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
Paulette, “What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free to choose his masters?’” — Albert Camus
In a restricted vote republic, the vote is undiluted and has weight, import and meaning.
_______________
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
________________
The discipline Franklin required was lost.
“One man, one vote” democracy is an open invitation to manipulation, usurpation and corruption of the original restricted vote republic.
I think we’re there.
You’re correct, America has been enslaved by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
paulette, I am a history teacher and history is raw and nasty. There are MANY more details on his racism and sexual depravity, just gave a very abridged version.
Paulette,
Sometimes children engage in potty talk when they need a bit of attention.
annie – sometimes children engage in potty talk because they learned it from their parents.
LBJ actually said they would own blacks[cleaning it up for the faint of heart] “For 200 years.” I meant to say centuries, not decades.
Perhaps the Kurds need to align with Russia. They’d have a country in short order. 😉
Nick ~
Definitely too much information.
slohrss29 – There has been a problem since the Kurds, whose lands are in 3 countries, want their own country. Personally, I support this, but Turkey will never give up the territory.
We have no dog in that fight. ISIS is doing the work for Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Turkey has been pretty much at war with the Kurds for quite a while now. You guys that think Obama is protecting us crack me up. We’ll just blunder in yet again.
PCS, to kick a dead horse…not you, the voters approved the current American condition. I didn’t mean to imply that the candidate you voted for won. In general, after all the votes were counted, the voters, as a whole, at the end of the day, in the final analysis, APPROVED every time on every issue since 1789. If not, America would still be a restricted vote republic, Lincoln would have lost, the Constitution and severely limited government would be extant, not the Communist Manifesto, we would not have assimilated the various masses of illegal “immigrants,” we wouldn’t have fought unrelated, “common offence” wars and we wouldn’t be going back for seconds in Iraq.
Among other things.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gregorydjohnsen/obama-will-fight-isis-with-george-w-bushs-legal-theories#33ub1f4
Hey Eric, did you hear this? So do you think Congress will now back him? I don’t.
paulette, That’s the dynamic w/ black voters and Dems. When LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act he said to aids, “We will own those niggers for decades now.” LBJ called black people “niggers” all the time. He was also more of a womanizer than JFK and was hung like a horse. He didn’t even try and hide his screwing around from Lady Bird like JFK did w/ Jackie.
Have you all heard Obama and his errand boys trying to spin that he didn’t call ISIS “jayvee” a few months ago. They all got 4 Pinnochio’s and Dems just rolled their eyes. Donna Brazile said they “need to man up” on that. This President is out of control. Valerie needs to spank him!
Paul, I’ve not indicated that Democrats aren’t also cowards.
Nick – Jackie was running around on JFK, too. Fair is fair.
SWM, yup, it seems so cowardly to me. Obama should call their bluff and say he won’t act without a resolution. He would be forcing them to take responsibility. Why should Obama be the only adult in DC? So he can be their whipping boy, something they’ve wanted from day one.
John ~
“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free to choose his masters?'” — Albert Camus
annie – the Democrats do not want a piece of this, just to be clear.
Max-1 – sorry it has taken so long to respond to your post. You are absolutely correct. The NSA should have picked up on the ISIS thing from the beginning and allowed somebody to put them down. So, now the question is, did they pick up the information and it wasn’t acted on or did the not pick up the information?
Eric, Congress WILL NOT do what you suggest, even of Obama would do as you’ve suggested. You truly believe this Congress will do anything that would be seen as in harmony or cooperation with President Obama? You haven’t been paying attention or you’re an extreme optimist. As for the reson we entered Iraq and left it, we won’t come to an agreement.
Excellent point and post SWM.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/217292-poll-concern-for-civil-liberties-and-security-flips?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter“Fifty percent of people believe the government’s anti-terrorism policies have not gone far enough to protect the United States, according to a new poll, a 15-point shift since last year.
The Pew Research poll shows the public growing increasingly concerned about the threat of Islamic extremism following the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and with attention less focused on National Security Agency surveillance programs.
The poll found only 35 percent believe anti-terrorism policies have gone too far in restricting the civil liberties of people in the United States. That number stood at 47 percent a month after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden first leaked information on secret surveillance practices.”