law has to be repealed or rendered unconstitutional. I don’t see it happening.

  3. https://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/03/23/the-three-fillies-of-the-apocalypse-vs-the-colonel/

    excerpt:

    I hope fellow conservatives will refrain from claiming that our liberal President is acting in violation of his power to wage war as Commander-in-Chief due to his failure to get pre-authorization from a Congress that has the sole power to “declare” war. As we discussed ad nauseum with liberals wanting to impeach President Bush, despite Congressional authorizations to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. erstwhile declarations of war), the term “declare” is a legal term that has lost much of its meaning since the 19th Century.

    One of the main reasons the framers rejected the un-workable Articles of Confederation and its weakened executive in favor of the “Commander-in-Chief” language of the U.S. Constitution was precisely to put our Chief executive on par with other such leaders of world powers in his ability to act quickly, lest we be fatally weakened in world affairs.

    I consider the War Powers Act (1973 statute passed over Nixon veto) to be unconstitutional, but even if it isn’t, President Obama can wage war for 60 days carte blanche. Then, Congress can cut off funds, which is the exact circumstance the Constitution gives Congress each and every day. They can also impeach a President.

    When we elect a man to be President, we give him, rightfully, very broad powers. Let that be a lesson to us the next time we get to choose and consider whether the “R” or the “D” is better at Big D, deterrence and defense. The choice is clear in 2012.

    I admit that the choice is not so clear now in Libya, much as it wasn’t in Bosnia, Kosovo and other actions. But as for this fighting gamecock, we will support America and the only foreign policy it has, including our actions in Iraq.

    At least now, and from this day forward. there would be reason for a potential enemy of the United States to fear that Obama might drop a bomb on his head. It is especially important that Iran’s mullahs have seen something other than a bow from Obama.

  1. Neither bill cuts off funds and West’s vote affirming the constitutionality of the War Powers Act could come back to haunt him if he runs for President. But I don’t begrudge Congress expressing the will of the people on the matter and doing what they can to persuade the President to change course. As I have stated before, I was against the initial action in Libya, but given the fait accompli of the President having exercised his Commander-in-Chief powers, it is better that we back the President until Gaddafy is removed for deterrence and other purposes – see former column entitled The Three Fillies of the Apocalypse… that a guy named pilgrim promoted…smile:

    https://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2011/03/23/1485/

    Certainly wars should not be fought according to statutory formulae and deadlines (enemies have no such artificial constructs), which is what so repels me about the Kucinich bill. Congress doesn’t run foreign policy well and they have few choices short of cutting off funds, which they rightly haven’t the “guts” to do. The last time they cut off funds was when we abandoned the Hmong and the South Vietnamese to slaughter. I wouldn’t want to see that repeated and under Republican majorities in the House, I doubt it would happen.

    I have no problem with Congressional hearings so long as our strategies remain top secret. But given the lack of the loss of American lives, the prevention of slaughter of innocents and the very real prospect that eventually we will drive Gaddafy from Libya and from power; and MOSTLY due to the fact that once America enters a conflict that we win it (despite the reluctance of the liberal weenie to use that language), I think the best activity for Congress would be to offering advice and support on how to hasten the victory, not threatening to cut off funds. But of course the threat is empty, as usual, and so is without much consequence….back to the economy and store brand peas and water….smile

    • There are times we disagree, but I love you like a brother. I remember when President Reagan used his Commander-in-Chief powers to deploy our military to Lebanon. He also used his Commander-in-Chief powers to remove our military from Lebanon. I do not trust Obama as much as I trusted Pres. Reagan. I doubt that this vote is going to haunt Allen West or Michelle Bachmann or any of the other 86 GOP. The hole that Obama has dug our country into and economic mess we are in is a reason I do not think cutting off funds to the Libya operation is an empty threat. Obama’s reaction to the GOP during the health care meetings are proof that he is not one who can be offered advice period.

      • Congress won’t cut off funds no matter how high unemployment or the debt gets. The Supreme Court won’t get involved.

        We have been thru this dance scores of times since 1973. Don’t hold breath thinking any Congress would so embarrass a President thru the cut-off of funds.

        I am proud that Boehner didn’t cite the unconstitutional WPA (unless even his also refers to the WPA? I don’t know. I am limiting myself to the facts laid out by a Presistant Cuss. If Boehner’s bill also cites the WPA, then that fact is vital and should be in the story. just saying…My research time must be rationed more than health care…smile) in his resolution that attempts to express the attitude of Congress and We the People to the President. I do think that Col.

        West caved (more to frustration than the beltway crowd) to use an un-constitutional device to express his disdain with the policy. He should not have done that.

        Yes, the power of Congress is limited given the drastic remedy of totally cutting off funds, but that is no excuse fro resorting to citing an obviously unconstitutional law that will never be enforced by the courts.

        The WPA has been on the books for nearly 40 years and has never been acknowledged as binding by a President and has ever been used to directly alter even one executive act of war. (The 1975 vote that did abandon the anti-communists was a cut-off of funds. Congress needs no statute to do that. It has Art 1)

        The WPA will remain a dead letter on the books that is occasionally resorted to by frustrated glorified yea/nay voters that aren’t 535 Commanders in Chiefs. Presidents conduct and end wars for all kinds of reasons, including public opinion as expressed by Congress, but never due to dead letter laws that West consorted with Dennis (Impeach Bush) Kucinich.

        Hauntings of votes? I don’t know what that means.

        I do know what honesty means and would a President West or Bachman surrender the full executive power of the Commander-in-Chief that our framers carefully broadened when they replaced the Articles of Confederation with Art II of the US Constitution, by adherence to war by timetable and artificial statutory WPA deadlines rather than the imperative to win and facts on the ground? I don’t think so, and given that, one cannot deem their votes to impose the WPA on the present CINC as honorable or honest. It was a cheap, opportunistic vote that should be beneath serious adherents to the Constitution.

        I don’t hold Kucinich to this high a standard because I think he really is quite ignorant of what war powers are granted the President, but I doubt West and Bachman agree with Dennis on that. If they do, then they are disqualified from being Commander in Chief. I would say that Bachman’s statement about innocents killed in Libya with Gaddafy’s spokesman as the source should already “haunt” her. She was making the leftist argument in a “gotcha” way against the President due to innocents killed in collateral damage; in the same way that the Left sought to discredit the Iraq War due to innocents killed when we were attacking the monster mass murderers of Saddam and al Qaeda.

        Whew, and yes, I still love you brother. I also love my liberal part-time girlfriend…smile

        BTW Pilgrim, do you remember that other vote West took a month or so ago that we were both surprised with on a domestic issue?

        • Thank you for the suggestion to include that the Boehner bill does indeed cite the War Powers Act as did the Kucinich bill. I expect you would have wished for Boehner to not introduce a bill at all and try to whip opposition to the Kucinich bill. What Boehner did was too clever by half in my opinion. We just have to see if business as usual takes place in the US Congress or not. One thing we agree about is these times we live in are nothing like they used to be.

  2. So the ones who voted for the resolutions voted for “limited government power”? I’ll say. Words are quite limited. But how is a vote against a resolution that portends to acknowledge the grant of extra-constitutional power to “wage” war to Congress, somehow “for” unlimited government power. Of course, when one adds the power of the purse to the powers of Commander-in-Chief, one has the unlimited government power to wage war. Under the Constitution, Congress has the absolute power to fund or not fund a war and the President has the absolute power to wage or not wage a war. What the War Powers Act seeks to do is amend the Constitution via an improper application of the separate and quite limited congressional power to “declare” war, which is an 18th Century legal device quite unrelated to the matters at hand and also quite unconstitutional and while I respect West’s criticisms (and agree) of our lack of strategy as per Gaddafy’s opposition and the preferred containment policy, I wish he hadn’t hitched his wagon to the WPAct. It looks like one of his other votes this year as opportunistic caves to the beltway crowd. I forget what his other vote was on a few months ago or so. more later

    • I think the War Powers Act is a turf fight between the President and the Congress. Usually when the two branches have an ongoing fight like this the Supreme Court is very reluctant to render a decision. I will admit if I am wrong about the Supreme Court, but this is how I see it. You may see any legislator who votes this way as just caving in to the beltway crowd, but the law has to be repealed or rendered unconstitutional. I don’t see it happening.

  3. https://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/03/23/the-three-fillies-of-the-apocalypse-vs-the-colonel/

    excerpt:

    I hope fellow conservatives will refrain from claiming that our liberal President is acting in violation of his power to wage war as Commander-in-Chief due to his failure to get pre-authorization from a Congress that has the sole power to “declare” war. As we discussed ad nauseum with liberals wanting to impeach President Bush, despite Congressional authorizations to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. erstwhile declarations of war), the term “declare” is a legal term that has lost much of its meaning since the 19th Century.

    One of the main reasons the framers rejected the un-workable Articles of Confederation and its weakened executive in favor of the “Commander-in-Chief” language of the U.S. Constitution was precisely to put our Chief executive on par with other such leaders of world powers in his ability to act quickly, lest we be fatally weakened in world affairs.

    I consider the War Powers Act (1973 statute passed over Nixon veto) to be unconstitutional, but even if it isn’t, President Obama can wage war for 60 days carte blanche. Then, Congress can cut off funds, which is the exact circumstance the Constitution gives Congress each and every day. They can also impeach a President.

    When we elect a man to be President, we give him, rightfully, very broad powers. Let that be a lesson to us the next time we get to choose and consider whether the “R” or the “D” is better at Big D, deterrence and defense. The choice is clear in 2012.

    I admit that the choice is not so clear now in Libya, much as it wasn’t in Bosnia, Kosovo and other actions. But as for this fighting gamecock, we will support America and the only foreign policy it has, including our actions in Iraq.

    At least now, and from this day forward. there would be reason for a potential enemy of the United States to fear that Obama might drop a bomb on his head. It is especially important that Iran’s mullahs have seen something other than a bow from Obama.

Must Read