During President Obama’s first term, I represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s unilateral intervention into the Libyan civil war without authorization of Congress. Our case was dismissed on standing grounds and, once again, an undeclared act of war went by without any opportunity of judicial review. Now, Obama is reportedly debating whether to intervene in yet another civil war — undeterred by the now superfluous constitutional limits on his war-making authority. Israel has also publicly stated that it is considering a preemptive strike on Syria and reserves the right to make such an attack if it feels threatened by events in that civil war. [Update: I discussed this issue as part of my column on the imperial presidency this morning on C-Span]
President Barack Obama said he has been struggling with the decision whether to enter into another war as the 22-month civil war in Syria drags on. Here is what he considers to be the operative question:
“In a situation like Syria, I have to ask: can we make a difference in that situation?”
That is a bit different from the question that the Framers wanted him to ask: “Do I have authority from Congress to engage in a war?” That question is now just a quaint concern for a president who has acquired unprecedented unchecked powers. Once again, the Democrats are silent because it is Obama not Bush who is speaking of war. It is the type of hypocrisy that is not just laughable. It is lethal.
You will notice however that, during all of this public discussion of whether Obama will intervene in yet another war, there is not a peep of protest from Congress that it is supposed to have the final say on whether we go to war. Democrats again, even on war powers, are conspicuously silent — preferring to support Obama as a person than the Constitution on principle.
Of course, now that war is a unilateral power, we will not have an opportunity to debate our participation in yet another war. There will be no debate over the continued loss of American lives in foreign wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be no debate over our continued spending billions on wars that we desperately need to support basic social programs at home. This is precisely why the Framers wanted to force public votes. While polls show the American people have long opposed our continued expenditure of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama and Congress have continued our involvement. Indeed, our slow withdrawal is due not to our leaders seeking to draw down but increasingly hostile relationships with our “allies” who want us out of their respective countries. The disconnect with the American public is alarming. We have taken a balanced and well-reasoned system and turned it on its head. The result is precisely what the Framers anticipated: continued foreign wars carried out on a unilateral basis.
Source: Yahoo
Bron:
“correct me if I am wrong but didnt Rome succumb to invasion by various barbarian hordes after many long years of international military adventures and out of control spending?”
**********************
That was after about a thousand years of Pax Romana and the decision by the Roman nobles to eschew martial vigor among its citizens in favor of paid mercenaries.
shano 1, January 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm
We provide the weapons if you have the dough, we do not care what is done with them.
Ka-ching! All the way to the bank.
Why dont we sell modern clean energy systems instead?
======================================
Bingo!
mespo:
“but I like the Romans take better, especially with respect to their particular expertise, national security:”
correct me if I am wrong but didnt Rome succumb to invasion by various barbarian hordes after many long years of international military adventures and out of control spending?
mespo727272 1, January 28, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Dredd:
“Bill Maher has a little ditty on the home of the brave thingy:”
********************
I like Bill’s take on things political, but I like the Romans take better, especially with respect to their particular expertise, national security:
Si vis pacem, para bellum. (“Let him who desires peace prepare for war” )
======================================
Yep, it is clear how that worked out for the Romans, but it remains to be seen how it will work out for the Billster.
idealist707 1, January 28, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Why should Congress oppose a new war.? Call it a police action. Say whatever skit is necessary to drum up public hysteria.
Congress is the victim of the war production factories located by MIC strategically for just that purpose. If he brings home his bit out of the pork barrel then he is safe for now.
What would Bolton do? Shoot them all—especially the UN.
That solid “against war” fraction is so easy to change. Propaganda!
===========================================
Yep, chump change has been around a long time, i.e., you give me a dollar and I will give you chump change.
They have hounded us incessantly while they fake a try to brush the teeth, wipe the arse, and wash the brains of the hoi polloi bro:
(Myth Addiction Is Establishment’s LSD). Some of those among us feel that life is but a joke:
Dredd:
“Bill Maher has a little ditty on the home of the brave thingy:”
********************
I like Bill’s take on things political, but I like the Romans take better, especially with respect to their particular expertise, national security:
Si vis pacem, para bellum. (“Let him who desires peace prepare for war” )
Guardian of Truth 1, January 28, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Dredd,
No I am into the ministry. Thank you, occasionally we will have to defend.
===========================================
I take it that you understand what I meant.
Everyone has the right to a defense in criminal matters when they are charged with a crime.
A lot of Obama’s matters are criminal.
