[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.  Trick or Treat!!
 
Co-Sponsor:  Sarwark

Motion:  That the LNC adopt the following resolution:

--------------------Resolution Text--------------------

A Call to End the U.S. War in Yemen and Support House Concurrent Resolution 81

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.

Resolved by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC)

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

(a) Findings ––The Libertarian National Committee agrees with Congress and finds the following:

(1) Whereas, Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

(2) Whereas, a state of war has not been declared to exist with respect to the conflict between forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the Houthi-Saleh alliance in the Republic of Yemen.

(3) Whereas, United States Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance, including through assisting Saudi and United Arab Emirates warplanes conducting aerial bombings in Yemen with selecting targets and by providing midair refueling services to such warplanes, amounting to millions of pounds of jet fuel delivered during thousands of Saudi and United Arab Emirates airstrikes.

(4) Whereas, according to the Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2016, the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance is counterproductive to ongoing efforts by the United States to pursue Al Qaeda and its associated forces under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).

(5) Whereas, no authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen has been enacted, and no provision of law authorizes the provision of midair refueling services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that are engaged in such conflict.

(6) Whereas, the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1)), either hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.

Therefore, be it resolved, the LNC supports H.Con.Res. 81 in accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, but advises complete removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the Republic of Yemen:

(b) Removal Of Armed Forces.—Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or associated forces, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution (unless the President requests and the Congress authorizes a later date), and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.

-----------------End of Resolution Text-----------------

-Alicia

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote yes.

Thanks,

Patrick McKnight

Region 8 Rep

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote No on this motion.

I also strongly encourage other LNC members to vote no.  The resolution clearly allow the 

Federal government to use military force in another country in violation of both our party Platform

and the NAP.  

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote no partially for the same reasons as Sam.

And add, that with rare exception, I oppose us putting out resolutions that do not reference clear libertarian ideological justifications in order to further education on our views.

I think a statement or press release from the chair could address this in an libertarian-focused manner.

We need to use our bully pulpit wisely.

-Caryn Ann

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

We defend your rights

And oppose the use of force

Taxation is theft

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree with much of Mr. Demarest's argument.  In particular, I agree tat a No vote will not reduce the deaths of American soldiers.  Neither, though, as far as I can tell, will a Yes vote.  Since I think resolutions are only useful when they spell out policy positions not otherwise clear, and are directed at an audience likely to be influenced, and since this one makes our position, if anything, less clear, and since it is directed at an elected body where we have yet to place a single member, I vote No.  

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com> wrote:

I vote Yes on the Yemen motion.

I agree with wise use of the bully pulpit. Accordingly, I am voting in favor of the Yemen resolution just as I would vote Yes on a medicinal marijuana motion even though it did not go for the whole drug war repeal enchilada. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

If the LNC seriously intends to help make the Libertarian movement a success, we need to put more emphasis on deciding  what we are going to accomplish rather than finding reasons for voting No.

A No vote on this motion is preaching to the choir. A Yes vote is a clear stand in favor of reducing our military presence in Yemen and reducing useless American soldier causalities as we get a start on bringing them home. A No vote on this motion is NOT going to reduce the deaths of American soldiers.

Thought?

~David Pratt Demarest

On Oct 22, 2017 8:01 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I vote no partially for the same reasons as Sam.

And add, that with rare exception, I oppose us putting out resolutions that do not reference clear libertarian ideological justifications in order to further education on our views.

I think a statement or press release from the chair could address this in an libertarian-focused manner.

We need to use our bully pulpit wisely.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:10 AM Sam Goldstein <goldstei...@gmail.com> wrote:

I vote No on this motion.

I also strongly encourage other LNC members to vote no.  The resolution clearly allow the 

Federal government to use military force in another country in violation of both our party Platform

and the NAP.  

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

To answer David's points, we are not legislatures.  Our yes or no will do nothing about soldiers, so we have to look at what it could do.  Why are we so involved overseas?  The war on terror.  To leave the root in place means we have done nothing but virtue signal and not even a clear virtue signal.

I would not vote yes on a medical marijuana one that gave support to the war on drugs but just felt this was an exception.

I am fine with taking a bite of cake.  I'm not fine with taking just a bite and approving the portion limiting.

I vote for partial measures all the time.  But carefully - this one doesn't pass that threshold.

