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
LOL! Yes, American history began with Bush so this path must have begun with him. Another example of PTBD.
Olly – would that be Bush I or II? Would not want to answer the question incorrectly.
OK, maybe that wasn’t up to par on the part of mcw, but the Bush accomplishments–putting the country on a path to self-destruction with no one able to right the ship, seem pretty much a non-arguable point.
bill mcwilliams on 1, September 11, 2014 @ 4:50 am
“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”.”
Pretty sloppy with the facts…
The report that Bush “screamed” those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.
We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.
Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:
Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:
“This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database.”
I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.
Thompson elaborated on what led him to retract his story in an item posted on his website Jan. 1, 2011. He also noted that an earlier article, in which he had referred to Bush as a “madman,” has been removed from the site entirely.
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/
randyjet – I doubt very much if Eisenhower and Patton actually assembled tanks in Texas or any place else. I am sure that is why they have enlisted men.
Just got this headline in an email. Thought I would pass it along.
New Obama Poll So Low His New Secret Service Name Is Congress!
Eisenhower was stationed with Patton at the nascent armor school where they spent hours together assembling the new tanks and got to know one another quite well. Patton also LOVED the French and spoke the language fluently and went to school at St Cyr to learn fencing and military tactics. That is why Eisenhower assigned the Free French 2nd Armored Division to Third Army.
Was Bush even aware: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25809-cheney-says-iraq-would-be-stable-if-he-were-still-president
*Who you*- correction. Also I think we my have agreed on some topics in the past as far as foreign policy goes.
Aridog, I think someone is trying to tell you what to do. Do you allow yourself to be told you you should reply to? I kind of pegged you for being a strong independent type.
Patton was Ike’s bulldog. Every team needs a bulldog.
Aridog, You know better! If we keep it among substantive people who know and understand history this can continue to be a good thread. I have been ignoring for several months and I feel great. Just sayn’.
After reading Patton’s memoirs, I’d question that “hatred” of Eisenhower on his part. Eisenhower used Patton for a good reason, he was a fighter, which is why he rescued Patton from his miscues several times. Nothing I have ever read indicates Patton and Montgomery agreed on anything. The meme that they “hated” Eisenhower seems to be a recent revision of history. Fact is Montgomery kept trying to displace Eisenhower as supreme commander, or at least kept insisting he be in total charge of the European theater…more or less the same thing. Once Montgomery planned and failed with Operation Market Garden, killing more of his own and US troops than the enemy, he lost much of his luster and credit for successes in the past.
aridog – both Montgomery and Patton hated Eisenhower as a ‘desk general.’ Patton and Eisenhower were stationed together at one point, someplace in Texas if I remember. If you are really interested in this area, Eisenhower’s Generals is a very interesting book.
aridog, you are quite correct that Patton most surely did NOT hate or denigrate Eisenhower since Ike saved his butt on many occasions. Patton was an egotistical ingrate when dealing with those of lower rank, such as when he refused to acknowledge the soldier who saved his life in WWI when he saw him at the Bonus March. He followed the military rule that thou shall scorn those of lower rank. Eisenhower did not follow that one rule. As for Montgomery, Marshall was hinting to Eisenhower to fire Montgomery, but Eisenhower thought he could still work with him, and Marshall would not force the issue. Montgomery is very fortunate that Marshall was not his commander and Eisenhower came close to firing Montgomery after he was plainly insubordinate. The only British general who was worth anything was Gen Slim, who the Brits finally figured out was a good general, despite not having the right social background. It is too bad that it took them so long to do so. A lot more Brits would be alive today if they had.
So FDR was a great delegator, OK! Are we all on the same page now?
I see what you mean Randyjet and it is indeed painful to watch the suffering. If I thought the other governments–especially Saudi Arabia–would back off once we would nail down ISIS, that would be a sound strategy. The war there is underway. I think ISIS is just the bottle of champagne broken over the bow of this struggle. I think we will see many forms of conflict, either ending up in a full scale war among the Sunni and Shia, or just more proxy factions. It seems pretty clear to me the states over there are at war with each other.
