We have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations, President Obama declared this week that he does not need any approval or even consultation with Congress if he decides to commit us again to war again in Iraq.
As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that the President does not need congressional approval to do go back into combat and then matter-of-factly that in their brief conversation, the President “did not give us an array of actions he was planning to take.”
While we do not expect combat troops on the ground, the White House appears to be exploring an intervention with air power and possible special forces. The White House simply told Congress and the public to trust their uber president: “Any action that he might contemplate when it comes to … the use of military force will be to deal with the immediate and medium-term threat posed by ISIL.”
I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I just ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.
This week I debated the head of the Brennan Center at New York University on Obama’s unilateral actions and the dangers that they pose on the PBS program Newshour. While my co-guest repeatedly insisted that he is “not troubled” by the concentration of authority in the presidency, I again believe that Democrats will long regret that they support the rise of this uber presidency:
South Dakota Republican Party calls for Obama impeachment
The South Dakota Republican Party state convention passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama Saturday.
The resolution says Obama has “violated his oath of office in numerous ways.” It specifically cites the release of five Taliban combatants in a trade for captive U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, Obama’s statement that people could keep insurance companies, and recent EPA regulations on power plants.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/06/21/sdgop-obama-impeachment/11212075/
Meaningless, but interesting.
At leas the SDRP is taking a stand.
Jim22, I don’t thinking I posted anything about fracking recently.
SWM, You never answered me, do you know what an LFTR reactor is? As for being an engineer, yes I am. I work in the turbine combustion field, I also have a geology degree. When did I call you a liberal? You’re the one throwing out labels. Can you point to one true case where fracking has caused a ground water problem?
@jim22
“there is a safe way to do it”
On the contrary, there is no safe way to crack rock and guarantee that fracking fluids will not migrate to an adjoining sandstone aquifer. It’s basic geology.
“How many American lives have been lost due to nuclear power plants?”
It’s been more than a few years since I finished my research paper, but although there have not been any fatalities in commercial nuclear plants, there were a few in Idaho at SL-1 in 1961. A U.S. Army research reactor exploded with three men inside the immediate area. When emergency crews arrived, they found one man dead, a second who died either at the hospital or on the way, and a third who was … wait for it … impaled on the ceiling.
And given that the history of military reactors is generally classified, no one can definitively state that there have no other casualties in that arena.
“I’m guessing you don’t because Jane Fonda hasn’t made a stupid fack movie about it”
Like all righties, you ignorantly assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.
There are many issues involved with nuclear plant construction besides the method of fueling, but since you are clearly not an engineer, I won’t waste my time.
SWM, You just wrong about fracking.there is a safe way to do it but you just don’t want to here that. You are just spitting out the same old fears that stop us from developing our own energy source. And as nuclear goes, you again don’t know what you are talking about and you go back to the same fear mongering tactics. How many American lives have been lost due to nuclear power plants? Do you know the difference between a light water reactor and a LFTR reactor? If you did you wouldn’t say ignorant things like “Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island”. Do you know why we went with the Light water reactor and not better LFTR design? I’m guessing you don’t because Jane Fonda hasn’t made a stupid fack movie about it.
David, solar panels do not solve the issue with base load. It’s great that you want to put them up. Just don’t make me pay for them through tax breaks.
Jim22 wrote: “David, solar panels do not solve the issue with base load. It’s great that you want to put them up. Just don’t make me pay for them through tax breaks.”
I don’t think the government should be subsidizing either oil or green energy. The problem is that they do, no matter what I think.
Solar power is not a complete solution yet, but we are getting really close. Some people have homes which are completely off the grid. The hybrid approach makes sense at this point. It will take education and investors to make it work. If you remain stuck with solely pollution producing energy sources, it is bad for all of us. If instead you open your mind to the benefits of green energy, then we will be on the right path. The thing about using sunlight for energy is that once you setup the infrastructure for using it, it is free energy. That should appeal to a lot of people. The non-polluting aspects of it are a big bonus too. Free market capitalists should love solar power.
