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
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Hey, Blue Yeti! I would love to listen, but there's no direct link to download the file! Would appreciate that or a regular RSS (non-iTunes). Thanks!
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Steven Drexler
Hey, Blue Yeti! I would love to listen, but there's no direct link to download the file! Would appreciate that or a regular RSS (non-iTunes). Thanks! · Mar 21 at 8:52pm
Steven --
Go here and use the direct link.
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
That's a very sane and grounded point of view. I'm with you, Leslie, in that I hope it goes well, too. But Kenneth is onto something, don't you think? We simply have to stand up for our constitutional principles.
Feb '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Is it just me, or does anyone else here have a bad case of whiplash? It seems that every time I read a cogent argument for involvement in Libya, I find myself in total agreement. Then I read an equally cogent argument for the opposite position, and I find myself in total agreement. As Peter says, Leslie certainly does present a sane and grounded point of view. And yet Kenneth really is onto something also.
I think it comes to this: I'm ok with involvement in Libya, and I hope it goes well. I'm not particularly confident in the ability of President Obama to prosecute such a campaign well or in our interests. I worry about, while still supporting, the overall policy begun by President Bush, and I hope that a protracted Iraq-style involvement isn't the result here. While I certainly agree that President Obama should follow the constitutional rules and protocols, I also fear that we conservatives will reflexively pick up any old weapon at our disposal with which to whack a Democratic president on the head going into the campaign season for the next election. Clear as mud?
Feb '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Kenneth
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".... · Mar 21 at 4:09pm
Is this the article?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/22/americas_descent_into_strategic_dementia_109310.html
Dec '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
I may be wrong, but I think the constitutional argument has been brought up almost every time we've engaged in offensive operations since Vietnam, including for Grenada and Panama. In the podcast both professors Epstein and Yoo indicated there is probably not a major constitutional problem with this initial use of military forces.
Extended and continuing operations are another matter. Obama does not have approval for them and he is sending mixed messages about what the mission is. The longer this goes on the more trouble he will have.
Also, the fact that Obama did not bother to inform Congress until after the decision was made and aircraft were in the air is a problem. He definitiely did not consult with Congress. He basically dictated to them what he was going to do.
So what can or should Congress do about that? Hold hearings? Withold funding? I've heard that polling at the moment is running about 70% in support of Obama on this. Which Senators and Reps in Congress will speak out loudly and hold hearings on this, especially when Dennis Kucinich is saying the same things?
Edited on March 22, 2011 at 5:30pmJan '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Granted, Presidents have been kicking sand in the face of the War Powers Resolution ever since it was passed. Still. Apart from whether the circumstances empowered the President to start this without Congressional approval, there's also a reporting requirement, and it's not just "notify Congress within 48 hours." He is supposed to submit a written report stating the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces, the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place, and the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Nowhere in the Resolution does it say, "But if that's inconvenient, he can just call it in from Rio."
Oct '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
Peter Robinson
That's a very sane and grounded point of view. I'm with you, Leslie, in that I hope it goes well, too. But Kenneth is onto something, don't you think? We simply have to stand up for our constitutional principles. · Mar 21 at 10:51pm
Yeah, but after the Bush years conservative outrage over Libya just isn't credible. It reeks of rank partisanship, and we need those squishy independents--who hate partisanship more then anything else--in 2012.
Just look at Ron Paul. Disagreement is one thing, but making too much noise is going to seriously damage us.
Jan '11
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
One could recycle that headline and present a new story underneath it every week.
Forgive my restlessness, but I'm so tired of this administration. 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.
Edited on March 23, 2011 at 7:11amMay '10
Re: Obama Flouts Constitution
"The president does not have power under the constitution to unitarily authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent attack on the nation." ~Barack Obama~ Dec. 20, 2007