Annie….please re-read the bulk of history of WWII. FDR was the opposite of a micro-manger. He was, in fact, a master of bringing good, even great, people together to administer the acts of warfare. Johnson and Robert Komer (aka Blowtorch Bob), Bush43 and Cheney (aka Crony King), and Obama and John Brennan (aka Jackhammer John) were the micro-mangers par fiasco. It disturbs me that I voted for 2 or that threesome….other than for Johnson’s part in the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1965. Do not be deceived by nonsense about FDR and Truman, they did what they had to do, in the face of considerable pacifist opposition. Eisenhower was picked by Marshall and FDR and that was a good selection, I’d say.
Aridog – the one thing that both Bernard Montgomery and George Patton agreed on was their hatred of Eisenhower.
my post got lost.
Annie…the Democrats of WWII bare no similarity those of today. Many of them in fact became Republicans in the late 1960’s & early 70’s. Many of those did not do so for good reasons (read racist). I remained a registered Democrat until 2004 in fact….just could not stomach them any more. The “majority” , both sides, prior to WWII were isolationist, along the lines of Ron Paul and son Rand. MY parents were interventionists at that time due to relatives they had under fire….so they influenced me.
I wrote a positive and complimentary response to Applelton, Randy, Spinelli and you (surprise eh?) a bit ago, but I hit a wrong key and it vanished. I will try to recompose it maybe tonight. I’ve been involved directly in our wars from 1960 through today, and I am fully capable of changing my mind when a cogent position is presented…and you did that on this thread a bit ago…I’m not quite ready to agree fully, but it is weighing on my mind that maybe we should just get the heck out of Dodge in the ME except for support of Egypt and Israel. I live among Arabs from all of the ME and I converse with them daily…the attitudes might surprise many here.
So it seems FDR WAS a hands on micro manager kind of President.
Aridog, I supported the first Gulf War because of the United Nations charter. Most people forget or did not know WWII started in Ethiopia in 1935 with Italy invading that country which was a member of the League of Nations. The major powers such as Britain and France refused to even impose any sanctions on Italy for that aggression because they were so afraid of war. Hitler saw that, and acted accordingly. Churchill of course, was in favor of going to war or using military force to aid Ethiopia, even though he hated the idea of helping a black African country which was an absolute monarchy. The UN is first and foremost a MILITARY alliance which was formed during WWII and was the alliance that won WWII. That is the reason Switzerland took so long to join since they practice neutrality. It was designed as an organization of collective security in which all members would join in defense of a member who was attacked. Thus not using military force would void the whole idea of the UN and lead to worse things.
In fact, the First Gulf War was a REAL UN operation with real allies, not ones bought and paid for like the second. Over 90% of the cost was borne by other members and only 60% of the troops were US forces. You will recall, Egypt, Syria, had divisions in Saudi Arabia as well as France, and Britain. Unlike the last one in which 90% were US forces and WE bore most of the cost. The second Gulf War did NOT have UN sanction, and was totally unnecessary since the point of the build up was to force the inspectors back into Iraq, WHICH WAS ACHIEVED without invading. I supported sending US troops over to Kuwait since that was the ONLY way to force Iraq to live up to the agreements Hussein had signed. I DID NOT support the stupid invasion. Bush was so inept that he dismissed the opinion of the military on the number of troops needed and we left weapons caches unguarded and open to every Iraqi who wanted a tank, RPG, or machine gun. Then surprise, we do not have enough troops and after a lot of dead GIs, then he sees that the military might have some idea of what was needed. Thus the surge.
Randyjet, I retrieved your comment at 11:55.
randyjet – if you really want to use Italy and Abbysinia as the cause of WWII, you really need to go back a few years to Japan and Manchuria in 1932. This showed how useless the League of Nations was.
Randyjet, thank goodness there were Democrats in the majority back then during WW2. Interesting bit of history, glad it turned out the way it did.