Annie wrote “[Eric’s] use of double quotation marks has me confused”
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/single-quotation-marks-versus-double-quotation-marks?page=all
“it’s a pain when on a mobile device”
That is no excuse.
Ohhhhh, I see!
Annie,
I was quoting swarthmoremom quoting a talkingpointsmemo post quoting Paul.
OK, wait just a darn minute here! I was right the first time, no? Eric, your use of double quotation marks has me confused. Are you quoting SWM quoting Paul?
It gets confusing when commenters aren’t using clearly identifiable ways of separating their commentary from a quote of another commenter. I know it’s a pain when on a mobile device, but there are ways to skin that cat.
Oops, sorry Eric, the credit should be given to SWM! However it is nice to have you here, even though we probably disagree on most issues, welcome anyway.
Eric, you’re a fast learner! Great observational skills, glad you’re commenting here.
I have repeatedly tried to post part of the SOFA but t will not take it even when taken shorter replies from me.
It appears to me that the President retains the authority based on the sofa, esp art 27. security threats. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf
Article 24
Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq
1 19
Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security
Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and
based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the
following has been reached:
1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no
later than December 31, 2011.
2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities,
villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces
assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that
such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above
shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages,
and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in
paragraph 2 above.
4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of
Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any
time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United
States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce
the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have
been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United
States Forces will be present.
Article 25
Measures to Terminate the Application of Chapter VII to Iraq
Acknowledging the right of the Government of Iraq not to request renewal
of the Chapter VII authorization for and mandate of the multinational forces
contained in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 (2007) that
ends on December 31, 2008;
Taking note of the letters to the UN Security Council from the Prime
Minister of Iraq and the Secretary of State of the United States dated
1 20
December 7 and December 10, 2007, respectively, which are annexed to
Resolution 1790,
Taking note of section 3 of the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term
Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship, signed by the President of the
United States and the Prime Minister of Iraq on November 26, 2007, which
memorialized Iraq’s call for extension of the above-mentioned mandate for a
final period, to end not later than December 31, 2008:
Recognizing also the dramatic and positive developments in Iraq, and noting
that the situation in Iraq is fundamentally different than that which existed
when the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 661 in 1990, and in
particular that the threat to international peace and security posed by the
Government of Iraq no longer exists, the Parties affirm in this regard that
with the termination on December 31, 2008 of the Chapter VII mandate and
authorization for the multinational force contained in Resolution 1790, Iraq
should return to the legal and international standing that it enjoyed prior to
the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 661 (1990), and that the
United States shall use its best efforts to help Iraq take the steps necessary to
achieve this by December 31, 2008.
Deterrence of Security Threats
In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to the
maintenance of international peace and stability, the Parties shall work
actively to strengthen the political and military capabilities of the Republic
of Iraq to deter threats against its sovereignty, political independence,
territorial integrity, and its constitutional federal democratic system. To that
end, the Parties agree as follows:
1. In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against
Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or
territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its
elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the
Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may
be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures,
including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other
measure, to deter such a threat.
2. The Parties agree to continue close cooperation in strengthening and
maintaining military and security institutions and democratic political
institutions in Iraq, including, as may be mutually agreed, cooperation
in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces, in order
to combat domestic and international terrorism and outlaw groups,
upon request by the Government of Iraq.
3. Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point
for attacks against other countries.
In quickly scanning the document it appears the President retains the authority.
from .state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf hasn’t taken this when ve tried to post today and yesterday so add the http for the full address.
Krauthammer has an excellent commentary on the idiocy of Obama’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-abdication-has-a-price/2014/06/19/6214dafe-f7e6-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html
swarthmoremom,
I notice that Paul asks misleading ‘Socratic’ questions: ““You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won?””
Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn’t based on a “prediction”. The cause of action for the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement was whether Saddam complied with Iraq’s ceasefire obligations. Iraq’s noncompliance is fact. Setting aside Saddam’s non-weapons obligations, UNMOVIC reported “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” in March 2003. The entire burden of proof was on Saddam. The US and UN held no burden of proof. While I agree the pre-war intelligence was misrepresented as evidence when it should have been presented in its normal and proper role as indicators, or left out of Bush’s case against Saddam altogether, the intel was never a required element in the Iraq enforcement. If the US had presented no pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the enforcement procedure would have been the same. In fact, for Operation Desert Fox, which set precedent for OIF, Clinton didn’t cite to the intel at all.
