A War Fit for a King: Mr. Obama's War Against the Constitution

A War Fit for a King

Remember back in your high school civics class, when you were taught about the constitutional division of authority in matters of war? When you learned that the president has all the powers of an emperor, and Congress has all the powers of a potted plant?

Neither do I. But the people occupying high office in Washington went to a different school. They have done their best to prove that when it comes to using military force, neither the law nor the Constitution means a thing.

Obama is now 74 days into his illegal hostilities with Libya. He has yet to ask for Congressional approval to continue. Here is what Obama said in 2007 as a Senator criticizing George Bush:

cnsnews.com

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Or how about this gem:

As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

Hmm..."adopted into law". Like, oh I don't know, the War Powers Resolution of 1973?

I haven't seen Libyan ships off America's coast, or Libyan jets over America's skies lately. Have any of you? No, no we haven't seen any of that. Herr Obama can't seem to realize that he's going to run out of brown people to bomb. Then what? Browner people? Maybe whiter people? Maybe...America itself?

That's where we're headed, you know. As long as he keeps being allowed to act on his own like this, he's setting precedent. And when he is elected in 2012 (not if, unfortunately, because he has too many worshipers to fail at obtaining another term) he'll use that precedent to do whatever the hell he wants to do. And due to the recent actions of his administration, it would appear that what he wants to do is remove whatever remaining rights Americans have to life, liberty, and property.

From the reason.com article:

The Constitution says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But when Obama executed this law, he did it with a firing squad.

"Firing squad" may not be just metaphorical in the near future.

/TOA

More words written with a slant. Im beginning to see that cnsnews.com is complete garbage and nothing more that BS right wing propaganda, that's pretty much slanting to the point of lies. Nothing our President has done is against the constitution. He had 60 days from the time of issuing the order to support the NATO mission in Libya and on the deadline of that 60 days he requested approval from Congress, 30 days from his request is when his time is up.

reply to post by Kali74

Nothing our President has done is against the constitution. He had 60 days from the time of issuing the order to support the NATO mission in Libya and on the deadline of that 60 days he requested approval from Congress, 30 days from his request is when his time is up.

So the President, one man, can unleash the entire force of the US military for 60 days without seeking permission from anyone??

Man, do you know what the US military, with the word of "one man" is capable of doing in 60 days??

The thought makes me shudder..

You're all mistaken.

This "kinetic action" will be over with in a week.

Oh......wait a minute.......what's todays date?

Originally posted by Kali74
More words written with a slant. Im beginning to see that cnsnews.com is complete garbage and nothing more that BS right wing propaganda, that's pretty much slanting to the point of lies.

So, "cnsnews.com is...pretty much slanting to the point of lies"? Are you talking about the part where Obama said, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation", or was it, "As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law." Which of those are lies again?

Would you rather hear it from the Boston Globe? Wait, you may not want to, seeing as in the same interview with the above comments, Obama gives us this lovely tidbit:

...I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

Wow, that sounds a lot like the previous statements. He definitely didn't think that attacking sovereign nations without Congressional approval was right or Constitutional. Until he became the Head Dictator In Charge.

Nothing our President has done is against the constitution. He had 60 days from the time of issuing the order to support the NATO mission in Libya and on the deadline of that 60 days he requested approval from Congress, 30 days from his request is when his time is up.

Really? Because left-leaning msnbc.com says this:

On the 60th day of the Libya intervention, May 20, Obama wrote to lawmakers indicating that while he would like them to back the action, he was not asking for authorization.

/TOA

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Nothing our President has done is against the constitution. He had 60 days from the time of issuing the order to support the NATO mission in Libya and on the deadline of that 60 days he requested approval from Congress, 30 days from his request is when his time is up.

So the President, one man, can unleash the entire force of the US military for 60 days without seeking permission from anyone??

Man, do you know what the US military, with the word of "one man" is capable of doing in 60 days??

The thought makes me shudder..

edit on 3-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Starstarstarstarstar...get the picture?

This is what nobody seems to notice, and why I pointed out that he is setting precedent. Once this kind of action is allowed, there's little to stop it. from happening again. And again.

/TOA

reply to post by backinblack


Yes the Commander in Chief absolutely can. I believe he can even further the mission as long as he likes without Congressional approval, but he will have to find funding other than the defense budget. This is what I do not understand about people that buy into propaganda and I mean that to be a broad-stroke, why, why, why does anyone let anyone manipulate them this way and turn your head from the real issues?

