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
The mission, in so far as possible of course, is to install a regime friendly to the interests of the United States and Israel. That’s a tall order and that is why it’s taking time. As to humanitarian objectives, piffaw and piffle. It’s no more relevant to Obama’s objectives than the constitution – except for speeches. And as to the constitution, Obama’s only concern is to render it irrelevant to his authority to do what he wants when he wants (actualy it’s more to what the owner’s want when they want it, but I doubt he finds that reality as pleasant to muse on when he’s on the can tearing those absorbent pages off his copy of the document).
Messpo always brings up the interesting objection, or the point everyone has missed, but not this time, or at least not so much. Obama has had plenty of time to make a request of congress if he was in the least bit interested in obeying his sworn oath, and even if time was the pressing concern, the situation in Syria, even though horrific from a humanitarian point of view, in no way constitutes an existential threat to the United States – the usual criteria as in the Civil War for temporarily suspending the rules. Finally, as stated elsewhere, there is no guarantee that sending our military in is in any way going to result in less bloodshed or better conditions for the little guy long term. Then, if Obama’s request to congress was denied or even put on the back burner, he would be in much stronger position to find ways to ignore them and send troops or resources anyway. But there is considerable doubt he would need to inspite of various opinions expressed here. The one thing besides screwing the little guy out of his and her earned security and medical care, or rewarding banks for tossing children out of their homes, that Obama can pretty much count on from the legislative branch is an almost total willingness to go to war, any war, even war on pure abstractions, and at the drop of a hat.
If the president can ignore the Constitution when Messpo agrees, isn’t there a danger he can also ignore it when Messpo disagrees? And that is the danger professor Turley is talking about.
The whole point, BTW, besides US and Israel’s so called strategic interests, is to avoid the Constitution and to add one more incident of precedence to Obama’s imperial and perpetual authority.
Gene,
I know how to pick my leaders and Mike A. is a good one to follow. Of course he does lack that most glorious green tinge.
ap,
You are most welcome and thanks for the original link. Glad to lend a hand. If we’re going to do anything about the danger that is an Imperial Presidency, it’s going to take a team effort. 😉 And I must say, I am especially liking what I am hearing JT say, not because it is a desirable situation in which we find ourselves, but because it is truth to power.
I encourage everyone reading this blog to check out this C-SPAN interview.
Very good. Thanks, Gene H.
Thanks for the update, ap.
This link jumps right to our host’s segment:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Monday-January-28/10737437619-2/
Washington Journal for Monday, January 28
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Monday-January-28/10737437619-1/
Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law School Law Professor
Topic: Guest will discuss his views on President Obama’s use of executive power, arguing that the President’s unilateral actions have shown a pattern that undermines the constitutional system of checks and balances. Instances include privacy protections and surveillance; due process; the use of drones; government secrecy; assurances to CIA officials that they would not be prosecuted for torture; recess appointments, among others.
Hey, while they’re at it, maybe the State Department could just quit pretending they are ever going to close Gitmo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html
Your wish is their command, Blouise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/us-plans-base-for-surveillance-drones-in-northwest-africa.html?_r=0
Mike A. must have rubbed off on you today. Snark is contagious. 😉 But I think it’s a lovely social disease. Look at the wonders it did for Dorothy Parker.
Oh yes … and I would also recommend that our military consider establishing a new drone base in Niger as Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups seem to be bent on trouble in Africa.
Just saying ….
The job of any good analyst is to read all the material available, listen to all the statements made watching for body language and tone, consider past actions and then, after careful thought, compile it all into a succinct presentation, free of minutia, for those whose job it is to plot courses of action.
I’m going to pretend to be a good analyst.