The ‘sold’ danger of Saddam actually pre-dated the Bush administration. Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) was imputed from the established fact of Saddam’s guilt that remained uncured due to Saddam’s noncompliance, and worsened by Saddam’s ongoing behavior breaching the ceasefire. Congress’ support for Bush on Iraq was consistent with Congress’ support for Clinton on Iraq.
Was there WMD in Iraq? Yes, as the issue is defined by the UNSC resolutions. The weapons proscription covered multiple areas, not just stockpiles, and the Duelfer Report shows Iraq was in broad violation. Of course, the post-war findings are irrelevant to Bush’s decision for OIF, which was based primarily on Saddam’s failure to comply with UNMOVIC.
Note Paul’s misleading qualification in “Was democracy easily achievable?” ‘Easily achievable’ was neither an expectation for Iraq, nor an optimism grounded in either the American experience or modern nation-building history. In fact, the ready example was our Korea mission, which has taken a very difficult road, much more difficult than Iraq at the same stage. At the 8 year mark in Korea, we were fighting the Red Chinese after having successively fought the Imperial Japanese and the north Koreans, made our own mistakes, and endured much frustration with the South Koreans themselves. Iraq, 2011 was in a much better state than Korea, 1953.
Finally, note Paul’s choice of “2005” in his last question. The choice of year is a dead give-away of his bias. He’s reaching. The Counterinsurgency “Surge” was started in late 2006. If securing the peace in the post-war stage is considered part of the war, then of course we hadn’t won the war yet in 2005 – but by that measure, neither had we won WW2 yet in 1947. If winning a war is viewed narrowly as the ‘checkmate’ act of regime change only, then yes, the war was won in 2003, and WW2 was won in 1945.
Jim22 wrote “Natural Gas is the bridge to the real long term solution to our energy needs which is Nuclear”
Yeah, natural gas is the bridge all right: the bridge to the end of life in the parts of the U.S. where people draw their water from aquifers. It’s going to take a while to contaminate our aquifers, but after than it will take tens of thousands of years to replenish them via rainfall. And even then it is unclear what the long-term effects of fracking chemicals will be on groundwater. Will those chemicals migrate downward or will they remain equally distributed in the aquifer, essentially destroying it forever?
Did you know that U.S. aquifers were filled when the glaciers retreated around 12,500 years ago?
Nuclear power is only the solution if it is regulated within an inch of its life to prevent another Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. But libertarians and their evil cousins, the Tea Party, will ensure that shortcuts are taken to ensure that the free market has the last laugh.
As John Wesley Powell wrote well over one hundred years ago, water will be the bottleneck in the West. Southern South Dakota, Nebraska, the western half of Kansas, Western Oklahoma, southeast Wyoming, Eastern Colorado, eastern New Mexico, and northern Texas are largely dependent upon the Ogallala Aquifer and therefore not much different.
We can live without oil and gas, but water, not so much.
P.S. You know those TV commercials that claim that fracking has taken place for over 40 years? They are a lie, because fracking as we know it using noxious chemicals is a recent phenomenon.
swarthmoremom,
Regarding Saddam and Iran:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html
Q: Why not remove the Iraq enforcement and free Saddam?
A: See Saddam’s history from 1980 onward.
Dealing cautiously with unsavory competitors that are rational actors is normal for the US. However, Saddam proved to be an irrational actor with dangerously poor judgement. The US simply could not trust Saddam with any less than full compliance on all obligations, weapons and non-weapons related, especially after 9/11.
Freeing a noncompliant Saddam was out of the question. The Duelfer Report confirms that Saddam was not rehabilitated.