I disagree with Joshua that we should only do when our position is unclear.  Repetition is the soul of education and persistence to victory.  I told my husband I love him before, that won't stop me from saying it again, and even more so in front of people who need to have good relationships modeled in their lives.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM Ken Moellman <k...@moellman.com> wrote:

On the whole, I think it's a net good. Therefore, I vote Aye.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

A yes vote will not.  We don't have the influence.  And giving tacit support to the abominable policy that put us there to begin with is a net educational loss.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:16 AM David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, Joshua is correct. A Yes vote MAY not decrease the American causalities in Yemen. A well-intended No vote, however, DEFINITELY will not reduce American deaths.

A Yes vote will demonstrate to the broader audience that the LNC has it's priorities straight on reducing useless American deaths and make our inspirational deliberations more relevant to American voters and speed up the process 

Thoughts?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

> I told my husband I love him before, that won't stop me from saying it again, and even more so in front of people who need to have good relationships modeled in >their lives.

I would also oppose an LNC resolution on this topic.  I also disagree about cake, and think that portion control is just fine.  However, I agree with the point that we are not a legislature and that our yes or no will not do anything.  

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

To answer David's points, we are not legislatures.  Our yes or no will do nothing about soldiers, so we have to look at what it could do.  Why are we so involved overseas?  The war on terror.  To leave the root in place means we have done nothing but virtue signal and not even a clear virtue signal.

I would not vote yes on a medical marijuana one that gave support to the war on drugs but just felt this was an exception.

I am fine with taking a bite of cake.  I'm not fine with taking just a bite and approving the portion limiting.

I vote for partial measures all the time.  But carefully - this one doesn't pass that threshold.

I disagree with Joshua that we should only do when our position is unclear.  Repetition is the soul of education and persistence to victory.  I told my husband I love him before, that won't stop me from saying it again, and even more so in front of people who need to have good relationships modeled in their lives.

-Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Not may.  Will not.  We aren't voting here on whether or not to withdraw troops.  We're voting on a resolution asking other people to do something - people who have no interest in what we say, in a body where we have yet to elect a single member.  It contains absolutely no mechanism for doing a single thing about the ardent desire expressed, and that ardent desire is not even the one this party stands for.  I have some objections to the position staked out by others here, because I think foreign policy is inherently a situational question, but in this situation, I think it is clear that we're not even expressing an ardent hope for the general thing we're trying to do.  I consider most resolutions pointless, but one which not only fails to clarify a position, but in fact weakens one, I consider even more pointless than most.

It's really my general view on resolutions, by the way, which is decisive here for me.  I was originally going to abstain, but then recalled my general opposition to the idea, and decided that, if I cannot say we should make a resolution (for some reason), I will oppose doing so.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM, David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, Joshua is correct. A Yes vote MAY not decrease the American causalities in Yemen. A well-intended No vote, however, DEFINITELY will not reduce American deaths.

A Yes vote will demonstrate to the broader audience that the LNC has it's priorities straight on reducing useless American deaths and make our inspirational deliberations more relevant to American voters and speed up the process 

Thoughts?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I would be amenable to an amendment that addresses my concerns.  As you all know, I love resolutions, and I think it costs us nothing to take stands and that we SHOULD be doing that.  And my very informal poll of members indicated a 90% support for the LNC to do these.  But on this I can't get past those concerns.

As usual, I will be running this by my state chairs who I always give the opportunity to over-rule me, but they generally defer to my judgment.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:33 AM, David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with with Caryn Ann's call for LNC educational clarity on our motion. To Erin's point, I suggest we amend the motion to spell out where we agree and disagree with the Yemen troop withdrawal resolution.

This is an excellent educational opportunity that will allow the LNC to shine.

Thoughts?

On Oct 22, 2017 11:20 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

A yes vote will not.  We don't have the influence.  And giving tacit support to the abominable policy that put us there to begin with is a net educational loss.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

You cant amenda motion already beong voted on.

Sam

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com>

Date: 10/22/17 1:29 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org, David Demarest <dpdem...@centurylink.net>, David Demarest <dprattd...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

Thank you, Caryn Ann. Who would like to clarify our position in an amendment?

We have a choice. We can wallow in the literally infinite list of things that we are not going to do and the even longer list of bureaucratic reasons for not doing them.

