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
I’ve criticized both Democratics and Republicans for being cowardly.
SM, This was the plan and it has been quite successful. Propaganda works.
“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.”
Here are some interesting facts to counteract the propaganda of this govt.: “If “brutal” enemies do the beheading, start bombing whole regions, as Henry Kissinger said on Sunday, and respond disproportionately, in a way that “you would not analyze in terms of a normal response.”
If authoritarian “friendly” governments do the beheading, as Saudi Arabia has done 26 times since August 4, 2014 (mostly to non-Saudis and political dissidents) say and do nothing. Human Rights Watch says the U.S. maintains a “deafening silence” on human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, its key ally in the region.
National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice explained her government’s take on “advancing” human rights while maintaining friendships with torturers last December: “Let’s be honest: at times, as a result, we do business with governments that do not respect the rights we hold most dear. We make tough choices.”
(World can’t wait) USG is beyond cynical. It’s up to US citizens not to fall for all the lies. We can do this by being informed and thinking for ourselves. We have this ability, and we should use it!
I think people need to get past this Republican / Democrat issue and just stick to the situation.
Funny how people decried the president for going into Libya and demanded that Congress step in and prevent him from doing so then they considered him a wimp for not enforcing the red line declaration he made against Syria and Congress is complaining. Now there is much mention of the Republicans being wimps for not supporting the president to go toe to toe with ISIL.
People’s position on issues is too often based upon party loyalty and bashing the other side. And, they seldom recognize that they themselves are.
I agree Darren, we are going to need ALOT of help from Europe as well as ME countries that are moderate, which are, um… Who? Maybe Turkey.
Annie – Turkey will not play with the Kurds, they do not want to see them armed.
The president has the statutory authority under the war powers act to prosecute an expedition against ISIL. If his administration needs to further this effort beyond 90s the administration needs to bring forth a compelling case for Congress to consider.
ISIL is a region wide threat with aspirations to engage in military and terrorist acts against civilians and governments outside the reason.
The president has stated he has a plan, but having a plan and executing a plan are often not connected.
One has to look at the situation in Iraq with the Kurds in the North, which is often a forgotten cause. The situation there is probably the best in Iraq and is relatively stable even in contrast to the other areas. In my view that is probably the best “success” of what happened there in changing the Hussein government, especially considered that under his watch he gassed and strongly punished ethnic Kurds. Now, they are free of that menace.
The Kurds have a formidable military force for what they have in terms of logistics and equipment but military commanders there have stated they do not have the weaponry to counter attacks by ISIL which has many modern arms of US nature. Theirs are largely limited to old Soviet issue.
German and a few other Europeans have agreed to provide arms to the Kurds to drive ISIL out. But this is a front that is going to take more than just us. It should have an international allied effort and given ISIL’s propaganda the Europeans and Middle-Easterners are increasingly likely to supply arms and/or combat forces.
NATO type orgs should provide air superiority but one prong is not going to be sufficient. Advisors and special forces from the US are going to be necessary at least for coordination and intelligence efforts.
I view the threat from ISIL at a worse level than the Taliban was in 2001. That is something that cannot be ignored.
We’ll have to see what the president does to see if it merits support or worry, but proclaiming he can go at it alone and unilaterally is something he has become rather accustomed to and that is a long term breach of what our constitution protects the public from.
Nick Spinelli, Master of Civility:
“Ahh, shades of Gene, the Dancin’ Machine. Unilaterally declare “victory” and do the chicken dance. I’ve never seen SWM do that. Desperate times and all.”
Let’s see, how many words rhyme with…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/08/weird-congressional-alliances-are-forming-over-isis.html “Strange alliances—and odd rationales—are forming over Congress’s possible vote to authorize military force against the self-declared Islamic State, or ISIS, as lawmakers stand at the ready to be briefed about militants but look unlikely to act to counter them.
The Senate is splintering over whether to defer to the president on war strategy against ISIS, with Democrats and Republicans at odds over whether President Obama needs Congress’s approval, and if not, whether he should even ask.
The disagreements are a further indication that Congress will punt a formal authorization of the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and beyond.
Indeed, congressional lawmakers, fresh from their summer recess, appear more interested in hearing about the threat ISIS poses than acting forcefully and swiftly to guide the president’s policy on the militant group.
Hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered the frank assessment Monday that a congressional vote could hinder presidential power at a time when Obama most needs it to counter ISIS, putting him on the same page as senior Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), both of whom indicated an interest in deferring to the president on war strategy.” So congress punts again, and if the strategy fails they can conveniently blame Obama.
SWM, yep I think Obama may have them by the short hairs.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/9/6121503/obama-isis-speech-honest
This is excellent! The speech Obama would give on ISIS if he were brutally honest.
Annie, Yep. If Obama comes out sounding more hawkish he will go up in the polls… too bad. Oh, and don’t hold your breath waiting for John Boehner and McCain to oppose a war. Even Rand Paul is scrambling………
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/opinion/gingrich-isis-obama-10-questions/
10 pretty good questions from the Newt.
I’m waiting on my check just like the 50 Texas National Guard troops.
Olly, You’re sorta new. Are you on any payroll like myself, Paul, DBQ and David M? You should be if you’re not.
Olly, Obama has surrounded himself w/ yes people. He doesn’t understand why Congress just doesn’t fall in line.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/americans-edge-toward-more-active-foreign-policy-wsjnbc-poll/
Ahh, shades of Gene, the Dancin’ Machine. Unilaterally declare “victory” and do the chicken dance. I’ve never seen SWM do that. Desperate times and all.
“If Congress would do something and not just say “NO”, then Obama wouldn’t have to act alone.”
Charlie,
Actually, saying NO is doing something. Simply because that something means the President doesn’t get what he wants is not justification to act alone. If the will of the People is being ignored by Congress then that is what elections are for.
Olly – as my mother used to say, NO is an answer.
There must be some Tea Party paid commenters here.
Nick – with the IRS emasculating the Tea Party, I don’t think they have the money to pay anyone. The Democrats sure do though.
Annie, Yep. The discussion was not going their way. Seems to be a pattern.
I think DavidM is on some Christian payroll.