IR realists like to claim US interests, including regional stability, were better served with Saddam countering Iran. I think they’re stuck in 1980 with our ally, the Shah, only just replaced by our enemy, the Ayatollah, and Baathist Iraq, led by then-new President Saddam Hussein, thought to be the lesser of 2 evils. IR liberals understand that by the time of the Bush administration (either one works), the Iran-Iraq conflict was a source of the region’s problems, not a stabilizer. The faulty premise of IR realists is Saddam could be trusted, yet Saddam acting out of control, destabilizing, and against US interests is the reason for the US intervention with Iraq in the first place. They’re effectively proposing an unreconstructed Hitler should have been propped up in Germany in order to serve as a regional counter to the Soviet Union. Hitler + USSR = the worst of World War 2, not peace in our time. The IR realist belief that after 9/11 we should have trusted and empowered a noncompliant Saddam to deal with Iran on our behalf is madness.
The fact is that Saddam was given opportunities throughout the Iraq enforcement to rehabilitate and stay in power, yet did not. The Duelfer Report describes Saddam growing increasingly irrational in his thinking even as he consolidated power and reconstituted his WMD capabilities. Saddam was convinced Iraq needed WMD in order to counter Iran as well as Iraq’s other enemies. Iran’s WMD development is bad enough by itself. An irrational Saddam with dangerously poor judgement spurring an urgent Iran-Iraq WMD arms race was neither the way for the US to counter Iran nor a formula for regional stability.
David, Solar panels don’t work at night. And as for solar cars? Keep dreaming Barkindog. Natural Gas is the bridge to the real long term solution to our energy needs which is Nuclear. There is a cool company in CT working on a laser driven thorium reactor for use in transportation. Very cool stuff especially when you think of how car could power your house needs when you are home.
Jim22 wrote: “David, Solar panels don’t work at night.”
They don’t have to work at night. They just need to work during the daytime and store energy produced by the solar panels in batteries that will provide energy at night. Lights, televisions, refrigerators and freezers, etc. are now very energy efficient. The energy hogs are heating and cooling.
My cousin has solar panels on the roof of her home. They power her house and her Tesla electric car. She also sells electricity back to the power company. I’ve been researching to do this for myself. I just haven’t gotten around to doing it yet because it takes a big investment.
swarthmoremom,
See my comments at June 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm and June 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm.
The Paul-type libertarian view of American foreign policy is a direct descendant of the isolationist America First Committee view that opposed American intervention in WW2. Because Paul’s chief foreign policy goal is the radical reduction of US intervention, he adopts the fallacy of attenuated causation to support further reduction of US intervention and oppose increased US intervention for the current crisis in Iraq.
The fact is that post-Saddam Iraq was succeeding at the point we prematurely pulled our protective custody in 2011. The necessary condition for securing and building the peace is security, yet Obama removed Iraq’s security at the same time that Iraq’s surroundings were becoming sharply more dangerous, especially in Syria.
We’ve done this before. We kept our forces in Europe and Asia after WW2 – for a lot longer than 8 years – to protect our charges from surrounding threats so they could mature. While Iraq does have internal political challenges, which we were also helping them with before we left, the current crisis is due to the ISIS invasion of Iraq. Paul clumsily conflates the two in order to claim there’s a “civil war”, much as Mike Appleton did upthread.
The proximate causes of the crisis in Iraq are, one, the construction of ISIS in Syria that combined with, two, the US-abandoned vulnerability of Iraq. Both conditions arose from post-Bush events, such as the degeneration of the Arab Spring, that are related to policy course changes made by Obama that fundamentally deviated from Bush’s foreign policy.
The US was needed in Iraq. Obama’s reduction of US intervention in Iraq is a cause of the current crisis in Iraq, but that cause is also the cornerstone of Paul’s belief system.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-cheney-obama-iraq “en. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday said that President Obama is not to blame for the current situation in Iraq, and instead pointed to Iraq War architects like former Vice President Dick Cheney.
“They didn’t really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out,” Paul said of Iraq War supporters in an interview with NBC News. “And what’s going on now — I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East.”
“I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry,” Paul continued.
When NBC’s David Gregory asked Paul about Cheney’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with daughter Liz Cheney.
“I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War,” he said about the op-ed. “You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won?” “