Conversely, we focus on and fine tune realistic big picture actions that further Libertarian aspirations beyond the sub-goal of top-down electoral success for regulatory relief, namely freedom via removal of the yolk of authoritarianism, one incremental step at a time.

We do not have time to be mesmerized and paralyzed by focusing on what we are not going to do. The amazingly talented LNC members are up to the challenge of more productive strategies and initiatives by individually taking the bull by the horns and focusing on getting stuff done.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Agree with Erin, David, and Caryn Ann. Let's vote this version down and amend it to get the messaging right. I vote no.

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                         RealR...@earthlink.net

                                 (415) 625-FREE

                                   @StarchildSF

On Oct 22, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I would be amenable to an amendment that addresses my concerns.  As you all know, I love resolutions, and I think it costs us nothing to take stands and that we SHOULD be doing that.  And my very informal poll of members indicated a 90% support for the LNC to do these.  But on this I can't get past those concerns.

As usual, I will be running this by my state chairs who I always give the opportunity to over-rule me, but they generally defer to my judgment.

-Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Why couldn't we use this as the 'resolved' portion, and be done with it?

"Therefore, be it resolved, the LNC supports measures above and beyond H.Con.Res. 81, in accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, and calls for complete removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the Republic of Yemen."

Whitney Bilyeu

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Ditto – good suggestion, Whitney!

 

What do others think? This is time sensitive.

 

Thoughts?

 

~David Pratt

 

May 25-27 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention

 

Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary

LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator

David.D...@LP.org

Secr...@LPNE.org

DPDem...@centurylink.net

DPrattD...@gmail.com

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Erin Adams
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 9:26 AM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

 

I like Whitney's suggestion.

In Liberty,
Erin Adams
Director of Fundraising and Events

The Feldman Foundation
(405) 780-2791

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote NO for reasons previously stated.

Whitney

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Dear All,

The United States military is helping Saudi Arabia fight a civil war
in Yemen, committing war crimes at American taxpayer expense and with
the assistance of the American military. Our platform and our party
clearly oppose this. It is true that we oppose so much more military
interventionism than that which is the subject of H.Con.Res. 81,
including that arguably covered by the existing Authorization for the
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), but
H.Con.Res. 81 is what will come up for a vote in the Congress in just
a few short days.

I vote yes.

-Nick

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Nick,

The problem is that House Concurrent Resolution 81, which we are being asked to endorse, states (in part), "Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or associated forces" (boldface emphasis added).

If HCR 81 simply stated, "Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from participation in the conflict between Saudi-lead forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen", our unqualified support would be in order. 

The bottom line language of the resolution we're being asked to approve reads as follows, "Therefore, be it resolved, the LNC supports H.Con.Res. 81 in accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, but advises complete removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the Republic of Yemen". There is some dissociation there, but only just barely. The term "advises" is excessively mild. I would suggest the following substitute language:

"In accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, the LNC supports House Concurrent Resolution 81 as being on balance a step in the right direction, but explicitly rejects HCR 81's tacit support for a continued U.S. government military presence opposing Al Qaeda in Yemen."

Would you be willing to vote no on the current measure and reintroduce the resolution with the language suggested above?

Love & Liberty,

                                

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                        RealR...@earthlink.net

                                 (415) 625-FREE   

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 20, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Jared Labell wrote:

Abolutely, Starchild. Thank you!

 

HCR 81 can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/81/text

 

The exact text is pasted below:

 

H. CON. RES. 81

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 27, 2017

Mr. Khanna (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. Jones) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

---

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

(2) A state of war has not been declared to exist with respect to the conflict between forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the Houthi-Saleh alliance in the Republic of Yemen.

(3) United States Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance, including through assisting Saudi and United Arab Emirates warplanes conducting aerial bombings in Yemen with selecting targets and by providing midair refueling services to such warplanes, amounting to millions of pounds of jet fuel delivered during thousands of Saudi and United Arab Emirates airstrikes.

(4) According to the Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2016, the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance is counterproductive to ongoing efforts by the United States to pursue Al Qaeda and its associated forces under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).

(5) No authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen has been enacted, and no provision of law authorizes the provision of midair refueling services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that are engaged in such conflict.

(6) The conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1)), either hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.

(b) Removal Of Armed Forces.—Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or associated forces, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution (unless the President requests and the Congress authorizes a later date), and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.