Being fully aware that the overriding goal is regime change in Iran and understanding that Syria is the only ME ally Iran still counts on, the CIA once again failed in its mission to successfully bring an end to Assad’s career (BTW, has anyone noticed that the only time they have been truly successful at regime change was in Nov. of 1963 … but I digress), thus necessitating overt military action by the U. S. to clean up the Intelligence communities failed mission putting everything back on track so that a clean move may then be made against Iran. As Jefferson protected our shipping and trade concerns from the Barbary Pirates (often called the Ottoman corsairs) of yesteryear, we can do no less for our oil and gas concerns today. Thank you and God Bless the U.S.A.!
mespo,
I’m curious as to why you think marking the decline of Pax Romana with the reign of Commodus is any more arbitrary than marking it to a later reign. I think it’s a reasonably objective point since after Marcus Aurelius it was all pretty much down hill to one degree or another even if you consider Constantine and Justinian (and Charlemagne if you consider the Holy Roman Empire as a contiguous body in relation to Rome and Byzantium, I know some historians don’t) as bright spots.
…there are no easy answers. -Barack Obama
Stopping Syria
By JPOST.COM EDITORIAL
01/28/2013 20:50
Thankfully, there is a broad consensus that resorting to chemical weapons is a red line that must not be crossed, and that the Syrian regime must be stopped before it does. Less clear are the means that need to be taken to achieve that end.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=301292
Excerpts:
Thankfully, there is a broad consensus that resorting to chemical weapons is a red line that must not be crossed, and that the Syrian regime must be stopped before it does. Less clear are the means that need to be taken to achieve that end.
…
Some have pointed to US President Barack Obama’s appointment of John Kerry as secretary of state, Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense and John Brennan as CIA director as proof that the US administration is unlikely to intervene aggressively in Syria.
….
In an interview with The New Republic published Sunday, Obama articulated his ambivalence about intervention in Syria.
“In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation?” Obama said. “Would a military intervention have an impact? “How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime?” These are the sorts of questions leaders should ask themselves – and there are no easy answers. Syria’s proximity to Israel makes these questions all the more pressing.
Stop the War in Afghanistan now. Fly over Syria and flush. That is it.
A little comic relief:
Maher Likens Defense Spending To Declining Manhood: When Did We Become ‘Dickless Armchair Warriors’?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-likens-defense-spending-to-declining-manhood-when-did-we-become-dickless-armchair-warriors/
mespo:
since you have actually read Gibbons, I defer to superior knowledge.
how about all that talk about getting rid of football speaking of martial pursuits?
Make that 180 CE not BCE.
DonS:
Most folks date the Age of Rome from about 523 BCE to 1453 CE from Republic through Empire. If you include its prodigy the Holy Roman Empire you could go to 1806 CE but who’s counting.
Pax Romana is thought to have lasted about 200 years based on Gibbons’ timekeeping, but the stabilizing effects of Rome existed both before and after his subjective dating — even according to Gibbon. Gibbon dates the waning of Pax Romana from the time of Commodus (the son of Marcus Aurelius) in 180 BCE , but that is somewhat arbitrary and suspect given what we know about Rome’s dominance in the western empire for three more centuries.
Bottom line: the longstanding stability of Rome exerted more influence for more time than any western empire before or since.
Dear Dredd,
Sales of Military weapons vs. clean energy systems — it all comes down to the bottom line …. And weapons are a helluva lot more profitable and those pushing weapons sales BOEING, NORTHROP GRUMMAN, McDonnell Douglas et al are a helluva lot more powerful (esp. their lobbyists) than those pushing clean energy systems — oh yes lest we forget about EXXON et al who would join the big weapons producers in trying to suppress any sales of clean energy …. Rather than get away from BIG OIL …!!!
“I’d take the Roman track record of a 1000 years and relative peace”
Mr Google, and Mr. AncientHistory tell me it was more like 207 years. Since events are clearly accelerating in this modern age, I’d venture that the US has blown it’s wad when it comes to jack boot democracy.
Unless of course we can embed a micro chip in all living beings, the computer control of which will take the place of the nuclear football. Or if you’re convinced. like Orwell said that war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.like our ruling class keeps telling us.
Dredd:
I’d take the Roman track record of a 1000 years and relative peace.