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
Pete-
Nova Scotians piss me off. Nuke ’em!
hey, we are gonna be all out of wars in 2014 so it’s either this or invade Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia is cold and filled with canadians. ever try to shoot a canadian? like trying to shoot a puppy. big brown eyes, droopy ears and furry bellies.
isn’t granada still down there somewhere?
Henman, Not at all. Chemical weapons have not been used in the middle east since Sadam Hussein used them on the Kurds. I think the unleashing of chemical weapons is a very scary thing. If it does not concern you so be it.
Swarthmore mom-
You seem to have recently developed an enthusiasm for military intervention by the United States in the Middle East. I have to wonder why this was not evident all through 2012 when you were touting the re-election of President Obama on a daily basis here. (Lesser of Two Evils, etc.)
I assumed your motives were the result of Obama Worship brought on by a harmless schoolgirl crush. Now I’m not so sure.
“Say it ain’t so, Joe – Say it ain’t so!”
ooooh, so scarey. Israel does not want.
Let’s be rational. Same calculus about the great Iran threat.
One little ampule of Syrian chem weapon let loose on Israel, and you can pick up Damascus in a wheelbarrow.
This excuse or that excuse.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=301317 Israel dos not want the chemical weapons to get into the hands of Hezbollah.
Like tricky Dick said about the president — if he did it it’s legal. Fast forward to Obama: if he does it it must be right. Legal too.
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-18-2012/august/unease-grows-over-syrias-chemical-weapons/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chem-prep/
Syria probably does have chemical weapons. So what? It’s still just this excuse or that excuse.
Like my dear sister-in-law said in justification of why it was right to destroy Saddam and Iraq: “but he murdered his own people” like, you know, evil is onlythat evil that we label as others doing.
Again, like JT said on the Washington Journal interview, in talking with a British official about drone ethics and possession, whatcha gonna do, Great Britain, when China uses a drone to vaporize someone on a Thames River bridge.
We (and by default Israel) only get to act all aggrieved because we’ve got the biggest dick, to put it crudely, but honestly. Very little, if anything, to do with morality, or even strategic common sense.
I do believe Syria has chemical weapons and has had them for years. I did not believe that Iraq did.
Curious about nations we usually don’t know about?
Visit the Camelot of Ethiopia. Living side by side was possible then. And the castles are massive and grand. Widen your cultural horizons, and imbibe a little humility (if that is possible 🙂 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonder,_Ethiopia#Points_of_interest
SwM,
Shades of WMDs? Saddam had chemical weapons too, but Syria no offensive intentions. It is just a battleground nation. Nukes scare us, CW less so.
Did anyone consider who are the contending forces and what their motivations are—in Syria?
From the little that I know, Iran has been using Syria since ca 1980 as a channel to support the anti-government fraction via Bekkah valley.
Today, Iran having via its Shia dominance in Iraq and gained conrol there over oil, is regarding Syria as the next step in its striving to reach the Med and to counter Sunni/Saudi//Kuwaiti influence. Saudi is intent on conquering the world through madrasahs, mosques, and spreading their truth to all unconverted lands. Syria is no small bone of conténtion as it is a direct faceoff between Sunni and Shia influences.
Who is determining USA foreign policy? Maybe Shia vs Sunni battles for dominance. The Alewite (secular) leader Assad came as a compromise, but now he must choose sides, and his people are besides being displaced are divided again, a la Lebanon, once the Paris of the Orient in 1967, with peace reigning.
We can perhaps say, given our past record, that we don’t look for allies, but weak states who can’t refuse the deal we offer.
Our purpose? Energy security, and profits. Meanwhile a battle is shaping up over Africa. From the Horn to Ethiopia it is known that we are there with bombers as well as drones over Somalia.
We are aiding Ethiopia and currying favor there through the Peace Corps program, and the plans to dam the Blue Nïle for power and agricultural watering—-opposed naturally by Egypt, etc. What is Egypt without the Nile? Ruins with Pyramids.
As for the rest, no comment. It has been covered.
SWM, few of us would take ANYTHING that is said on this subject by the Israelis, or the Obama administration at face value. If the evildoers who make these decisions in DC or Tel Aviv have decided it’s a good time to drop a few bombs in Syria, and who knows what else, it’s only a matter of this kabuki, or that kabuki, for the record. As JT said on The Washington Journal, Congress need not be involved — not that a majority would oppose anything that Israel has endorsed anyway.
#Israel sending military intel chief to US. Israel off’ls won’t confirm subject. But reason to think related to #Syria/averting CW transfer ” Lauren Rosen tweet… If chemical weapons are being made operational there will be very little opposition to an intervention and almost certainly no opposition on the part of congress.
Apologies for the misspelling
MesspoMespo.Gene H:
“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 can’t really see a particular point of decline just because Commodus wasn’t even a shadow of his father. The empire maintained itself for another three centuries and the relative peace prevailed until about the time of Alexander Severus in 235 CE when things began to sink.
Blouise,
Despite his most regrettable lack of green tint, I find Mike A. to be a gentleman and a scholar well worth following. He’s good people. And when he’s channelling his inner-Nathaniel Hawthorne, he’s good peoples.
I like Mespo’s comment at 8:39 a.m. above. And I agree with it. I would like to see a UN that was effective in stopping genocidists like Assad. To me, France is taking on some new robes. I wish them well in Mali and perhaps elsewhere.