-
The Biggest Fool of All
June 17, 2013 | 119 comments
-
Intervention Temptation
June 13, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Korean Déjà Vu
June 11, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Turkey Is Different
June 10, 2013 | 18 comments
-
Religion Living Dangerously
June 6, 2013 | 22 comments
Special Report
Unconstitutional Authority
The president is in noncompliance with the War Powers Resolution about a war everyone knows is a war except the one calling the shots.
Presidents routinely claim the authority to take America into war. Congresses just as routinely fail to prevent presidents from doing so. President Barack Obama, a one-time law professor, is proving to be no different.
First he ignored the Constitution’s clear division of powers. Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power… to declare war.” Declare means initiate.
The Founders were unambiguous. John Jay complained that dubious motives often led kings “to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”
However, the Constitution solved this problem. The president’s authority was “in substance much inferior” to that of the English monarch, declared Alexander Hamilton: “It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces… while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war.” James Wilson explained that the power to start wars had been transferred to Congress: “It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is in the legislature at large.”
For good reason the Founders intended to allow presidents to repel sudden attacks. The president also may initiate limited military action not intended to create a state of war — killing Osama bin Laden, attempting to rescue hostages in Iran.
There will be some gray areas between the two poles, but most cases are easy to judge. Three years of brutal conflict with North Korea and China was not a “police action.” It was a war. Similarly, three months of attempting to overthrow the Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi is not a “kinetic military action.” It is a war.
President Obama had an obligation to go to Congress before he intervened in Libya.
Nevertheless, he ordered the bombing of Libyan military forces and installations without legislative approval. Still, he acted to comply with the War Powers Resolution, which set the clock ticking on March 19. The alarm went off two months later, when the WPR required the president either to end hostilities or win congressional authorization.
The U.S. had spent two months killing Libyan personnel, destroying Libyan materiel, and attempting to overthrow the Libyan government. The secretary of defense had admitted that if he was a Libyan being targeted by American weapons, he probably would perceive it as a war. The secretary of state extolled Washington’s contribution to the war effort while lobbying the Europeans to do more.
However, the president explained to Congress that the U.S. wasn’t actually doing much at all — just some “limited” operations in a “supporting” role. Really nothing to worry about or even notice. Certainly not enough to call a war. Legislators should just go back to their offices and let him get on with his splendid little kinetic military action!
In a rare bipartisan moment, legislators fought back. Plans for a pro-war resolution in the Senate foundered when support proved lacking. The House nearly passed a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) demanding withdrawal. House Speaker John Boehner diverted votes to a sickly substitute that still criticized the president. Moreover, on Tuesday the speaker challenged President Obama to comply with the WPR.
The president has responded with more obfuscation. The White House released a 32-page report, a propaganda document filled with unintended humor. For instance, it restated the unfounded claim of impending massacres — essentially the humanitarian equivalent of WMDs in Iraq. The president claimed that intervention in the civil war shows “the people of the Middle East and North Africa that America stands with them at a time of momentous transition,” even though the administration merely scolded the government of Bahrain and hesitated to do even that to the government of Syria.
Moreover, the document warned of the possible “spread of violence and instability in a region pivotal to our security interests.” If North Africa is “pivotal to our security interests,” is there any place which is not? Libya has a small population, poor economy, and modest oil reserves. It is located between two other unstable nations which had their own popular revolutions earlier this year. To the south lies a continent where even Washington policymakers have trouble concocting alleged “security” interests. No wonder outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that America had no “vital interests” at stake in Libya’s civil war.
The administration glossed over the fact that it used a clear bait and switch: the United Nations resolution authorized action to protect civilians and the president asserted that the U.S. was not engaged in regime change. Indeed, he explained: The experience in Iraq “is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.” Now, however, he is demanding Gaddafi’s ouster. As Paul Pillar notes, it is “nonsensical” to try to divorce the supposed military goal of protecting civilians from the overriding diplomatic goal of ousting Gaddafi.
Worse, after having put American and alliance credibility on the line for at best peripheral, even frivolous interests, the administration claimed that “NATO’s credibility would be damaged with significant consequences for U.S., European, and global security” if Congress terminated Washington’s participation. Actually, it isn’t clear what those consequences would be, since NATO has little credibility apart from America’s role. The real problem of credibility is the fact that the Europeans want to play act as a world power, but don’t want to spend the money or risk the casualties necessary to do so.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (104) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/17/unconstitutional-authority
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
- The Mole in Don Draper
- Once Upon a Time in the West
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 6.17.11 @ 6:43AM
There were several very vocal voices against President Bush when the US got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush had the approval of Congress, yet still he was branded a warmonger. Now we have President Obama getting involved in Libya and telling Congress to pound sand. I'm not holding my breath for those same people to brand Obama a warmonger.
Intelligent Design| 6.17.11 @ 7:11AM
The so-called commander-in-chief has our Air Force bombing and killing people in a foreign country. Sure sounds like a war to me.
And why are we doing it? To protect Libyan rebels with terrorist connections from being killed by Gaddafi, who is also an enemy of the U.S.. The United States should simply step aside and let them kill each other.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.17.11 @ 8:10AM
Yes! Aside from his failure to fire the incompetent Jim Webb Ronald Reagan's worse mistake was helping end the Iran-Iraq war. We should have profited by arming both sides and encouraged the bloodletting to go on for generations.
