Legal Problems: When Words Mean Something Else

What Does "Hostilities" Mean?

Hostilities - (plural of hostility): 1. a. deep-seated usually mutual ill will.  b. overt acts of warfare

2. conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle.

Definitions from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostilities

 Why Does This Matter?

Well, according to United States law, the President of the United States cannot be engaged in any "hostilities" lasting more than 90 days without Congressional approval.  This means air assistance in Libya should be cut right about now.  There's a lot of difficulty with this decision, however, and the White House with the support of the Defense Secretary has stated that the President does not need Congressional approval to continue assisting in the NATO led operation.  Supporting NATO is extremely important.  Ensuring the Executive Branch of our government is not abusing is power is extremely important.

Whether or not you think we should continue to commit resources to the cause what I would like to focus on is the word "hostilities".  If the only legal cover for President Obama's actions is that our military support does not constitute "hostilities"...well, I find that manipulative.

If a Bomb Blew Your House Up...

We don't even have to go that far.  Let's just say a bomb exploded near your home.  If that bomb was dropped by an airplane from another country that basically told you, "You suck!  GTFO!", would you consider that a hostile action?  I would hope to hear a resounding, "Hells yeah, I would!"  If that happened on our soil, we would bomb that country back into the stone age.  Now, why is it when we drop bombs it's not considered hostile action?

Contracts and Laws Can Redefine Any Word?

Laws are weird like that.  How we define words greatly impacts our interpretation of laws.  The Supreme Court, with some criticism, has gotten into the habit of pulling out dictionaries during trials to ensure everyone is one the same page.  But given the nature of legal arguments these days, it's no wonder they have adopted this practice.  There is little room for what is common sense, prudent, or wise in the courtroom.  Arguments are all constructed by what is written on paper.  Therefore, if a document gives a definition for a word, it is that definition that matters in court.  In this case we are talking about the War Powers resolution of 1973.  Apparently air strikes don't fit into the definition of "hostilities".

So What's Congress Doing?


Nothing really.  There was a symbolic vote by Congress and it meant a few things:

1. We're mad at you for not including us in the decision making process.
2. You're abusing your power.
3. I want to make sure people know I voted against you because I need to get reelected in order to keep fat and phat.
4. We're not going to cut funding because we want to support our troops.

Number 4 is the winner in making the vote impotent.  It doesn't mean anything practically for the military operation.  Only a few Republicans were consistent with their views in stating the vote was too soft in not cutting funding.  After all, people should put their money where their mouth is, no?

If the President's actions are truly illegal, Congress should bring him to court, not pass a symbolic vote.  Why waste valuable time on a symbolic vote if the end result is zero?  Shouldn't Congress be trying to fix the economy?  Maybe they could pass a good budget or something?

The incentive for politicians is to turn every event into a chance to score political points.  It's understandable because it's how they get elected.  If you think your elected representatives are being inconsistent on the issue and you don't like it, then please, call them out on it by calling their office and speaking with a staffer.