Obama Flouts Constitution
"Everyone should applaud the new European muscularity," Victor Davis Hanson, discussing the operation in Libya, writes below, "but understand it in a context of Obamism."
Indeed.
This much now appears clear: The administration consulted with Congress only on Friday afternoon, after the operation in Libya had already commenced. It did so not in person but by telephone, arranging a conference call with ten or 15 members of the congressional leadership. The President was in Brazil, of course, but evidently neither the Secretary of State nor any of her senior deputies so much as made the drive to Capitol Hill to discuss the matter with Congress in person.
Contrast the administration's treatment of the senior branch of the federal government--the Constitution, you'll recall, describes Congress in Article 1, getting to the executive only in Article 2--contrast the administration's peremptory treatment of Congress with what we now know to have been weeks of the closest consultation with the United Nations, the United Kingdom and France.
True enough, as I mentioned in Kenneth's post the other day, President Jefferson dispatched a fleet to deal with the Barbary pirates on his own authority, only informing Congress after he had done so. But Jefferson, intent upon establishing American sovereignty, would never have coordinated his actions with any other power.
In placing American lives and treasure at risk, Obama has by contrast given the protocols of the UN precedence over the Constitution of the United States.
Obamism, in other words, involves the conscious and premeditated surrender of our sovereignty.
And it is an outrage.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
My pastor and I were talking about Obama a couple of weeks ago and he said that Obama's talent/tactic is to just keep plowing through in the face of criticism or opposition. He just keeps going as if no one disagrees. I wonder if more people will come to perceive that. I hope the Republicans understand that they have to be able to go all 16 rounds with him at full strength with the President if they expect to push back successfully against his agenda. I hope they know who they're dealing with.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Peter, I saw an excellent article this morning (can't find it now), suggesting that:
A. The Obama administration - particularly the State Department - thinks it's a doggone shame that George W. Bush's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed other Western powers' trust in U.S. leadership.
B. Libya represents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that we can be trusted to act as good multi-lateralists.
C. Libya also represents an excellent opportunity to enshrine America's subordinate role to the United Nations, as enshrined in Ban Ki-Moon's newly-enunciated doctrine of Responsibility to Protect.
Aug '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Kenneth: Peter, I saw an excellent article this morning (can't find it now), suggesting that:
A. The Obama administration - particularly the State Department - thinks it's a doggone shame that George W. Bush's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed other Western powers' trust in U.S. leadership.
B. Libya represents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that we can be trusted to act as good multi-lateralists.
C. Libya also represents an excellent opportunity to enshrine America's subordinate role to the United Nations, as enshrined in Ban Ki-Moon's newly-enunciated doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. · Mar 21 at 3:16pm
Better source that one pretty quick, otherwise we'd assume that Bam was Ban's beyotch.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
flownover
Better source that one pretty quick, otherwise we'd assume that Bam was Ban's beyotch. · Mar 21 at 3:57pm
Darn it, Peter, I can't find it. But the gist was that Hilary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power bullied him into it, with the idea that this would rehabilitate America's image as a unilateral bully and align us with the vaunted new U.N. doctine of Responsibility to Protect.
So where is John Kerry now? "Coalition of the bullied and the bribed"....
Jan '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Our system of government is supposed to be protected by checks and balances. But here's where party loyalty trumps loyalty to the Constitution. In our system, the Senate is supposed to be a brake on such abuse, and to stand up and hold Obama accountable. But they won't, because the Senate is held by Democrats, and that party affiliation trumps the demands of the Constitution.
Sure, the House Republicans can jump up and down, but the Senate Democrats aren't going to do anything. Harry Reid? Chuck Schumer? John Kerry? Profiles in Courage.
Dec '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Members of Congress should have been consulted and involved weeks ago.
Even if an emergency Congressional vote could not have been held before launching last minute air strikes aimed at preventing a massacre in Benghazi, at least Congress would have known what was coming.
Apparently the Obama admin assumed they could do whatever they wanted to do without consulting and informing Congress. Hillary should have known better.
What a great combination -- arrogance combined with bumbling, feckless incompetence in foreign policy making. Didn't they hurl these accusations at GWB? At least he made sure Congress was consulted and informed early on and every step of the way, even if they didn't like the policies.
Oct '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Aren't we going overboard on the partisanship here? I worry this will damage conservative credibility. I understand that payback for the Bush years is very tempting, but that won't matter to the great squishy middle. They won't find this credible; most likely such an attitude will turn them off from the Republican party.
Oct '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
The only conceivable justification of this action is under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which has as a predicate that "United States is already under attack or serious threat". Now, how does one imagine that a civil war in Libya meets this test?
Further, the War Powers Resolution requires that, even under these limited circumstances, the President notify Congress with 48 hours of ordering armed forces into combat. Has this happened? Will it?
Without going to Congress for an authorisation for use of military force or a formal declaration of war (which enables all kinds of actions against Libyan flagged vessels, aircraft, financial accounts, and business interests), this military adventure is illegitimate and unwarranted.