Intelligent Design| 6.19.11 @ 2:32PM
Congress should cut funding for Libya, and I understand Boehner has mentioned this possibility. We should also exit Iraq and Afghanistan, and stay out of Yemen, Syria, Egypt, etc. Let the Muslims fight and kill each other. So long as those countries are Islamic, they will continue to be cesspools mired in the 7th century, and unfit for the 21st. Congress should also ban all immigration from the Islamic states, and all immigration by Muslims from any country. Islam is inherently subversive to our Bill of Rights, and freedom everywhere.
A Real Professor| 6.17.11 @ 7:50AM
Please stop calling President Obama a "professor," a rank he did not attain and for which he was not qualified. He was merely an Instructor, the effective equivalent of a graduate student hired part-time without a Ph.D. It may seem petty to harp on this, but why should we exaggerate his expertise?
Michael Tomlinson| 6.17.11 @ 8:13AM
Thank you. Obama was a failure at teaching and was unable to gain tenure.
If we were privy to his college, university and law school records we'd find the academically challenged beneficiary of affirmative action who benefitted from the soft racism of Democrat low expectations for minorities.
David T| 6.17.11 @ 11:55AM
You're being awfully hard on the "skinny kid with the funny name."
He graduated magna cum laude from HLS--it's a fact because Wikipedia quotes some hack from the UK Guardian who says so.
Also, this is from Fox Butterfield, NY Times, February 6, 1990, on BHO's election to Harvard Law Review::
"Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.
Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."
I'm sure our future president was from the half that was chosen on the basis of grades.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 1:54AM
Actually, in talking with a friend of mine who was a graduate of Harvard Law, routinely over 60% of the classes graduate with honors, most by padding their GPAs with classes from the school of education.
So, graduating from HLS---the World's BEST LAW SCHOOL--- with Honors is not all that difficult. AOA, the Medical school honors society from which all honors graduates from Medical school that I know of spring, accepts only 15% of medical students.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 1:50AM
That's not quite true, Real Professor.
This is from the University of Chicago Law School itself:
"Media Inquiries
The University of Chicago Law School handles media requests through the University of Chicago News Office. The Law School is happy to work with the media to provide access to our faculty members, who are experts on myriad subjects, or to provide comment on news stories where appropriate. For all media inquiries, please contact Sarah Galer at sgaler@uchicago.edu or 773 702 8365.
Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
He was offered tenure track positions several times, and was considerd an equal to Professors. Not a mere "Instructor," as I was once at Alabama's Medical School.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 1:51AM
Sorry: "considered."
Mimi| 6.17.11 @ 7:54AM
What we have here is clearly.....A President who has no intention of playing by the rules. He had 60 days to go to the peoples representatives and state his motives and expected outcomes.
The question is the BIG ...WHY ?? Go plead your case...let the APPLES fall where they may
At the debate Michele Bachmann said..." We still don't know WHO we are helping in Libia" If we had a trustworthy, honest player in the Whitehouse , things like this wouldn't occur. This is all strange and an anathma......He is over the LINE and against the NORM, with this STUFF!!
Michael Tomlinson| 6.17.11 @ 8:16AM
A muscular foreign policy doesn't mean an illegal foreign policy or war.
This is a vaginal man trying to prove he's got cajones by defending Muslim's sympathetic to anti-American terrorism (Carter II & Clinton II).
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 1:56AM
Exactly, Michael. He is sideing with a group of terrorists that hate America against another terrorist who hates America; the difference being that Daffy is someone we have an understanding with after beating his brains in, whereas the rebels are not beholden to us.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:14AM
Sorry, "siding."
George S| 6.17.11 @ 8:18AM
The war making powers of the president in the Constitution can be argued forever; but they were written at a time when an invasion consisted of wind powered ships inching across vast oceans or armies marching hundreds of miles. Congress had at least some time to argue or debate and then pass a resolution to declare war. Today, technology has made that buffer zone practically disappear, requiring literally split second decisions to engage in combat. Since the Constitution gives the president the power to defend it, it is only a matter of time before the Congress becomes less important in the declaration process for all possible instances (especially since split second decisions are the worst enemy to 535 professional ass-coverers).
That's what we are seeing in Libya. Congress making a political choice to steer clear as they see no positive outcomes to the conflict and, at the same time, not wanting to risk blame for what may occur in the absence of US power.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 8:33AM
Wrong, the founding generation had to deal with the imminent threat of Indian attacks, and yet still placed the power of war with the congress. Further there is no possibility today of a nation launching an attack on us without our knowing. Even Pearl Harbor could have been avoided as FDR knew that the Japanese fleet was sailing and refused to put the navy on high alert.
I frankly find your assertion of a split second decision silly, and lacking any basis in reality.
As for declaring war, the president may act in defense, but it will be clear that we are being attacked, and the congress may then declare war, allowing the president to go from defense to offense.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, the War Powers Act is a clear violation of the US constitution (dead thing that it is), in that the congress has no authority to re-delegate powers in any way.
