In Thursday’s edition of the CW, I opened to the Opinions section and found a letter to the editor that included several errors, ranging from contradictions to utter falsehoods.

The statement that President Obama “violated the Constitution by attacking Libya without authorization from Congress” is not true, and neither is the claim that, “[Article 1, Section 8] has been interpreted to either mean a formal declaration of war against a foreign nation or an authorization of military action.” If said interpretation was true, then what purpose does the War Powers Resolution serve?

In 1973, Congress passed “The War Powers Resolution,” which allows the president to commit our troops to action for up to 60 days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period) without any Congressional authorization, so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. As of now, Obama has adhered to both requirements and is therefore in good standing with the Constitution.

The author makes a daring attempt to make President Bush’s entry to Iraq seem more tolerable than Obama’s to Libya, but as mentioned before, Libyan intervention is not expected to last longer than 60 days – therefore, it doesn’t need Congressional approval. Because the Iraq War was going to last longer than two months, Bush needed Congressional approval. If, on May 19, we are not withdrawing from Libya, and if Congress hasn’t authorized force, then a legitimate case will be made against the legality of this attack.

Lastly, Chapin contradicts himself by asserting “…the president unilaterally attacked another country…” and, “He consulted with the United Nations….” I’ll also point out that we have NATO forces fighting alongside us, so how is this a unilateral attack? The author might be a political science and history major, but he failed to display it with that letter.

Chris Brummond is a freshman majoring in political science.