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 all the personal crap about such an important topic? This is something we should be pulling together on or at least having an honest argument.
Or you can get some of that good medicinal marijuana, maybe your buddy will share.
And Paul, they’re called Serenity Now pills. Made by Unique Industries. Ask your buddy.
There is an old John Bircher who comes to the cathouse for fun and games. We call him JB. He says that FDR was soft on the Germans, that Truman was soft on Communists, that JFK was soft on Marilyn, that LBJ was hard on Nam, that Carter was soft on Iran, that Clinton was soft on Monica and that Obama is hard on Iraq and a hard place. JB says that all of politics is centered on erectile dysfunction. He says that stacking ceramic tile next to the Congress on a daily basis shows some things about being hard on Communists. We tell JB to go back to his doctor and get a new diagnosis or explanation of erectile dysfunction. The girls working the cathouse say he is fine on some scores. My take is that both parties are of a belief that the Military Industrial Complex is important to our economy. The difference between the US and say Germany in 1933 to 1945 is the difference between War and Var.
Paul, are you seeing the light?
So, the comment at 12:38 went right though. Why is that?
The comment I made on topic will not go through, even though I tried posting it right after the one at 12:38.
Look up Chalibi for president. That’s the US choice. We’ll see if this will go through with Chalibi’s name.
O.K. Carlton, I just tried again. It says it posted but it just won’t show up.
I think we need the govt. filter to get off this blog!
Charlton S. Stanley, PhD, ABPP,
There ought to be a comment from me in the filter that I’ve tried posting 3? times that addresses jonathanturley’s legal question about deploying the military to Iraq without a new statutory authority, declaration of war, or attack on US entity. Can you save it?
Barking Dog, are you deliberating misleading. Oil is used to generate electricity to run your inordinately expensive, fragile, high maintenance faux car. Alternatively, you could use nuclear power like Fukushima. That’s a nice touch.
P.S. Your exalted solar panels don’t work at night or on cloudy days. Seriously, how do you greenies get these fantasies through. Oh yeah, they’re called liberals, marxists, socialists, progressives, dumbocrats. The elite who always know more than Mr. Market.
John wrote: “Your exalted solar panels don’t work at night or on cloudy days.”
Actually, a solar system does continue to work. A solar system stores energy from the solar panels in batteries to use whenever you need it.
John – here is sunny, very sunny Arizona (Sonoran Desert) solar panels work like a champ.
John wrote: “The elite who always know more than Mr. Market.”
The fossil fuels are not left to Mr. Market. The government subsidies to big oil are supported by many Democrats. If we truly believed in a free Market, we would get rid of all oil subsidies. The Democrats won’t allow that. Instead they want a new tax while voting for oil subsidies.
Consider the following article about Oil subsidies:
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/
Kraaken: “Eric, my answer still stands. We have as much right dictating to them as they would have dictating to us.”
In a vacuum stripped of the historical communal context, perhaps, but we crossed that threshold in 1991 with the Gulf War followed by the ceasefire for the Gulf War, not with Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
Remember, the ceasefire requirements for Iraq were designed to ensure Saddam was rehabilitated and prove he was no longer dangerous.
The problem was (encouraged by the Russians) Saddam shared your view on the issue – or rather, you share his view on the issue – that the enforcement of the ceasefire terms that Iraq agreed to that forestalled regime change in the Gulf War was an impermissible violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.
The extended problem with your and Saddam’s view of the ceasefire, however, is that if you’re correct that the ceasefire was unenforceable and, therefore, null, then that only reactivates the Gulf War, which was suspended short of regime change in 1991 only by the ceasefire.
You are, in fact, taking a more radical ‘pro-war’ position on Saddam than Clinton and Bush did.
The US presidential position was that, under the ceasefire terms, Saddam could prevent regime change by voluntarily satisfying Iraq’s ceasefire obligations. From the beginning to end of the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement, the chief enforcer of the ceasefire gave Saddam many chances – over 12 years of chances – to correct Iraq’s material breach of the ceasefire and thereby end the Gulf War via a fully compliant Iraq.
In contrast, your view is that the Gulf War ceasefire was null on its face and stillborn at birth. If you’re correct, then Saddam never had a chance to prevent regime change via a fully compliant Iraq because there never was a live ceasefire in the first place and, therefore, the Gulf War was never suspended.
The US presidents gave Saddam many chances to prevent regime change by way of the ceasefire. You gave him none.
Jill,
I looked in the spam filter with a trick I learned from Darren. Nothing you wrote is in the spam filter, or in the trash bin. There is nothing in the “awaiting moderation” bin either. Just blame it on the Vortex of Doom.
I have a suggestion for those who lose comments. Try installing Lazarus Form Recovery. It will restore lost text in a new comment box.
Charlton – tried to download the Lazarus thingie but it only opens with an odd extension which my Chrome refuses to recognize.
I tried to post a comment. Will someone please try to find it? Thank you.
Saucy, I lived in Chicago for several years in the 80’s. We lived near Lane Tech, 2100 block of Waveland. A hardcore German neighborhood. The “Go with” is Midwest. I moved from Ct. to KC in the 70’s. That’s where I first was introduced w/ “Go with.”
Nick wrote “Since you use ‘grammar school’ I believe you are from the East Coast”
I grew up in the Chicago area, but I lived in a few different cities there. Chicago has many ethnic neighborhoods just like NYC. I always loved the German, Polish, Lithuanian, and Italian food just as it’s made in the old country. German and Polish sausage, yum!
The use of “grammar school” is not confined to the East Coast, but I used it in a Catholic school context. I attended a school in an Italian neighborhood (sorry, I’ll keep that secret). I know there was mafia of some kind there because someone I knew, a real violent kid who stole stereos from cars, was warned by them that he was invading their turf and would suffer the consequences if he continued.
Here’s a Chicagoism for you. People from that area tend to forget the object of the preposition “with.” For example, they often ask, “Do you want to come with?”
I cannot remember if you were the one to mention the Nazi marches in Skokie, but they never actually marched there, though SCOTUS allowed them to do so. A compromise was made for Marquette Park (on the south side) where the Nazis already held get-togethers. We had relatives in the area, so we paid attention to the events. I remember visiting in the days surrounding the “happening,” though we were smart enough to stay away from the actual gathering.
“You discuss w/ wisdom, humor and respect”
If anyone really pisses me off, you will see another side of my personality. I can be really sarcastic, insultingly so, but I try to keep it under wrap. Read my “Religious sex dolls” for one example.
“Paul, Lighten Up Pills are on sale @ Walgreens this week”
LOL
saucy – have you seen ‘Barbie Nation’? The fetish Barbies in it are hysterical. 😉
Paul wrote “However, most of them go back to the primal cause, they could not keep up financially”
I do not believe in fairy tales, Republican or otherwise. But you are free to do so.
“from Yahoo [on fighting Irish]”
Read the four paragraphs from Wikipedia’s “Moniker” section. As I said before, there is no agreement.
saucy – there is enough there to get the mascot and trademarks banned. Then we will go after the Celtics.
Yay! Aother invasion of a country to make everything OK.
I commend to teh universe the cartoon at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bqm2CcrCcAAQG0o.png
John wrote “Bush was compelled by 9/11 which was allowed to happen”
Then why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia, the home of 15/19 9/11 hijackers?
Logic isn’t your strong suit, but fantasy certainly is.
If we had solar electric cars we would not need oil from the middle east. Notice how I used lower case letters for middle east? We have the ability to provide every American over the age of 18 a solar electric car with the money we spend on “defense”. Why do we call it “defense” when its offense for oil and gas? There is a three state solution for Iraq, Iran and all the muslim pirate territories. One part Sunni, one part Kurd, one part the other. When we have to deal with pirate territories where they cannot spell the word itShay (piglatin here) then let us keep our noses out of their Shiite asses. Is that pronounced: She Eyet?
itShay on the oyeeA, fuite on your booyA.
December 8th, 1941, a day that will live in Infamy. Congress declared war on Japan and we have been at war or “with troops on the ground” somewhere ever since.
Eric, my answer still stands. We have as much right dictating to them as they would have dictating to us.
Max-1: “It’s like an Alt universe…”
Well, someone (*cough* Russians *cough*) bamboozled you with a false narrative of the Iraq mission, so the truth of it would sound strange.