 

 

Jared Labell
Executive Director
The Libertarian Institute
libertarianinstitute.org
abolitionist.
773-766-4947 cell
312-257-8525 office
Peace and free markets.
Against the State, its wars, and its taxes.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote no.

-Alicia

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Dear colleagues:

    I hope all is well with you.  I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "nay" on the motion.

    As always, thanks for your work for liberty.

    Take care,
    Jim

    James W. Lark, III
    Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
    Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
    Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
    University of Virginia

    Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
    University of Virginia

    Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
 -----

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I abstain.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote yes. It would be nice to get our forces out of everywhere we have no business.  This is a start.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Rep

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

-----Original Message-----
From: Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Sent: Tue, Oct 31, 2017 02:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

I vote no.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.  Trick or Treat!!
 
Co-Sponsor:  Sarwark

Motion:  That the LNC adopt the following resolution:

--------------------Resolution Text--------------------

A Call to End the U.S. War in Yemen and Support House Concurrent Resolution 81

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.

Resolved by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC)

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

(a) Findings ––The Libertarian National Committee agrees with Congress and finds the following:

(1) Whereas, Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

(2) Whereas, a state of war has not been declared to exist with respect to the conflict between forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the Houthi-Saleh alliance in the Republic of Yemen.

(3) Whereas, United States Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance, including through assisting Saudi and United Arab Emirates warplanes conducting aerial bombings in Yemen with selecting targets and by providing midair refueling services to such warplanes, amounting to millions of pounds of jet fuel delivered during thousands of Saudi and United Arab Emirates airstrikes.

(4) Whereas, according to the Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2016, the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance is counterproductive to ongoing efforts by the United States to pursue Al Qaeda and its associated forces under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).

(5) Whereas, no authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen has been enacted, and no provision of law authorizes the provision of midair refueling services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that are engaged in such conflict.

(6) Whereas, the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1)), either hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.

Therefore, be it resolved, the LNC supports H.Con.Res. 81 in accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, but advises complete removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the Republic of Yemen:

(b) Removal Of Armed Forces.—Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or associated forces, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution (unless the President requests and the Congress authorizes a later date), and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.

-----------------End of Resolution Text-----------------

-Alicia

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-busi...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I change my vote on this measure to yes.

Given the presumed deadline involved, and that we might not manage to pass anything at all on this topic if this resolution is voted down and people feel it's "too late" to craft a better version, I think the most pro-freedom course of action in this case is to support it, imperfect though the language is.

In the future – or if this resolution fails to pass – I would suggest that this kind of time-sensitive matter is where the Executive Committee could play a useful role (in this case to vote on and hopefully pass a version of the resolution amended to reflect the concerns that several of us have voiced). Sometimes in the past it has been used to make decisions where there was no fast-approaching deadline and where matters could and should have been left to the full LNC, rather than disenfranchising the larger body. But when we have a congressional vote a couple days away and no time for another 10-day LNC voting window, that's a time when I think it would be legitimate for a matter to be "kicked upstairs" to a smaller group, in order to get something out by an external deadline.

I encourage others who voted no to consider likewise changing your votes so that the Libertarian voice for reducing overseas U.S. government militarism can be heard on this matter before Congress.

Love & Liberty,

                                

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                        RealR...@earthlink.net

                                 (415) 625-FREE   

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, Starchild wrote:

Nick,

The problem is that House Concurrent Resolution 81, which we are being asked to endorse, states (in part), "Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or associated forces" (boldface emphasis added).

If HCR 81 simply stated, "Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from participation in the conflict between Saudi-lead forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen", our unqualified support would be in order. 

The bottom line language of the resolution we're being asked to approve reads as follows, "Therefore, be it resolved, the LNC supports H.Con.Res. 81 in accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, but advises complete removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the Republic of Yemen". There is some dissociation there, but only just barely. The term "advises" is excessively mild. I would suggest the following substitute language:

"In accordance with section 3.3 of the Libertarian Party Platform, the LNC supports House Concurrent Resolution 81 as being on balance a step in the right direction, but explicitly rejects HCR 81's tacit support for a continued U.S. government military presence opposing Al Qaeda in Yemen."

Would you be willing to vote no on the current measure and reintroduce the resolution with the language suggested above?

Love & Liberty,

                                

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                        RealR...@earthlink.net

                                 (415) 625-FREE   

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 20, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Jared Labell wrote:

Abolutely, Starchild. Thank you!