George S| 6.17.11 @ 9:37AM
Split second is a metaphor. Maybe 2-minutes would be a better descriptor: "Mr. President there's a Chinese ICBM on the way... fired from a sub outside Los Angeles ... should hit there in 2 minutes... shall I convene the Congress for a declaration of war?"
Also, I have no knowledge that Congress has declared war on an Indian tribe. My recollection is that the army was sent to defend settlers against attack, much the same way the Border Patrol is charged with employing deadly force to defend themselves against foreign nationals who attempt to resist arrest or purposefully accost US citizens.
If the president acts in response to an attack, how does the Constitution distinguish between defense and offense in order to meet your interpretation? Is a retaliatory strike after we have been hit a defensive maneuver or does it require formal congressional declaration of war? Does the Constitution make exceptions if seeking a formal declaration threatens our survival and has a "Defense to Offense Clause"? Your last paragraph reached the same conclusion I did -- strike now, declare later.
In no way what I wrote was meant to excuse Obama; it was a response to the folly of a congressional declaration in today's world.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 11:50AM
ICBMs?? For this, I will answer that one of the problems of a constitution, is that when a renewal/revisit clause is not put in, it is destined to fail from the beginning, mostly in that allows government to become entrenched, but also in that a laziness is induced. The fact that we do not revisit what is necessary, such as with ICBMs, leads to questions such as the one you placed to me.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 2:38PM
Len - I missed those declarations of war on Indian nations that Congress passed. Your example doesn't exactly refute George's point.
DaveS| 6.18.11 @ 11:23AM
We tried, but the ambassador to the Indian Nation(s) was not available for a woodshed consultation.
John Navratil| 6.17.11 @ 8:22AM
The Congress passes the WPR, post-Nixon as an attempt to corral the President's authority. No President, except this one, has accepted it's legitimacy and it hasn't been tested.
If Congress has a problem, they have the solution - defund the operation. Of course, that would assume they can actually get around to such mundanities as writing a budget.
This is the whining of an ineffective Congress against a profligate President.
roadmaster| 6.17.11 @ 8:23AM
Nothing new here - Obama ignores, dismisses or re-invents the constitution every single day. Unfortunately, most people in this country have no clue what the founding documents are about and as long as they're the recipients of "Obama Money" they could care less.
O'Really keeps demanding welfare takers be submitted to a drug test. A required study of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence would be more effective. For one, they'll learn they have a right to life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness, but NO right to leech off their fellow citizens.
Louis Jenkins| 6.17.11 @ 8:40AM
To old Obama there is no difference between lobbing bombs (at the approval of NATO) and waging war on the small businessman. Obama has rewritten the Constitution as he sees fit, and will continue to do so. The man is insane, and his cronies, those business men who are in line with his thoughts and who've received wealth from public funding, go along with him. We are living with the curse, "May you live in interesting times."
SpiralArchitect| 6.17.11 @ 12:32PM
Most interesting of all, look how many people believe Obummer is doing a great! job & would certainly vote for more Obummer without hesitation.
Albert| 6.17.11 @ 1:56PM
"Obama has rewritten the Constitution as he sees fit..."
Considering President Bozo's speaking abilities, I was under the impression that he was incapable of the written word, much less the re-written word. :-)
DaveS| 6.17.11 @ 8:49AM
I submit that a not small part of the problem is the Commander-in-Chief (CiC) title and its use. There is no CiC until the Congress directs the President to be the CiC. So, if we think the CiC is a continuous, post-inauguration, title and authority it is no wonder that Presidents feel they have the standing CiC title and may act uninhibited. If Dennis Kucinich can laud Bush for at least going to Congress for Iraq authorization, then the indictment of BHO is sound to the ears of liberals. The President may be 'a' CiC - he is not 'the' CiC.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 9:01AM
Right you are Dave. The problem is that the lie of inherent powers of the president has been perpetuated for so long that it is hard to educate people, particularly those sheep-like folk who need a strong leader to follow. Those who actually bother to make a study of this will see that the founders transferred many of the powers that been considered executive to the legislature, such as regulating the military, providing for the military in the first place, among others, and then ultimately making whatever laws are necessary to do so.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 3:05PM
Dave, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the notion you assert that "there is no CiC until the Congress directs the President to be the CiC." The Court has reaffirmed that the President's power as Commander in Chief flows directly from the Constitution, not from any grant by Congress.
"The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. " Dept. of Navy v. Egan, 484 US 518, 527 (1988).
"While Congress holds express authority to regulate public and private dealings with other nations in its war and foreign commerce powers, in foreign affairs the President has a degree of independent authority to act. See, e.g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 109, 92 L. Ed. 568, 68 S. Ct. 431 (1948) ("The President . . . possesses in his own right certain powers conferred by the Constitution on him as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ in foreign affairs"); Youngstown , supra, at 635-636, n. 2, 96 L Ed 1153, 72 S Ct 863 (Jackson, J., concurring in judgment and opinion of Court) (the President can "act in external affairs without congressional authority" (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright [*415] Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 81 L. Ed. 255, 57 S. Ct. 216 (1936))); First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, supra, at 767, 32 L Ed 2d 466, 92 S Ct 1808 (the President has "the lead role . . . in foreign policy" (citing Sabbatino, supra)); Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 188, 125 L. Ed. 2d 128, 113 S. Ct. 2549 (1993) (the President has "unique responsibility" for the conduct of "foreign and military affairs"). "
American Insurance Assn v. Garamendi, 539 US 396, 395 (2003).
Len| 6.17.11 @ 3:24PM
Ah...the good old nine oracles, of course they are exempt from error, we all know that. As Jefferson said, they are the sappers of the constitution.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 3:29PM
I should add, the only real authorities concerning the US constitution are those who were the proponents of it prior to ratification (what did they say concerning it?), and those who ratified it (what was their understanding?). After that, everything else is meaningless (with minor exceptions). Really, how long did it take before we had the Alien and Sedition Acts and a central bank by a good number of the very people involved in the crafting or ratifying of the US constitution? Just goes to show that flip-flopping is nothing new, and ultimately it is the pursuit of power and/or wealth that matters.
BD57| 6.18.11 @ 6:16PM
Rejecting authority you don't like doesn't advance your argument.
With that said, the courts aren't the place to have this argument - they have enough power, inviting them to decide whether this is a "war" or not is a fool's errand.
Congress has the power to reign in this President. The argument against using it is purely political .... "if it turns out badly, we'll get blamed."
Well, yes, you will, Congressman .... what's your point?
As in "you bozos are supposed to be leading, not reading opinion polls & worrying about your political viability."
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 3:48PM
Len, I know you're nostalgic for the Articles of Confederation, but the Anti-Federalists lost the argument, just as the Confederates lost the war. And, since we can't ask Madison and Hamilton to address issues that come up with regard to actual cases and controversies that arise under the Constitution, we have a judiciary that serves that function. Deal with it.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 4:36PM
For those of you missing it, what RCV is doing here is repeating the old lie that there is not sufficient evidence from the time of the framing and ratifying of the US constitution to know what the original understanding is, so now we just let the 9 oracles fill in the blanks. Thankfully that lie has been put to rest, and Rob Natelson has done some of the best work on this. I highly recommend him.
http://constitution.i2i.org/about/
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 5:00PM
For those of you missing it, what Len is doing here is abrogating to himself and a handful of dead folks we are unable to consult the task of deciding issues that arise under the Constitution, which the Constitution itself assigns to the judiciary.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 5:07PM
Hamilton, The Federalist #78:
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:02AM
You know, folks, I'm just a shrink, but the Army exists inbetween wars. Someone has to be the Commander in Chief of it in peacetime, as well. I believe that it would be the POTUS, as the Constitution assumes no other and the writers knew who the first President was going to be.
I believe those who claim otherwise are engaging in pilpul.
Now, this does not allow Obama to engage in "kinetic action" in Libya sans a declaration of war from Congress. Surely, there was no "imminent danger" that required the President to act independent of Congressional approval here, no "ICBMs are approaching" scenario.
That's the problem a lot of Conservatives are having trouble wrapping their heads around, including me. Compare this to the approval activity that W sought, and he was thought to be rash. By W's standards, Obama is just staring into the abyss.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.17.11 @ 5:24PM
I don't bother with silly if anyone doubts the genius of the constitutional-expert-in-chief on the president vis-a-vis the commander-in-chief matters, wait until the constitutional-expert-in-chief geniusly opines on the founding fathers' intent to establish a democracy matters, not to mention wait until the constitutional-expert-in-chief geniusly opines on the legality of abortion matters, on not bothering to bother to broach the true area of expertise of the multifaceted genius, where the real-Christian-love-in-chief compassionately justifys abortion matters, on not bothering with silly vis-a-vis silly matters.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 5:57PM
Skip, Zzzzzzzzzzzzz......you're nauseating even those who agree with you with this drivel. Grow up.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.20.11 @ 11:25AM
I don't bother with posts claiming to at least belong to the party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born and abhorring the tea party for lacking any intelligence and any real Christian love and any compassion on sanctimoniously determining what constitutes a nauseating post and what constitutes drivel as the devout churchgoing arbitrator of American Spectator matters.
DaveS| 6.18.11 @ 10:52AM
Dear RCV: let me quote from the beginning of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." You forgot to mention the 'when called into service' part of the excerpt. My assertion stands as is.
RCV| 6.18.11 @ 2:00PM
Read the Federalist, Dave. Hamilton makes clear that the called into service clause refers only to the militia, not the army or navy, which is always in service to the national government, unlike the state militia.
DaveS| 6.20.11 @ 6:26AM
Reading is fundamental. Check out your own script AND the Constitution. The 'and of the militia' part is not a separate calling but the same calling as the Army and Navy. You tried, and failed.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.20.11 @ 11:31AM
I don't bother with silly hypocrisy of not being able to consult a handful of dead people one post and telling people to read the writings left by these same dead people the next post on the hypocrisy of being the American Spectator arbitrator of which posts are nauseating matters.
DonW| 6.17.11 @ 8:59AM
The congress is a joke. We are ruled by a bureaucratic and despotic regime, except when the congress is complicit. The TEA Party revolution should demand nothing less than defunding and abolishing the Commerce, Energy, EPA, Education Departments and more. We just need to rid ourselves of this despot in the White House and his comrades in the Senate so we can restore our Constitution.