The words "illegal war" are highly charged and meant to cause intense anger which by nature, anger takes away the ability to reason. I had to learn this the hard way after 9/11 when I was convinced GW Bush was committing crimes against humanity with his War on Terror and Patriot Act...that is what the liberal media that I read and watched at the time was telling me. I wrote letters, I marched, I yelled, screamed and argued til I was hoarse...and I was dead wrong.

What I realized was that by getting all upset and further propagating is that I wasn't checking the facts. Once I did I realized I had become a pawn. It's not that I minded speaking against Bush, I hated the man and still do because we are still feeling the effects of his double term today. I learned that Bush was not doing anything illegal and that all the hype I was buying into was making me a fool...my fellow liberals did not trust that I could disagree with his policies all on my own, they didn't trust that I would vote against him, and they damn sure didn't tell me the right things to do to change what I didn't like. I let them be lazy journalists and they let me dumb.

Media is a great resource but always do a double or even a triple take on all of it. The truth is that you cannot change what you don't like about our great country if you continue to partake in the feeding frenzy.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yes the Commander in Chief absolutely can. I believe he can even further the mission as long as he likes without Congressional approval, but he will have to find funding other than the defense budget. This is what I do not understand about people that buy into propaganda and I mean that to be a broad-stroke, why, why, why does anyone let anyone manipulate them this way and turn your head from the real issues?

You're right. The CIC absolutely can initiate hostilities without congressional approval. And he even did it within the bounds of the War Powers Act by notifying Congress within 48 hours that he would send American troops to Libya. What the WPA (the law) absolutely forbids is what he has done since, which is the continuation of hostilities after 60 days without congressional approval.

This is not propaganda, or word-twisting, or right- or left-leaning. This is fact and this is law. The "real issues" as you put it is that Obama is committing an illegal act by continuing hostilities without approval from Congress. Not to mention the issue that he seems to have with allowing sovereign nations to take care of their own business.

You don't understand why people buy into propaganda, I don't understand why people don't understand the law. Especially a law professor.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Sorry but no, he is not in violation. He has 60 days from the start of an action to request approval from Congress and then has 30 days from the time of request giving a total of 90 days. Should the 30 days expire without congressional approval he is still not in violation of any law because it is then up to Congress to cut off access to the defense budget. He requested approval on day 60. The only way for him to commit a crime here is if Congress votes no on funding by day 90 and the President continues to draw funding for the operation from the defense budget.

reply to post by The Old American


Yea Verily. Thyne Emperor Hath Decreed The Decision. Lo, to those who dared question His Glorious Self.
(bow 5 times in the direction of a party at Michael Moores house)

Seriously? I started a thread when he first went past the 60 day mark. The mans' ego knows no bounds. His arrogance, though, will be his undoing.
As much as the common american loves an underdog, they equally despise the prima donnas.

S+F

reply to post by beezzer


Again he made the request on day 60, he has 30 days from the request giving a total of 90 days.

reply to post by Kali74


Yeah, I understand that. And after 90 days, then what? He's got about 2 weeks to end things.

It ain't happening, Hoss.

Tripoli is going to b a new jumping point for the American Force.
Just my opinion. I'll humbly apologize if Obama does end things. But I'll bet you a nickle that he doesn't.

Originally posted by The Old American
He has yet to ask for Congressional approval to continue. Here is what Obama said in 2007 as a Senator criticizing George Bush:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

You forgot to mention his answer was in response to a specific scenario, namely, preemptively bombing Iran without Congressional authorization, substantially different from what is happening in Libya.

Barack Obama's Q&A

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

But he also said this—

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Candidate Obama said it was ‘preferable’ to “have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” not that it was necessary. I don’t find his position and words then to be inconsistent with his position as President now concerning the campaign in Libya.

As long as he keeps being allowed to act on his own like this, he's setting precedent. And when he is elected in 2012 (not if, unfortunately, because he has too many worshipers to fail at obtaining another term) he'll use that precedent to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

How is he setting precedent when before him Presidents have used the military without Congressional authorization over 125 times?

Just in the previous administration, George Bush deployed the military to Liberia in 2003 pursuant to UN Resolution 1497, and to Haiti in 2004 pursuant to UN Resolutions 1529 and 1542, all without authorization from Congress.


The fundamental flaw with the premise of the article in your OP, and your position, is two fold.