 

HCR 81 can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/81/text

 

The exact text is pasted below:

 

H. CON. RES. 81

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 27, 2017

Mr. Khanna (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. Jones) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

---

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

(2) A state of war has not been declared to exist with respect to the conflict between forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the Houthi-Saleh alliance in the Republic of Yemen.

(3) United States Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance, including through assisting Saudi and United Arab Emirates warplanes conducting aerial bombings in Yemen with selecting targets and by providing midair refueling services to such warplanes, amounting to millions of pounds of jet fuel delivered during thousands of Saudi and United Arab Emirates airstrikes.

(4) According to the Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2016, the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance is counterproductive to ongoing efforts by the United States to pursue Al Qaeda and its associated forces under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).

(5) No authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen has been enacted, and no provision of law authorizes the provision of midair refueling services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that are engaged in such conflict.

(6) The conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Yemen constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1)), either hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.

(b) Removal Of Armed Forces.—Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or associated forces, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution (unless the President requests and the Congress authorizes a later date), and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.

 

 

Jared Labell
Executive Director
The Libertarian Institute
libertarianinstitute.org
abolitionist.
773-766-4947 cell
312-257-8525 office
Peace and free markets.
Against the State, its wars, and its taxes.

On Oct 30, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Nicholas Sarwark wrote:

Dear All,

The United States military is helping Saudi Arabia fight a civil war
in Yemen, committing war crimes at American taxpayer expense and with
the assistance of the American military. Our platform and our party
clearly oppose this. It is true that we oppose so much more military
interventionism than that which is the subject of H.Con.Res. 81,
including that arguably covered by the existing Authorization for the
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), but
H.Con.Res. 81 is what will come up for a vote in the Congress in just
a few short days.

I vote yes.

-Nick

Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

If I were in a legislature and my vote would do something, I would.

That isn't the case and if we're going to take the time to say something I want it "radically" Libertarian.  (In the sense of sticking hard to principles). I will not kowtow to the "war on terror."  I cannot.

-Caryn Ann 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote NO.

I am of the general opinion that the LNC should not be in the business of adopting public policy motions. My opinion will likely change once someone can demonstrate that such resolutions help elect Libertarians and impact public opinion. 

Aaron Starr

Sent from my iPad

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I am fully in support of public policy resolutions.  I am very regretful not to vote yes on this but that one part just bothers me.  I HIGHLY encourage the Chair to make a statement clearly stating our support of not involving ourselves in Yemen and tying it to our Platform and principles.

My opinion on public policy resolutions will likely change once someone can demonstrate that such resolutions hurt our PRIMARY purpose which is the give voice to and implement the Statement of Principles.

-Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Yes, the Party is organized to do that in a number of enumerated ways, but our bylaws specifically discourage the LNC itself from engaging in this particular activity by imposing a higher vote threshold than almost any other activity.

 

There was a time when adopting public policy resolutions seemed to be the LNC’s raison d'être. Fortunately, those days came to an end once the Convention adopted a bylaws change to require a ¾ vote with notice for the LNC to adopt such resolutions and unanimous consent in the absence of notice.

 

 

Aaron Starr

(805) 583-3308 Home

(805) 404-8693 Mobile

star...@gmail.com

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:31 PM
To: Libertarian National Committee list
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

 

I am fully in support of public policy resolutions.  I am very regretful not to vote yes on this but that one part just bothers me.  I HIGHLY encourage the Chair to make a statement clearly stating our support of not involving ourselves in Yemen and tying it to our Platform and principles.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I am puzzled as to how the LNC can help elect Libertarians, impact public opinion and strengthen the LP without public policy expressions and support for key Libertarian candidates. Time spent voting down public policy resolutions and small symbolic candidate support motions seems counter-intuitive to me. I certainly hope this does not represent putting party before principle, just like our competition, that flies in the face of our goal to differentiate the LP and attract disillusioned voters.

 

I hear lots of reasons for not getting stuff done. How can we change that to maximize the potential of the LNC body to accomplish Libertarian goals? Perhaps we as a body could follow the lead of inspirational accomplishments by our committees and especially the recent huge strides forward by the paid staff. Ballot access, innovative fund-raising, IT infrastructure advances and public policy statements by Nick and Wes stand out as shining examples that the LNC body can follow the lead on.