Our political system has devolved into our elections of the less criminal vs the more criminal, so some of them really, really need our defense.
Just sayin’ preacher, just sayin.
Bill Maher has a little ditty on the home of the brave thingy:
(From Bill Maher’s “New Rules” on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday).
Why should Congress oppose a new war.? Call it a police action. Say whatever skit is necessary to drum up public hysteria.
Congress is the victim of the war production factories located by MIC strategically for just that purpose. If he brings home his bit out of the pork barrel then he is safe for now.
What would Bolton do? Shoot them all—especially the UN.
That solid “against war” fraction is so easy to change. Propaganda!
Thanks Dredd.
Anon 851.
An interesting take. Since it is so obvious does he under his new imperial powers have to wait for UN sanction? So why does he not do it?
Many reasons, political and economic, can be suspected. What is your take?
Dredd,
No I am into the ministry. Thank you, occasionally we will have to defend.
How did Jesus defend his soul?
Richard Faust,
Is not Iran somewhere in this oldest Christian nation? What does Christianity have to do with it? A new Crusade, perhaps?
How can Christianity be found in war?
I just wrote my congressman to urge him to publicly ask for a vote in Congress for an Act of War before we act on war. If a court turns down a request to act on this based on standing, we are screwed.
When all this started, I pointed out that the terrorists were basically foreigners, strongly al-Quaeda types from vaious countries. Now that seems obvious. Why does he feel the need for another war? Don’t we have enough? how much of our money does he want to spend? Doesn’t Congress have to authority to stop funding for such idiocy? Well, ok, even if they did, they are too stupid to do it.
People that arrest, oppress or war are terrorists.
Guardian of Truth 1, January 28, 2013 at 11:17 am
I am utterly amazed at the hypocrisy in defending Obama.
==================================
Dood, you must not be a criminal defense lawyer.
That means you probably do not know about second breakfy or troofyness either.
Sadyness.
So, glancing through the comments, noone, except Mespo (surprise ;-)), is willing to give our Nobel Peace Prize commander-in-chief the benefit of the doubt. I wonder why? Maybe because his warmongering should may just have run out his string of pulling- the-wool to satisfy the MIC.
Just a curious aside: who would Obama decide to ‘support’. Generally the US supports dictators, so that would figure. And much of the so called Syrian opposition is supposedly affiliated with Al quaeda, that the US govt has painted that moniker with a very negative and broad brush. So what’s a war mongering president to do? May it doesn’t matter, so much as just getting into the fray and let God sort ’em out. O just needs to pull the trigger; the MIC will work out the messy details.
Gods Glory sorts it out like a devouring fire. Those that give fire from lightless bodies = war will see Gods glory as if it was fie = Hell.
We provide the weapons if you have the dough, we do not care what is done with them.
Ka-ching! All the way to the bank.
Why dont we sell modern clean energy systems instead?
People that put value in weapons ignore the KJV not being wise.
mespo,
As right as Aristotle was, to do something just because you can is not a good reason. As for “passion lead[ing] to genocide that we can easily prevent with little relative risk to ourselves”? That might be good reasoning when looking at a theater like Africa where we regularly turn our back on genocidal behaviors, but not in the instance of Syria. It’s a theater that practically guarantees expansion and instability in the ME. I submit that the relative risks are not little as a matter of our international standing (which is already severely compromised), the chances of drawing both Israel and Iran into a Syrian operation (thus multiplying fronts) and the perpetual drag that military spending is imposing upon an economy that direly needs more domestic focus and less military spending. We need more of the bottomless expense pit of war like we need an extra hole in our collective heads.
No jokes about trepanation, you. 😉 Unless they are really good ones.
Justice Holmes:
Whether we like it or not the free world considers us the policeman of the world, and maybe that’s the role of every superpower in history. If there is no force behind international law it’s just a lot of pretty, precatory words. The simple fact is that all law is premised on force. Why else would Lady Justice hold both scales and sword? And force, when wielded for the right aims, is not an inherently bad thing. It’s the only buffer between savagery and civilization.
“Reason and teaching by no means prevailing everyone’s case; instead,
there is need that the hearer’s soul, like earth about to nourish
the seed, be worked over in its habits beforehand so as to enjoy
and hate in a noble way. . . . Passion, as a general rule, does not
seem to yield to reason but to force”
~Aristotle (NE 10.9.1179b23–25)
If the inventors of democracy knew that, why shouldn’t we? And if we know that how can we stand by when passion leads to genocide that we can easily prevent with little relative risk to ourselves?