I am no champion of Qadhafi (I'm using the CIA World Factbook's preferred spelling), but at the moment the U.N., who voted this resolution, recognises him as the "leader" of his "nation".
Maybe we all need to learn to laugh at such designations before delivering dictators and their enablers to their much-deserved destinies.
Edited on Mar 21, 2011 at 4:52pmSep '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
It sounds like the role of commander in chief has been greatly expanded, along with that of president, way beyond what the Framers intended. Certainly that doesn't sound good. Yet I'm glad Jefferson went after the Barbary pirates. I'm glad we got rid of Saddam. And I'm glad we're helping the people of Libya. I agree with everything that's been written here, but, still, I'm not outraged we're doing what we're doing. I just hope it goes well.
Oct '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Ah, just pointing out the tactical situation here. No offense intended, especially to the genuine non-interventionists among us.
Dec '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
I've had similar thoughts, but it depends on what exactly Obama plans to do and how things proceed from this point on.
My understanding is that events were moving unexpectedly swiftly, time was of the essence, and that quick military action was taken to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. Hours may have mattered. We are not invading Libya and we supposedly have many allies in this effort.
However, even what was done took weeks of planning and Congress should have been informed, consulted, and warned along the way. There is no excuse for not doing that.
Moving forward, Obama must explain what his objectives are and what the plan is. Those in Congress opposed must have an opportunity to present their case. If there is significant opposition in Congress, then a vote of approval/support is needed. There should probably be one in any case.
Obama cannot use the US military for sustained and extended operations without Congressional approval. Obama needs to explain to Congress and the country what he wants to do and get their approval one way or another.
Edited on Mar 21, 2011 at 5:35pmMar '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Peter Robinson:
Obamism, in other words, involves the conscious and premeditated surrender of our sovereignty.
And it is an outrage.
The sooner we all dispense with the idea that any of Obama's acts are a result of bumbling inexperience, the better.
Mar '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Peter Robinson,
I wonder where Obama purchased the Magic 8 Ball that he uses to make his important decisions. I can see him sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, shaking the Magic 8 Ball and asking, "Ohh, mysterious and magical ball, should I attack Libya today" and the ball's response is "As I See It, Yes!".
This president is so inconsistent in his beliefs and his actions, that I can't imagine any other way that he could make his decisions...
Jul '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Jim Andelin: Peter Robinson,
I wonder where Obama purchased the Magic 8 Ball that he uses to make his important decisions. I can see him sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, shaking the Magic 8 Ball and asking, "Ohh, mysterious and magical ball, should I attack Libya today" and the ball's response is "As I See It, Yes!".
This president is so inconsistent in his beliefs and his actions, that I can't imagine any other way that he could make his decisions... · Mar 21 at 6:05pm
His eight-balls has been, um, taken away by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power.
Edited on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:16pmMar '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Defund, defund, defund. That's all Congress needs to do. Also, Jack Goldsmith has an excellent piece on why the intervention is constitutional, though not necessarily a good idea.
Jan '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Well, for me, it's precisely because I don't want the partisanship. The Constitution was designed to be a balance of institutions, i.e., branches of government, not political parties. There should be a Madisonian tension between the legislature and the executive; not between political ideologies. The balance of power was never designed to be a competition between parties; it was only supposed to be institutions. I wish party didn't come into it in the first place.
When the Senate and the executive agree on the decision to go to war, that's one thing ... but the Democrats don't agree on this decision, yet the Senate Democrats aren't going to protest, because of party.
You know, the irony here is that I'd probably agree that taking out Qaddafi is a good thing, and normally, I'd say there's a case for it being in American national interest. But you can't ignore the constitution, even if you agree with the result.
Dec '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Obama is trying to sell this as something other than a major US effort. Basically he is saying the UN and our allies will be leading the way, providing most of the effort, and supplying most of the forces in harm's way.
Many suspect he is lying.
I think he needs to answer a lot of questions. Among them:
Also, he seems to think he can do this without Congressional approval and can get away with minimal Congressional oversight. I don't think so.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
I we fail to stand up for constitutional principles, there's going to be damage to things far more important than our credibility.
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Please pardon the crass cross-promotion, but you'll definitely want to give a listen to this week's episode of Law Talk with Epstein and Yoo. They cover this issue very thoroughly.
Oct '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
John Walker: The only conceivable justification of this action is under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which has as a predicate that "United States is already under attack or serious threat". Now, how does one imagine that a civil war in Libya meets this test? · Mar 21 at 4:50pm
Edited on Mar 21 at 04:52 pm
The War Powers Act of 1973 is itself of doubtful constitutionality. The constitution does not contemplate one branch of government infringing upon the autonomy of another. The president is the commander in chief; he orders and the military follows. Congress, on the other hand, determines the size, makeup, weapons, etc. of the military.
Some have suggested that we ought not confuse 'declare war' with 'commence war'; that they are two different actions that do not have a required sequence. Additionally, while congress can clearly declare war, they are never compelled to do so.
Everybody says that it is doubtful that the Supreme Court would ever attempt to decide the issue. It seems congress always has the option to impeach the president if they think he has gone overboard.