JimH| 6.17.11 @ 9:18AM
The president has traditionally had a fairly free hand with the use of the Navy and Marines. Using the Army required congress. The independent Air Force, a fairly recent historical development is still being fought over.
tsd| 6.17.11 @ 10:40AM
I am sorry, but has our president shown he is capable of doing his job on any level? He talks about things, he accomplishes almost nothing positive. He has created more debt than all previous people in his position combined. We are in more wars than ever before. Our position in the world is dropping like a rock and all he can do is shovel out more bull excrement that we are suppose to accept as the ultimate wisdom. What moron could support this guy??? I do not see color... I see abject failure in the guy.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 10:49AM
The President intervened in Libya to stop the wholesale slaughter of civilians. He has the prerogative to intervene in emergency situations when our national interests are at stake, just as Lincoln did. Of course, libertarians like Bandow don't believe in the state, so they don't believe in the concept of national interest. This is the political philosophy of the Ron Paul loons.
I do agree however that once the emergency is over, the President must be authorized by Congress to continue hostilities. If he continues hostilities without a Congressional declaration of war, he is subject to impeachment.
Al Adab| 6.17.11 @ 11:58AM
There was and is no threat to the United States from those we are attacking in Libya. Should there be a debate about "humanitarian action"? Certainly, look at Sudan. Since the United States possesses the power to act, that is always an option. Nonetheless, our governing process requires adherence to certain proceedures which must be respected if we are to continue to be a nation of laws.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 12:32PM
Removing Khadafi from power is in our national interest.
Al Adab| 6.17.11 @ 1:06PM
Who ultimately makes that decision and by what means do we decide? We have a Commander in Chief, not a dictator.
Butch | 6.17.11 @ 4:21PM
Am I "mis-remembering," or didn't Khadafi voluntarily give up his WMD after Saddam got toppled?
Tony R| 6.17.11 @ 7:04PM
So pronounceth Vern.
Any more absolutes Vern?
shipley130| 6.17.11 @ 7:48PM
Not really. Khadafi ended his terrorist support years ago. We have much bigger enemies to expend our energy on.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 9:32PM
So you guys seriously think Khadafi is a nice guy? Sheesh! What short memories.....
Eisenhower| 6.18.11 @ 2:10AM
Yes short memories in deed, in 2003 the UN removed its sanctions against Gaddafi. In 2008, Sec. Rice became the first Secretary of State to visit since 53.
"Just as Libya's concessions came in stages, so too did the incentives it received. In February 2004, U.S. officials reopened a diplomatic mission in Tripoli and lifted the travel ban preventing Americans from visiting Libya. Two months later, the diplomatic mission was upgraded to a liaison office. Just over a year later came the announcement that the United States would lift its sanctions and restore full diplomatic relations with Libya."
"In October 2007 Libya was voted onto the UN Security Council as a nonpermanent member. Though Washington did not endorse Libya's candidacy, it did not block it either, as it had with previous attempts by Libya to join the Security Council in 1995 and 2000."
http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya...../p10855#p4
Libya has not been threat to us or an enemy to us for sometime now. And to embroil ourselves in another foreign conflict for "humanitarian" reasons, when we already have our hands full with a failing economy, and other real threats like Al Quaeda, is not conservative. Likewise a foreign policy based on caution and restaint is not liberal it is republican.
Vern Crisler | 6.18.11 @ 1:23PM
Yes, it was all pretty shameful. You don't coddle terrorist; you execute them. I'm sure the Lockerbie victims and their families are grateful that Khadafi was "rehabilitated" but the UN.
Vern Crisler | 6.18.11 @ 1:24PM
by the UN
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:05AM
Not necessarily, Vern, if his replacement is worse. And his replacement probably WILL be worse.
This would not be true of Syria's Assad, or the Mullahs in Iran. But Obama, knowing that removal of those two swine(s) would help US interests, refuses to put that on his to-do list.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 11:59AM
By "national interests", you mean the oil companies. just like Lincoln acted on behalf of the railroads, and the manufacturing interests of the north, not to mention the fact that the South was supplying 80-85 of the federal revenue.
Of course what you are asserting is an absurd lie, particularly that someone has the right to force people to accept a government based on an abstract concept of a "nation". That somehow people must serve the state, rather than the state serving the people, in short you prefer tyranny, and collectivism, rather than liberty and self-government.
BTW, while the "purer" libertarian position may be no state at all, there are a good number such as myself, who are minarchists, which means government is restricted to a justice system, along with a non-monopoly police/military force.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 12:29PM
Well, at least you've admitted that you don't believe in our national interest. If your ideological bedfellows had been in charge in Lincoln's day, blacks would still be saying "massa."
If you were a consistent libertarian, you'd join your fellow Lew Rockwell loons in opposing all state action, no matter how minimal. A minarchist is just an anarchist who is afraid to go all the way.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 2:06PM
Vern, my "national interest" is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not as you've admitted corporations. Glad to see that you've admitted that you want blood spilled so that monied interests can benefit.
