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:
Why is every place in the world our problem. That don’t pay taxes to us. That’s what I don’t understand. NK–Japan’s problem. Look at a map.
Paul Schulte:
Congress cannot amend the Constitution by adopting a resolution.
Mike – it is clear from various agencies that both the Congress and the Executive can give some of their power to others. In this case, Congress gave some of their power to the Executive.
I will agree that some find this action unconstitutional, however, it has never been tested.
Another reason we should stay out of Iraq is our inconsistency with respect to intervention. We worried over the possibility of WMD in Iran and Iraq for decades, yet we fell asleep at the switch with respect to North Korea. When NK started placing artillery just north of the DMZ, threatening Seoul, we should have taken it out. But we didn’t and now we would pretty much have to take out every military weapon simultaneously. And that artillery hides in fortified bunkers, making it very difficult to eliminate now. Also, the DPRK has chemical weapons in artillery shells. NK could create millions of casualties in Seoul in a very short time.
But now the DPRK is on the edge of possessing an accurate missile which could hit anywhere in Asia, Hawaii, and maybe the West Coast. Some NK experts believe that they are also on the edge of making nuclear warheads small enough to fit on their missiles. Its first nuclear test was conducted in 2006 on Bush the Younger’s watch.
We appear to only be interested in countries with oil.
saucy – North Korea has nukes. Iraq was trying to get into the game. Personally, I would wait for them to implode.
War is generally a mess, with the victor writing the narrative. The world would be a better place if there was an honest assessment of 1914-1945, since I believe it can be discussed without quite as much emotion. We like to think of those conflicts as “they did this, then they did that…” and it just isn’t that simple. Just like today. Put it all in a blender, and you have what you have. Our best bet, stay out of it and let it set up itself.
This man was pretty clear on the matter.
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”- James Madison
Eliot – Congress by a 2/3rds majority gave up some of their war declaring rights in 1973 with the War Powers Resolution.
Paul wrote “given the make up of ISIS or ISIL it is hardly a civil war, but rather an invasion”
The Spanish Civil War was heavily abetted by both the Soviet Union and Germany, yet it is known as a civil war.
I believe that Iraq’s civil war started when the U.S. foolishly invaded.
saucy – the Spanish Civil War was a civil war. However, given the current and past make up of ISIS/ISIL it seems more of an invasion. They were part of the group that was beaten back into Syria during Viking Hammer.
History does repeat itself, and the scary thing it is repeating itself in much more rapid succession. Still amazed at the thought of giving those people arms in Syria and fighting them in Iraq. Wile E. Coyote would be better than that. Good deal if you sell weapons though.
Well at least we now know that Iraq isn’t vietnam. In Vietnam the “advisors” went in first followed by the piecemeal invasion. In the neocon’s Iraq the massive illegal invasion comes first and then the advisors arrive when the former puppet govt falls apart. This is what Nixon kinda promised to Thieu when the US was forced out of Vietnam.
My country is no longer circling the bowl, we are headed.for the waste treatment plant.
“History repeats itself, and that’s one of the things that’s wrong with history.” – Clarence Darrow
And still, many Americans are in the dark about what’s transpiring domestically.
Paul C. Schulte
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives Obama the power to commit troops for 60 days, plus an additional 30 days to remove them, without the consent of Congress. Therefore, by notifying Congress within 48 hours he has complied with the letter of the law.
=======================
Interesting.
Thanks.
Pulling America back in
Obama’s actions invite deeper involvement in Iraq, which could cost billions of dollars and more American lives
BY Andrew J. Bacevich
Thursday, June 19, 2014, 5:03 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pulling-america-back-article-1.1836628
What a scumbag lawyer you are!
Bob, Esq.: It is both sad and tragic. It is tragic because of its implications for the rule of law. We have a President who treats laws as suggestions and a Congress that permits it.
Paul Schulte: Of course it’s a civil war.
Mike – given the make up of ISIS or ISIL it is hardly a civil war, but rather an invasion.
“The W Direction” (the war-based system of governance) is like the steering system on the Titanic:
(Titanic Mistakes Using The W Compass). In a duopoly where there are two steering systems, Titanic mistakes are more likely to take place.
Press Release of Senator Walsh
Walsh: Our military mission in Iraq should be over
http://www.walsh.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=352899
@Bob, Esq.
With respect to Iraq, wasn’t it just as sad and tragic when we heard members of Congress simply fall in line with Bush in 2002-3?
Just say “No!” to any further intervention in Islamic conflicts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-focus-shifts-away-from-airstrikes-against-iraq/2014/06/17/008eae98-f694-11e3-afdf-f7ffea8c744a_story.html “Obama is certain to face resistance from congressional Democrats if he launches any major military response to the crisis in Iraq. Two House Democrats — John Garamendi of California and Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii — said Wednesday they would offer an amendment to the defense spending bill that would require congressional approval before any sustained military action in Iraq.” Mainly support from republicans including leader McConnell…..
Mike,
Is it sad or tragic to hear members of congress simply fall in line with Obama?
Mike Appleton: “The actions being taken by the President do not fall within the scope of the 2002 resolution. That document authorized the use of force for two purposes: “1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” What we are witnessing is the emergence of a sectarian civil war that was utterly predictable and virtually inevitable given the history of that country. The President will not seek congressional approval because he knows he will not have to, and he knows that because Congress has repeatedly ceded warmaking power to the executive branch, in violation of the Constitution, because its members have the collective moral courage of a cockroach.”
Mike Appleton; there is no substitute.