 

If indeed the LNC body has a ‘voice’, let it rise above bureaucratic noise and be heard.

 

Thoughts?

 

~David Pratt

 

May 25-27 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom Un-Convention

 

Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less, For All

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary

LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator

David.D...@LP.org

Secr...@LPNE.org

DPDem...@centurylink.net

DPrattD...@gmail.com

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Starr
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:06 AM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

 

I vote NO.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Perhaps you are conflating the LNC and staff.

 

If staff finds it useful to put out a press release each day on the issue du jour, let them do it. I am sure that staff is capable of finding some outrage in government to write about.

 

If our candidates want to make public statements, that’s great!

 

As for the LNC, adopting resolutions is a waste of time.

 

If we want the LNC to do something productive, I suggest we focus on hosting candidate training seminars.

 

 

 

Aaron Starr

(805) 583-3308 Home

(805) 404-8693 Mobile

star...@gmail.com

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I imagine many delegates voted for that bylaws change because they didn't want unlibertarian resolutions being passed by the LNC and hoped that requiring supermajority support would prevent this from happening. I imagine they also hoped putting in a delay between when a motion is proposed and when it is adopted would allow time for any unlibertarian language to be spotted and removed or the motion scuttled. 

The LNC itself acted for similar reasons in creating the Advertising & Publications Review Committee to ensure that staff doesn't put out unlibertarian stuff in the name of the party. I don't believe it was our intention to limit the number of press releases or articles they produce whose contents do represent what our party stands for. Likewise I see no reason to assume delegates meant to limit the number of motions passed by the LNC that are clearly in synch with libertarianism. 

Besides spreading more libertarian views in the world by using the virtual soapbox we're standing on by virtue of being the Libertarian National Committee, resolutions also serve another useful purpose. Not saying we have this problem now, but if anyone were to be elected or appointed to the LNC who did not really share the ideas contained in our party's Statement of Principles we would want to know about it, and voting on resolutions provides a good opportunity to see where LNC members stand on various issues. If an LNC member didn't want to uphold the Non-Aggression Principle on various issues, they might not appreciate this transparency, and an obvious way for them to seek to avoid it would be to discourage the LNC from voting on resolutions about the issues of the day at all.

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                         RealR...@earthlink.net

                                 (415) 625-FREE

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Aaron Starr wrote:

Yes, the Party is organized to do that in a number of enumerated ways, but our bylaws specifically discourage the LNC itself from engaging in this particular activity by imposing a higher vote threshold than almost any other activity.

 

There was a time when adopting public policy resolutions seemed to be the LNC’s raison d'être. Fortunately, those days came to an end once the Convention adopted a bylaws change to require a ¾ vote with notice for the LNC to adopt such resolutions and unanimous consent in the absence of notice.

 

 

Aaron Starr

(805) 583-3308 Home

(805) 404-8693 Mobile

star...@gmail.com

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:31 PM
To: Libertarian National Committee list

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-19 : Yemen Resolution

I am fully in support of public policy resolutions.  I am very regretful not to vote yes on this but that one part just bothers me.  I HIGHLY encourage the Chair to make a statement clearly stating our support of not involving ourselves in Yemen and tying it to our Platform and principles.

 

My opinion on public policy resolutions will likely change once someone can demonstrate that such resolutions hurt our PRIMARY purpose which is the give voice to and implement the Statement of Principles.

 

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Aaron Starr <star...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

 

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

We defend your rights

And oppose the use of force

Taxation is theft

 

 

 

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I don't believe that was the intent of the delegates either and my test poll of Region 1 members in this issue in the past overwhelming wanted the LNC to do such things.

Is there any proof that this was the reason behind the change?  If not I think we need to be careful saying that is what they wanted.  It certainly does not appear to be the case for my 9 states.

-Caryn Ann 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below.

Voting "aye":  Demarest, Hewitt, Marsh, McKnight, Moellman, Sarwark, Starchild

 

Voting "nay":  Bilyeu, Goldstein, Hagan, Harlos, Katz, Lark, Mattson

Express Abstention:  Hayes, Redpath

Due to the issues with Yahoo vs. our email list, Jeff Hewitt's vote did not show up in many of your inboxes, but it is documented in the list archives.

With a final vote tally of 7-7, the motion did not meet the 3/4 vote threshold required by Bylaws Article 7.11 to adopt public policy resolutions, so it FAILS.

-Alicia