First, and using a quote from the article you linked, to address one part of what I believe is that flaw: “[w]hen you learned that the president has all the powers of an emperor, and Congress has all the powers of a potted plant?”

If Obama has “the power of an emperor” it is due to powers claimed by presidents and by the inaction of past Congresses dealing with those, long before Obama was elected. Moreover, Congress is not without power to terminate the military campaign in Libya if it wishes — Congress can block funding for the operation leading to its termination, and Congress continues to have the power to impeach the president. How is that “having all the powers of a potted plant”?

Second, there is an inherent difference between the scenario presented by the Boston Globe’s question — unilaterally, and without Congressional authorization, attacking Iran — and what the United States is doing in Libya.

It’s understandable that many of you don’t recognize the difference, or simply refuse to acknowledge it, because it would involve (1) admitting the United States, from its own free will, conceded some power, particularly in the international law and relations arena, to the United Nations and (2) with that in mind, and by consequence, what the United States and other nations are doing pursuant to the UN Resolution 1973 is not, based on that legal framework, ‘war.’

Military forced authorized by the United Nations Security Council is not legally considered war, it’s a police action. You may disagree, and you may think the distinction is insignificant, but this is what practically the whole world has agreed to, and we certainly have, by endorsing the United Nations and its Charter.

The “declare war” clause in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution meant the triggering of military action that today is considered “war of aggression,” and, as I’ve mentioned, what is happening in Libya, by the relevant legal frameworks, is not that.

People may disagree with the intervention in Libya for whatever reasons, but it’s disingenuous to suggest what candidate Obama was asked to comment on back in 2007 has any parallels with the military campaign in Libya. It’s also disingenuous to suggest Congress is without power to terminate the campaign in question, or make a President accountable for conduct the Congress believes is illegal or unconstitutional.

reply to post by beezzer


He has already indicated that this will be a lengthy process but, my point here is to say our President is not waging a war on the constitution nor acting against it nor commiting an illegal act in any way. If one has issues with the operation or issues on why this is allowed to happen than one needs to seek to change the laws, not make up false claims/believe false claims.

Originally posted by Kali74
The words "illegal war" are highly charged and meant to cause intense anger which by nature, anger takes away the ability to reason. I had to learn this the hard way after 9/11 when I was convinced GW Bush was committing crimes against humanity with his War on Terror and Patriot Act... ... I learned that Bush was not doing anything illegal and that all the hype I was buying into was making me a fool.

I agree with most of what you said but not on this point.

The “war in Iraq,” particularly, while authorized by Congress, was not authorized by the United Nations — it was constitutionally authorized, but it was an illegal war from the international law perspective.

I’m also not convinced some portions of the Patriot Act — that continue to this day and that the current President has also signed into law — are entirely consistent with some of the protections in the United States Constitution, but this is a broader and lengthier discussion.

Now this is something I can agree with. The President has not followed the constitution reagarding war, instead he marches to the beat of the UN and other nations. Throwing the Law of the Land to the wolves!

"Firing squad" may not be just metaphorical in the near future.

Careful Old American.....you don't want a visit from the guys in black suits and suglasses!

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

He has already indicated that this will be a lengthy process but, my point here is to say our President is not waging a war on the constitution nor acting against it nor commiting an illegal act in any way. If one has issues with the operation or issues on why this is allowed to happen than one needs to seek to change the laws, not make up false claims/believe false claims.

No, Obama is not waging a war on the Constitution. Waging a war would indicate a modicum of respect. Instead, he is wiping hs backside with the Constitution. After 90 days, we'll be in an illegal war bought and paid for by Obama.
Cheers

reply to post by beezzer


Explain how we will be in an illegal war. Can you see the future? Are you a Congressman with inside information that Congress will vote no and not fund the war? How do you know the Presdident will continue using the defense budget if Congress votes no?

I do have a legit question though, what happens if Congress does not vote by the deadline?

reply to post by Kali74


There have been 2 instances where presidents have gone beyond the 90 day mark.
Reagan, but congress later voted for it.
Clinton. Congress didn't vote.
The military budget is already spent for the year. Until september, anyway. After that?
Who knows. But we are going to be there for the long haul.

But if I'm wrong, I will gladly admit it.

one constitutional ammendment i would love to see.

revokation of the war powers act

and it would take a unimaous vote of the house and senate to ever goto war.

or if we need to be like any other country take the lead from japan constitution making it illegal to goto war.

the similaries to rome and this country are too eerie and we all know how rome fell and people we are almost there.