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
It’s quite uncivil to indicate that commenters here who post links are OCD and require medication.
I can read the articles. Often I have read or seen them before. They aren’t always the news that people think that they are.
What is the context of the link to the various posts by many other people. Since we don’t have threaded comments it is quite unclear. Why are you linking it? If you have a point to make do it. I can read or re-read the article but…I’m more interested in what you think, how you think, why you think the things you do.
This is a legal blog. If you were to stand up in court and spew links to the Court to make an argument without speaking or explaining any of the above to the court, you would have a hard time making your case.
If you have no words of your own, I am wondering if you are competent to discuss the issues or just a parrot.
“Annie, I thought Frum’s viewpiont was interesting because he is a former Bush guy.”
This the kind of deep, analytical thinking that adds absolutely no value to these threads.
The faux feminists are the ones coming after you. You can eat them for breakfast, and the “nasty” men for lunch.
Most people understand that by posting a link, one is agreeing with the contents of the article. People are lazy, a little reading won’t hurt anyone.
DBQ, I’ve suggested Lexapro off label for OCD linkage. But, it was MUCH worse not long ago. Everything was MUCH worse, as hard as it may be to believe. You are a breath of real woman fresh air here. I hope you can stand up to the nasty men! LOL
Remember the professors has requested that we be civil or move on…. There was no ad homein attack….. I’m sorry you don’t know the difference.
AY – I know an ad hominem attack when I see one.
Oh yes, still a plethora of “Rush-esque” wisdom yet like all great republics we still spiral towards certain doom. Was Great Caesar too ambitious? I believe the answer is… hmmmmm, never mind, back to learning my Chinese, it’s sure to come in handy after the fall.
DBQ – some people would rather have the link speak for them than speak for themselves.
It’s really not that difficult to read the articles at the links.
AY – what is a ‘paid shrill’?
Now doubt he didn’t SWM.
While I really appreciate links to articles and think that it is important to be able to back up your facts and show the sources you are using to obtain your talking points. It seems strange to just spew out links with no commentary by the poster as to what the link is trying to prove or disprove. Links are good….but….what do YOU think? What point are you trying to make or refute? Do you HAVE an opinion? What is it? It isn’t always clear.
If I want a Google feed. I can get one. While we can all admire someone’s Google-fu…..I’m more interested in the opinions of the posters and their thinking processes.
“factual links.” Let’s not have the biased source debate again. Elaine’s sources are almost always deep left field. The Atlantic is just medium depth left field. You’re not going to go all floppy, I’m a victim on me are you. You’ve always been a real feminist, not of the Blanche DuBois ilk.
Paid shrill, paid shrill… Still got that chicken costume?
You understand that anytime you post something that they have not been briefed about SWM you turn them into zombies. They react without the knowledge of why. They just put another spin on it to make it sound like they are reasonably intelligent.
SWM – I have not seen a ‘factual’ link from Elaine in months. She links to leftist site who are hardly known to be factual.
Annie, I thought Frum’s viewpiont was interesting because he is a former Bush guy. He probably did not know who he was.
SWm, some would rather talk about the size of a former President’s ‘member’. o_O
AY – another ad hominem attack. Feel better now?
Nick Spinelli,
I’ve gone through it with swarthmoremom before where I cite to the plainly stated, bedrock law and policy of the Iraq mission, and she’s citing to secondary and tertiary sources as though they somehow rebut primary sources.