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
Olly – I delete probably 2/3rds of the comments for various reasons and even some that I decide to respond to, on reflection I decide not to.
Paul, Did you get your paycheck from the Koch Brothers? I got a big raise. DBQ has been on the Koch Brothers and Halliburton payroll for years. What a gig. Making 2k a week just for commenting. Oops, do you make that much? I think DBQ makes a lot more than both of us. In the paid commenter world women get paid more, because it’s so hard to find a smart one.
Nick – I was thinking that if I made top commenter again I would get a raise, so you will have to slow down.
Precisely SWM, and it appears to me that there is a concerted effort among certain individuals to derail this discussion, just my opinion.
If Congress would do something and not just say “NO”, then Obama wouldn’t have to act alone.
🙂 Couldn’t resist.
DBQ, Aridog has gotten pretty fed up. I hope you stick it out but certainly understand if you don’t. ChipS popped in last night.
Send your complaints about format to JT.
“So the path we’re on now is one that serves everyone’s interest. Without a resolution, President Obama doesn’t have to take the risk of a formal rebuke from Congress. But the White House is sending representatives to brief Congress about the situation, so members can feel (and say) they were consulted. By not casting an up-or-down vote, no member needs to take responsibility for what happens. If the military action is successful, they can say they were behind it all along. If it fails in any way, they can say everything would have been different if only Obama had heeded their counsel (and they can claim that they would have voted against a resolution, had there been one).” Congress does not want to vote on this pre-election. That is my first link with a short comment. How is that not relevant to the discussion?. Often a link speaks for itself and does not need additional comment.
DBQ,
That format would be my preference and I tend to find it far more conducive to actually learning something of value. Once the threads begin down these ridiculous holes I start looking for the delete button.
We WERE debating the subject of the blog post, until a certain commenter decided it must be derailed, because he like to ‘play games’. And noDBQ my comment was n directed toward you, I would think that should be obvious. DBQ, you will find out that THIS blog isn’t like some other ones you’re used to.
I think it’s the other way around. You stalk, jeer and run….
Charlie – the big question is Is Obama capable of acting in any case?
I gather that the general “you” as opposed to the personal “you” is difficult to understand in a written format. However. I am just wondering why those various people who post only links do not have any commentary as to the purpose of their links, or reference to the topic that they are trying to refute or buttress. When you have a non threaded comment section, it gets muddy.
It is also quite uncivil to attribute words and thoughts to my posts that I did not say or even imply,”if” that comment were directed at me. I didn’t say people have OCD or need medication.
I am just wonder why in a debate format, which this seems to be as most comment sections are, that there is not any attempt to actually debate the topic at hand or to justify, or to qualify the supporting documentation…..links….as being relevant to the argument at hand.
The discourse would be much better if people would clearly make their point(s), present their evidence and then explain why their evidence supports their argument. You might actually be able to persuade someone to your viewpoint with those tactics.
Swm,
So long as I remain civil…. I won’t get sucked into the vortex of hate mongering some of these folks like to get into… It’s like they don’t exist…. And yes, it’s fun to throw them off the script….
Anyone else want to hear more facts on LBJ?
Annie,
That’s the intent is disruption…. As the professor has stated if they can’t be civil then maybe they should find another site….
As Bill McWilliamns pointed out:
An easy, sure way to spot a paid or volunteer right-wing shill/troll is the tactics they all use when responding to information they don’t like but can’t refute.
almost all try to shoot the messenger, try to discredit the source, say something childish/silly, feign outrage, question the writer’s patriotism, act as though the message or messenger doesn’t deserve a response, deny there is such a thing as paid propaganda, cite a right-wing argument that may or may not make sense on its own, but is unresponsive to the issue at hand, act in a way that reveals their loathe for people and ideas that are unknown or just different than theirs, cite right-wing talking points from the vast right-wing conspiracy etc.
Yes, I have this bookmarked…
AY – I will ask you again, since you avoided the question the last time, who is a paid shill? Using your formula, if you avoid this question, it will point you out as a paid shill.
Time for a JT visit.
Does the pathology remind you of anywhere else, DBQ??? LOL
Valuable comments are most definitely in the eye of the beholder. It’s a common tactic to belittle and dimiinish other commenters when they are making cogent points.
DBQ, I have a game I play. I will move around posting comments on different threads and have the people I NEVER respond to follow me around and snipe. Try it. It’s hilarious. I did it last night. I’m praying some of these folks get some self discipline and stop following me around and commenting to me INCESSANTLY. Would you keep trying to engage someone who has ignored you for months?
Annie, Ay, Sometimes it is just fun to mess up THEIR agenda for the day by posting a few links from sources THEY don’t approve of even if the sites are considered middle of the road. I know some come prepared with their long posts from their employers. Those are recognizable. 🙂
SWM – Exactly how are you calling out as a paid contributor? Don’t be shy now.
And this is how the same individual derails every single decent discussion on many different threads. It’s old and its boring as heck.