(This letter to the editor appeared in the Wall Street Journal after the editorial board's op-ed titled "The Kucinich Republicans: The House GOP turns isolationist on Libya and war powers")

I am disappointed by your editorial "The Kucinich Republicans" (June 6) questioning the House of Representatives's rebuke of President Obama's actions in Libya. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but my opposition to President Obama's actions is motivated by the Constitution.

President Obama has the authority to manage a war but not the power to start a war. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution was enacted to fulfill that intent, unless there is: "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." None of these conditions existed with Libya.

Instead, the president argues he couldn't consult with Congress because immediate action was needed to protect civilians from massacre. If true, a surgical engagement in Libya might be justified. But the president's claim is false. He spent one month consulting with NATO, the Arab League and the U.N. Security Council. This fact is inescapable. The president sought permission from foreign leaders but not the U.S. Congress. Yet Congress is expected to pay for his folly even as we strive to cut spending to avoid defaulting on our debts.

On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. President George W. Bush still sought authorization from Congress before going into Afghanistan. Similarly, President Bush sought congressional authorization before invading Iraq. President Bush respected the authority of Congress and the limitations of the Constitution. President Obama does not.

The Constitution is not a list of suggestions; it is the law of the land. If members of Congress do not stand up for Congress's right to declare war, as enumerated in the Constitution, who will?