Warrior | 6.17.11 @ 5:24PM
So your revision of history is that Lincoln did it all to end slavery? Public schools really suck.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:09AM
I thought Lincoln was pretty clear that he did it for preservation of the Union, Warrior, and I went to a public school (a long time ago, when the Hebraic race was still a force to be reckoned with in Chicago suburban public schools, with concommitent academic standards).
You are right about current public schools. I took my daughter out before she had to write an essay on "why the election of Barack Obama was going to be important to her personally." Blech.
Tony R| 6.17.11 @ 7:09PM
So, Vern sets the rules on what organizations you must join to have an opinion. And, he displays his lack of education on the civil war's casus belli.
Way to go Vern.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 9:34PM
I have an essay on the Civil War on my website called "Against neo-Confederates." Might do you Lost Cause southerners some good to read it.
JP| 6.17.11 @ 1:05PM
But he didn't prevent the slaughter. The WPA has nothing to do with a President's intentions and everything to do with granting approval of Congress before enter the US into long term military operations. All the President has to do is brief Congress; Congress will then debate the issue pro vs con and vote the auhtorize funds. It's that simple. Congress gives the President 90 days to comply after the operations begin.
If the President fails to comply, Congress could do many things:
1)Vote to automatically defund the operations
2)Withhold funding in other parts of the budget
3)Vote to impeach the President for not complying with the law.
Reagan also ran into problems with the War Powers Act. Eventually every President will. It is a thin line between excutive and legislative authority. I remember in 1988 when Reagan sent the Navy into to keep the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf open. Congress, then ran by the Dems, said he wasn't authorized to do so without thier approval. Reagan ignored them and finished up the operation before the 90 days were up.
Obama has shown no inclination to obey the letter or the spirit of the law. The Dems had 2 years to repeal the law (they had a lock on both Houses and the WH). But I think the President truly believes he is above the law.
This operation has made many nervous. NATO is running it; however, NATO doesn't have the final say so. Congress and the President do - jointly. Otherwise, we have a Constitution? Being part of NATO doesn't negate our constitution. We have significant forces deployed in the Med. And if need be, NATO can and will deploy them. The President had better get a grip before he becomes a victim of circumstances. If the courts side with Congress, the President will have to comply.
Thom| 6.17.11 @ 6:42PM
Vern,
You are making the case that the President is the sole arbiter as to the matter of volunteering to engage the nation into “war” without regard to enumerated Congressional powers to “declare war” which is quite a different statement than that made by just one man. From a purely practical point of view, this is like saying you can be a little bit at “war” and then change our mind to not be at “war” while ignoring the other side of the equation here, the ones we attacked. That sounds an awful lot like being a little bit “pregnant” to me and I am no Libertarian.
Your belief that we are protecting “civilians” is not supported by the facts because this is a civil war between “tribes”, both sides are killing so called “civilians” and we are ignoring the same “slaughter” in Syria. You don’t seem to be able to answer the question of who gets to determine when the emergency is over and why any President would ever want to have it end given the free rein it gives him over Congressional powers.
I’m sorry but this just doesn’t pass the smell test regardless who the President is.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 9:43PM
Obviously, the President is the one who decides if an emergency requires immediate action. He, however, doesn't have ULTIMATE power to decide. When Congress comes together to consider the matter, THEY decide whether the President's action was warranted or not.
The War Powers act is unconstitutional (I agree with Len about something). There can be no restraint on the president when he exercises his military prerogative in an emergency situation affecting our national interest. The restraint can only come from Congress, when they either affirm or deny his actions. If he refuses to abide by Congress's decision, he is subject to impeachment.
The question whether hostilities was justified in Libya is a matter for Congress to decide. Obama is on Constitutional thin ice in deciding to ignore Congress on this issue.
So even though I supported his actions at the beginning (as did Sarah Palin), I would also support impeachment if he fails to abide by the Constitution's reservation of War and Peace to the Congress. Assuming he even knows about that part of the Constitution.
Conservative Bob| 6.17.11 @ 10:58AM
Kosovo, Libya, most of the cold war, we have long provided the muscle for European problems while they despise and denigrate us. Europe has looked down its nose at us, spent lavishly on all manner of social programs acted directly in defiance of our interest often trading with our enemies against our sanctions while we foot the bill in blood and treasure for their defense.
What interest of any kind do we have in Libya? Recall how this unfolded, our CIC dithered while the rebels were decimated. France thumped its chest, Cameron made bold pronouncements and neither had the military to underwrite their illusions of grandeur. Shamed by his SOS and a NSA advisor Obama boldly went where he previously feared to go.. as noted above to prove he had stones.
Europe is dead, choking on its profligate social spending; long dead are the allies that joined with us to form NATO against the Soviet menace. Over time they were happy to live under the protection of our military strength, all the while reducing their contribution in men and treasure. Then as the coddled children of our allies demonstrated in the streets against the very shield we provided them a new generation came to power. Still anxious for us to protect them but despising our “war mongering’ ways all the time and further reducing their military expenditures. Until today all that is left is a shell, they remember their long ago history of being powerful nations while the only real military they have aside from their unionized camouflaged fatigue wearing social clubs is US.
