-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
“Does the War Powers Act mean anything?” ask two lefty law professors, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, in today’s Washington Post.
“If nothing happens,” they warn, “history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president, [Obama], who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.”
Ackerman and Hathaway are in a state of alarm because “this week, the War Powers Act confronts its moment of truth. “Friday will mark the 60th day since President Obama told Congress of his Libyan campaign,” they write.
“If Obama fails to obtain congressional support for his decision within this time limit, he has only one option [under the War Powers Act] — end American involvement within the following 30 days.”
Needless to say, that ain’t gonna happen. Congress isn’t going to act, and the Obama administration isn’t going to abandon our NATO treaty obligations. And so, it would seem, the War Powers Act is history.
Our friend Jim Antle may disagree, but I can only say, “Good riddance!” The War Powers Act has always been an unconstitutional infringement upon the president’s rights and responsibilities as commander in chief. And so, no president has ever allowed himself to be hamstrung by its strictures.
Oh, to be sure, as Ackerman and Hathaway point out, Jimmy Carter’s justice department “affirmed the constitutionality of the 60-day clock.” And Obama administration, likewise, asserted that its Libyan campaign is “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.” But that’s mere rhetorical window dressing designed to assuage the hurt feelings of the left wing.
In point of fact, presidents — even liberal Democrat presidents such as Carter, Clinton and Obama — do what they believe they must do in order to protect and defend the United States of America. And they aren’t much bothered by the unconstitutional War Powers Act.
And if Congress doesn’t like it, then Congress has three very viable options:
1. It can cut off funds for the disputed operation in question.
2. It can make a political issue out of the matter and seek electoral retribution in November.
3. It can impeach the president.
The point is: Congress is not defenseless — spineless perhaps, but not defenseless. And that’s probably a good thing.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/18/good-riddance-to-the-war-power
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
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
Too Many Tims| 5.18.11 @ 1:55PM
And to think those gullible rubes on the Nobel committee awarded him the Peace Prize based on what they thought he would do.
Occam's Tool| 5.18.11 @ 4:14PM
Dear Tim:
see what inbreeding will do to brains?
Thom| 5.18.11 @ 5:20PM
"And so, it would seem, the War Powers Act is history."
Until the Democrats control Congress again.....
"It can cut off funds for the disputed operation in question."
No practical way to actually do this unless an operation is actually separately funded which Libya isn't.
“It can impeach the president.”
There’s a practical consideration here and unfortunately a long history of precedents against this standing up to Supreme Court challenges by the Executive Branch. Simply put Abraham Lincoln got away with running his own private war against fellow citizens for 4 years without a Declaration of War; same for Truman in Korea and LBJ in Vietnam just to mention three really large precedents that cost this nation about 720,000 dead. Only Nixon got restrained by Congress and that cost us the war. Add to this the rather thorny issue that removing the President won’t necessarily end the war especially if the party we are at war with decides it has a vote in the matter.
That’s one of the reasons character is vital in the office of the Presidency and unfortunately most citizens of this nation are more interested in a sugar daddy and rock star for a president rather than someone that can handle the powers invested in them and the wisdom to know when to and not use them.
Should the officers in our military ever take their oath of office seriously you might see less recklessness by any President toward interjecting us into “conflicts other than war” but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Given that only Democrat controlled Congresses apply any of these suggestions to Republican Presidents I think the death of this law is greatly exaggerated at this point. As long as it is on the books it lives in the hearts of those that will use it for political reasons alone.
RJ| 5.18.11 @ 5:49PM
Much more importantly, the Constitution has been thrown out. There is no way the Founding Fathers or any succeeding generation would have approved Presidential use of force without either 1) a threat of imminent attack on the United States or 2) Congressional approval. Neither condition was present when Obama committed US forces to battle in Libya, nor has there been much of an outcry against Obama's unilateral act at war-making. This is strong evidence that the United States is no longer a republic of laws. The age of Roman emperors is upon us. I never thought I would live to see it.
Thom| 5.18.11 @ 6:15PM
I’ve made that point many times and by different means but still many cling to the idea that we are a Constitutional Republic. I’ll believe that when the Supreme Court actually upholds the enumerated powers in the established document and protections in the Bill of Rights. If the Court won’t actually enforce clearly written phrases like, “the right of the People shall not be infringed…” or hold the Executive Branch in contempt of clear violations of enumerated powers then there is at least one Branch of government that is completely useless and should be done away with. When Mr. Guardiano finds a Supreme Court that will rule in accordance with the enumerated Constitution and an army to back it up then he might convince me talk of what is or is not constitutional might serve a useful purpose.
simon templar| 5.18.11 @ 7:08PM
Thank you RJ. You and I seem to be only people in the room that can see the elephant and its just crapped all over the floor. Apparently, the constitution itself did not seem to mean much as Congress, not the President is suppose to approve and make war. Thus, the War Powers Act comes along to clarify the situation relative to the Commander-in-chiefs responsibility and the Congress role due to a century of abuse by the executive branch. Well, what did we get next? Usurpation of that law. They just ignore it. All of this just seems to go unnoticed and irrevelant to John Guardiano. He like many others flaps his hands like a seal with as much brains as a seal. Of course, we get the usual idiots, lawyers, and pundits all lined up in a row like cackling birds spouting off with the usual inane misinterpretations, justifications, and lame arguments from one side of the issue to another. So, like you say, the bottom lines remains the same. We have a government and a society that seems to not want to follow the law and no one willing to hold them accountable. Take a look at the frig'n border, for example. This damn mandate on health insurance is another example. So..we can not follow constitution law regarding making war or protecting our borders and national sovereignty. No one seems to notice the elephant....let alone seems to grasp just how bad this is as a nation and a constitutional republic.
Warrior | 5.18.11 @ 9:44PM
There is no such thing anymore as Constitutional law. I'm sure we can justify perpetual war through the Commerce Clause. Just ask a defense contractor lobbyist.
Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 2:07AM
The major problem with Obama's approach is that these unilateral presidential powers are really designed to give the President the ability to act in an urgent attack situation, like, say, nuclear war. They are not designed to allow him to intervene wherever he sees fit at whatever time.
But I keep forgetting. Obama was a lecturer on Constitutional Law at one of the Best American Law Schools, after getting his Law Degree at Man's Best Law School. So, since lawyers, like economists, are people of enormous probity who can do no wrong, he MUST be right.
Real911Truth | 5.18.11 @ 6:53PM
Congress doesn't care much at all about the War Powers Act, the only real care of members of Congress is their burning desire to get re-elected at all costs.
Similarly, the Supreme Court doesn't care one iota about defending or upholding the Constitution. Their true mission can easily be seen from the cases they choose to decide upon, and the decisions they render: they act upon the view that their mission is to protect the interests, usually financial and power interests, of the ruling elites including corporations, at the expense of average citizens.
simon templar| 5.18.11 @ 7:10PM
Sadly, perhaps this is what we have come to....
RJ| 5.19.11 @ 3:23AM
The Father of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, said it best in his October 17, 1778 letter to Thomas Jefferson - "... experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. … Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. Wherever there is an interest and a power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince."