President Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State. The President informed a few members at a dinner — a striking image of how low congressional authority has become in our tripartite system of government.
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 (and most recently on whether he will resume the war in Iraq), Obama is again asserting his extreme view of executive power.
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.
I have repeatedly testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, war is a particularly egregious form of this unilateralism since the Framers worked hard to limit such powers under Article I and Article II.
Not only is the United States about to enter a new military campaign based solely on the President’s authority but he is promising to fight to the Islamic State “wherever their strategic targets are.” That may suggest additional violation of international law if the United States acts unilaterally with regard to the borders of foreign nations. Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, seems to anticipate and support such actions. She is quoted as saying “This is not an organization that respects international boundaries. You cannot leave them with a safe haven.” For some countries, that view may seem quite threatening since the United States has been repeatedly accused of bombing and conducting operations in other countries without approval.
Once again, we are left with the questions of any limiting principle to this new uber-presidency. A president can now unleash a military campaign without congressional approval that could involve multiple nations. Yet, Congress seems content, again, to watch in a purely pedestrian role as if this invitation to a “dinner” is a sufficient substitute for congressional authorization. While it is not a check or balance, the president did pick up the check.
Source: Washington Post
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/cheney-in-wonderland-110826.html?hp=l8#.VBGWLEjU1z8 “Here is a multiple-choice question. See if you can get it right. Asking for advice from Dick Cheney on foreign policy is as sensible as:
A. Asking for advice from Anthony Weiner on how to “sext” and get away with it
B. Asking Ted Cruz’s advice on how to build a political career by keeping your mouth shut
C. Expecting Vladimir Putin to say he’s sorry, and could we please forgive him
D. All of the above
OK, the answer—(D)—is pretty obvious. Maybe too obvious. But the question is: Why isn’t it more obvious to more people than it appears to be? The fact is, Dick Cheney is making an aggressive comeback in American political life, and far too few people are laughing.
On Tuesday, the elder GOP statesman advised the Republican House Conference, which listened respectfully, about the need for a strong defense. On Wednesday, people packed the American Enterprise Institute—which continues to thrive as the beating heart of neoconservatism in Washington in defiance of a decade of grievously bad policy advice—to hear the former veep to speak on “9/11 and the future of U.S. foreign policy,” a prebuttal to President Obama’s speech to the nation Wednesday night about the Islamic State.”
I do not quite understand the contrarian criticisms which I see from the author JT of this blog. One article bangs the Obama guy for being soft on terrorism and then later he is guilty of excessive use of Executive Power. We have a guy down here where I am staying, New Orleans, named the Raging Cajun. He speaks a strange tongue. He says he speaks French but I am from France and it “aint French” as they might say down here. He speaks some kind of frog but then it is some tribal thing. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Not always at once. When he does then its Cajun.
I was here studying the American culture on Planet Earth about sixty years ago. You had right wing artFays back then claiming that Democrats were “soft on Communism”. Now this has morphed into Soft On Terrorists. I also noticed that a smell goes up in the room here which is similar to what we get back home and that is when some official says: “Raise your right hand and repeat after me.” So, when these legal experts go to Congress and do that routine we get a big artFay in the hearing room. I have taken to watching such activities on cable tv and not being present.
My point here is this. Do you want to have a Commander in Chief? Do you want to be tough on Muslims and Terrorists? Do you know that you have both a lame duck President and a lame Congress which has no ducks but only chickens that are always back home on the roost? Last year I observed that between the month of September and New Years plus ten days, your Congress did not meet except to pass the plate. If you know what I mean jelly bean.
Beldar – there is no morphing going on. Democrats are still soft on Communism.
As long as he gets permission from the War Contractors (180,000) that are looting the treasury right under citizens noses, and making money by the war for the big banks & Wall ST, I don’t see that he has a problem….
I think my husband needs to contact Prof. Turley about the use of his name by another poster or two who clearly misrepresent his views.
swarthmoredad, My husband posted a few times under that name a few years ago. Since you are not he, I guess you hijacked his posting name although you did leave out the r.
Republicans are so bad ; they made our beloved president interpret constitution a little differently than Turley. How can they/tea party people do that? Its all Bush’s fault .
OBAMA IS A ZIONIST STOOGE
Murderous Israeli Zionists Control U.S. Politics
The Zionists call themselves Jews but they are not Jews they are Satanists
Israel is not a ‘Jewish State’ It is a ‘Zionist State’
The Zionists Financed Hitler and the Nazis
THE ZIONIST JEW PSYCHOPATHS CONTROL AMERICA
(Buena Vista Mall is pro-Jewish, anti-Zionism, anti-Neocon)
ZIONIST STOOGES = U.S. GOVERNMENTS, WHITE HOUSE, WALL STREET, MEDIA, HOLLYWOOD
ZIONIST JEWS OWN AND RUN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
THE ZIONIST JEWS ARE WARMONGERS, MASS MURDERERS
ZIONIST BANKSTERS FINANCED HITLER TO POWER
ZIONIST JEWS FINANCED THE NAZI WAR MACHINE
THE ZIONIST JEWS ALSO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
ISRAEL DID 9/11
Swathmoredada —
The constitution is so open to interpretation that O can pretty much treat it as GW Boosh famously said: “it’s just a piece of paper”.
max –
if your point is that the U.S. has long been involved in waging wars throughout Asia (and much of the rest of the known physical Universe), I agree.
JT , BO is Harvard trained constitutional law “professor” who told us that he taught constitution and will obey the constitution . You just don’t know what constitution they teach at Harvard so that’s why you think he is not following the constitution .
I still find myself saying:
“There were no IED’s and market bombings under Saddam.”
That has now morphed into:
“There were no threats of rebles in Iraq under Saddam.”
Both are true.
Yet both have been happening since the USA light the fuse.
If time travel were possible…
AUMF of 2001…
… How many more decades and how many more George W Bush’s will America be saddled with an unconstitutional power grab at unilateral war by one person?
raff
ISIS is worse than Al-q which was worse than Bin Laden which was worse that Saddam which was worse than China hackers which, of course is worse than Russia and the Soviet era Cold War which was always worse than WWII.
My only question is:
What boogie man will President Clinton evoke?
From the very beginning of the USA, we have engaged in undeclared wars, starting with the Barbary Wars which was supported by the very people who WROTE the Constitution. So if they had no problem with such things, this is simply carping. The President has the authority to use the military as he sees fit to meet national security threats. If Congress thinks he has done so without justification, Congress has the power to impeach him. The list of wars the President has started, or invasions he has undertaken is WAY too long to list here. When I was in the military, LBJ invaded the Dominican Republic without any resolution of Congress, JFK invaded Cuba without Congress’ approval. Eisenhower invaded Lebanon without authorization from Congress. That is just a short list in my time. So please stop the melodrama as if Obama is the first. I have to also note that FDR did the same thing on so many programs that he makes Obama look like Turley’s student.
The president’s speech reflected a President who is deciding to take decisive action, but very limited action. My only concern is how many air force personnel need to be lost before we get dragged into a land war again in Iraq? Some on the Right are claiming that ISIS is an imminent threat to the US and is coming here to attack us. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Bill W
EastAsia is an 1984 euphemism for, war abroad.
NS —
you ARE planning on voting for her, right? If not her, whom?
Is Hillary still alive?
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”- James Madison
“The power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature”- James Madison