If Europe wants this fight let them pay the bills, provide the men and material. If they lack the hardware I am sure we could sell them some really great new and used equipment.
While the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, the issue here in not the adventurism of our boy president it his and his parties continued willingness to spend our treasure and might in someone else’s fight. If the French want to pretend they are a military power or the Italians or the any of the rest, they can put their pilots in our aircraft and if necessary fly them off the deck of our aircraft carriers. All they have to do is pay for it at our cost plus a reasonable mark up for R&D, maintenance and of course profit. Want to lob a few Cruise missiles at CnC centers in Libya? We have a special if you by them in 100 packs.
It is time to stop fighting Europe’s battles. Want to play big time world power? Build your own damn navies and armies. Until then we will rent them the hardware they need to inflate their pompous egos.
We accept gold, oil and tangible assets.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:11AM
Correct, CB. I am tired of defending the "You're a Peon."
Our interest is in destroying sharia advocacy. For this, Europeans are worthless.
darcy| 6.19.11 @ 1:45PM
Well said, Occam's Tool: "Our interest is in destroying sharia advocacy;" yours and mine, perhaps -- but Obama's? This Libyan action and countless other words and actions of his tell against it. In fact, the evidence mounts that he intends to facilitate sharia's advance in the world.
ckolol | 6.17.11 @ 11:45AM
Please help to prevent that another Hitler is borned. Just that. Anythink else doesn’t matters. Read this to realize why i’m writting this down: http://www.flockee.com/opinion.....s-style-1/
Al Adab| 6.17.11 @ 11:47AM
...and, while this war continues and the debate foes on, the federal government is willfully avoiding its' constitutionally mandated duty to protect the States from invasion. That is one of the enumerated powers - the reason for being - of the national government. The states are taking action to protect themselves and find themselves under fire from their own government, AZ and from a foreign government (Mexico) in the case of GA. Have we not reached that "alter or abolish it" clause as the government refuses to take action in its' sworn duty? The Federal government is acting in contradiction of the express powers for which it was formed.
shipley130| 6.17.11 @ 11:56AM
Not just Mexico filing suit against Georgia. Many central and south American countries are involved with the lawsuit.
shipley130| 6.17.11 @ 11:54AM
When Obama took action in Libya in the manner he did, he pulled the US military into US law breaking action. Those Navy admirals had no idea that Obama had not consulted Congress. It's time for congress to uphold their end of the oath, now.
Len| 6.17.11 @ 12:01PM
They didn't?? Please, no excuse for a military that swears to protect and uphold the US constitution, yet violates it all the time. We haven't been constitutionally at war since WW2, and that could have been avoided.
Al Adab| 6.17.11 @ 2:33PM
Raises an interesting question. What is the responsibility of the military to a commander in chief, who they are sworn also to obey, (lawful orders of those appointed over me) when his orders become illegal? Who gets to decide? Does the military have an obligation to remove an illegal superior officer? Is there a distinction between that and mutiny? Wow you have opened a real can of worms there.
shipley130| 6.17.11 @ 7:56PM
Here is the specific oath of the US military. Notice the Constitution is first.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
shipley130| 6.17.11 @ 7:53PM
I do see your point on this, but at least POTUS has consulted the congress in the past. Another difference is the consulting of the UN and Saudi Arabia but not congress. Declaration of war in past conflicts has been on shaky constitutional ground, but Obama bypassed the Richter Scale on this one.
markinalpine| 6.17.11 @ 12:43PM
I served in the US army for several years in logistics units. Contrary to what the "never served" obama (sic) claims, service people in support operations are often put in harms way due to the nature of support operations, even when conducted during peacetime. Did my friend who died when the cargo helecopter in which he and 13 others were riding crashed not sacrifice anything because it was "only" a peacetime training mission?
Albert| 6.17.11 @ 1:52PM
A DEMOCRAT violating the LAW?! INCONCEIVABLE!
YeloStalyn| 6.17.11 @ 2:57PM
Best. Comment. Ever.
John Navratil| 6.17.11 @ 3:49PM
Albert,
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
(The Princess Bride)
ds80| 6.17.11 @ 4:19PM
Can someone answer this: are any of our servicemembers on duty in the Libya theater of "non-hostilities" getting combat pay?
Thom| 6.17.11 @ 6:02PM
Ds80, good point but I suspect it depends on what the definition of "a combat zone" is since we are in a World Wide War on Terror and almost everyone is serving in some "combat zone" if they stay in some places long enough to meet the min requirement to start drawing the pay. I suspect the Med is not considered a “combat zone” yet thus just dropping bombs on Libya and then returning to the peaceful confines of the Med not rise to the letter of the regs. That’s the way it was when I was in. You had to stay long enough in a designated “war zone” to start collecting the pay. The question is, is Libya a “war zone”? I think we know King Obama’s answer to that.
shipley130| 6.17.11 @ 8:01PM
I don't officially know what is going on, but I think it has been reported that rescue forces (SAR) are involved. Feel free to check out what Search and Rescue in a combat zone entails. You might be surprised by just how involved that detail it is.
Thom| 6.17.11 @ 6:21PM
There is a well healed legal precedent in our laws and much of the rest of the world that says something to the effect that if you hold the “coat” of a mugger you are just as guilty of his actions as he is. This concept manifests itself in numerous ways throughout our criminal laws and I suspect most people agree with the concept of accessory before, during and after the fact.
From the stand point of Libya, we’ve done far more than hold the coat of the current “muggers” and are under international law subject to being held to the same standard even if we were just holding their coat. In strictly legalistic terms Libya has every right to defend itself against both the “muggers” and their supporters. Practical matters may never see that though bear fruit but if the Mexican narcotic syndicate were attacking across the border of Texas and being directly supported by Venezuela with arms, ammo and other logistical support that was deemed necessary to sustain said operation, the current King and his Bozo lawyers would not be standing up and making the case that Venezuela was not at “war” with us and that a “war” wasn’t going on. Of course, I could be wrong there.
Pragmatically speaking, we are on very dangerous grounds here and should the Libyans attack us in response to this what do you think then would be the justification for escalating this further? Might makes right has worked a lot of mischief in our history and there is some risk here of even more.
Vern Crisler | 6.17.11 @ 9:46PM
There is so much moral equivalency in this, it's hard to answer. Our military are muggers? What an evil thing to say.
Andy Texan | 6.17.11 @ 6:45PM
Impeach the Tyrant immediately!!!
Nite| 6.17.11 @ 9:18PM
Obama thinks he is above the law. A good question would be is why he is so stubborn about this issue? What is going on that we are not aware of?
LibertyAtStake | 6.17.11 @ 9:39PM
Boehner drew the line in the sand. Barry p*$$ed on it. Boehner needs to call a vote to remove funding. Period.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
NJK| 6.17.11 @ 9:59PM
Speaker Boehner better do his job under the Constitution, or he will be complicit in this. Golfing with him is not the answer. We want this stopped.
darcy| 6.19.11 @ 1:56PM
The old saying is that you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Theoretically, Boehner should be at the very least, if not an "enemy," an opponent of Obama, as Boehner represents the (now a laughable concept in that it doesn't exist -- with any teeth) opposition party. So Obama is keeping Boehner under his wing and muting whatever opposition-leanings he might have had on Libya and his desire to rally his caucus. Proving, I dare say, that Boehner is both a lackey and a wimp.
underwears clearance | 6.18.11 @ 2:01AM
Big-Discount on underwears
High quality but wholesale prices!
First come,First get!http://www.summeringbrands.com
Ore Gone| 6.18.11 @ 4:30AM
Lets stop the money going to Libya and spend it on our own neighbors and friends here that have been devastated from tornados and floods. The europeans are spending our money to avoid their own socialist financial meltdowns.
Soljer Blue| 6.18.11 @ 1:03PM
"Today, technology has made that buffer zone practically disappear, requiring literally split second decisions to engage in combat."
Please, George S. explain for me where was the need for a "split second decision" regarding US combat presence in Libya? Was this middle eastern super power about to use its high tech weaponry to leap across the Sahara and the Atlantic Ocean and dump a nuke on DC?
The War Powers Act of '73 was passed to take the 'buffer zone' issue into account. Barack Obama has simply demonstrated once again his contempt for Congress, and -- whatever you think of those 535 individuals -- for the Constitution and the law of the land. He has bypassed, ignored, even perhaps violated the Constitution ever since he first ran for president.
Consider this: in light of this demonstrated intent to govern -- some would say 'rule' -- as he damwell pleases, what makes anyone think he would peacefully step aside if he is defeated in 2012?
If you haven't wondered about that you aren't paying attention.
chris haynes| 6.18.11 @ 3:58PM
According to President Obama, if we launced atomic ICBM's at Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, it wouldnt be hosilities.
Ask your liberal friends if they agree. That will start hostilites.
Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:13AM
Cool. Is nuking Mecca a "kinetic action?" (I would think it would not be, since the destruction would not be done by the "kinetic" energy of the projectile at all.)
Jack in Wi.| 6.19.11 @ 2:38PM
He should be impeached immediatly: I don't care if he has the votes to be convicted. It is the right constutional thing to do. He is declaring war without the authorization of Congress.
BD57| 6.19.11 @ 4:55PM
I think this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
weddingdresses | 6.20.11 @ 2:25AM
He should be impeached immediatly: I don't care if he has the votes to be convicted. It is the right constutional thing to do. He is declaring war without the authorization of Congress.
NJK| 6.20.11 @ 12:34PM
happycamp,
Are you serious? He's young at heart? He's a sociopath. He's dangerous for a country. What world do you live in.
Everyone, nothing is unconstitutional with Obama. If he goes to War, he only needs to change the name to Kinetic Military whatever, or call it Policy and it's no longer a crime. If he sells AK-47's to the drug cartels and two border agents are killed, he and Holder aren't accessories to murder, it is just "Policy, or Bad Policy" if you prefer. All is legal. If he gives Nuclear Secrets to Russia, it is not "Treason" but "Bad Policy." See. It's not as bad as we all think. Being the President is the perfect job for a criminal. He can loot the Treasury call it "Stimulus," and commit all sorts of crimes. Just call it "Policy" and it's now ok.
Stalin was a bank robber, just like Obama.