Impeach Barack Obama
The time has come for those who claim high regard for the U.S. Constitution to show that they mean what they say. The time has come to begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack H. Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The United States has initiated a war against Libya, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has conceded. When one country bombs another, which has not attacked it nor posed any immediate threat to it, that is an act of war. No “humanitarian” rationale justifies such an act. Only an act of Congress suffices according to the United States Constitution. Barack Obama has violated that provision of the United States Constitution, which he swore, falsely it is now apparent, to defend and protect. Barack Obama has committed this greatest of impeachable offenses. Other offenses related to torture and violation of the civil liberties of U. S. citizens may emerge as articles of impeachment are drawn up.
Many Tea Party candidates and paleoconservative and libertarian Republicans, such as Rep. Ron Paul, won office by declaring their high regard for the Constitution. Rep. Paul stated in advance of the attack on Libya that a Congressional declaration of war was necessary according to the provisions of the Constitution before an assault could proceed. If these Republicans do not act now to begin impeachment following the lead of the very principled Dr. Paul, their words meant nothing, and they should be turned out of office.
Similarly antiwar liberals such as Dennis Kucinich backed candidate Barack Obama because of his promises of peace. But President Obama has given us ever more war. His pledge to end the war in Iraq by 2009 turns out to be an empty promise, and he has widened the war in Afghanistan. He has also ordered the bombing of Pakistan, another act of war not authorized by Congress. If such liberals are genuine agents of peace, they too have an obligation to follow the lead of Kucinich who has used the term impeachment with respect to Barack Obama’s behavior to initiate impeachment proceedings. Otherwise they are poseurs, and they should be turned out of office.
Barack Obama can himself be called as the first witness to the hearings on his impeachment, so obvious is his crime. In 2008 as a candidate for the presidency he replied as follows to a question from the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage.
Savage: “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?)
Obama: “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.”
High members of his administration agree and might provide ancillary testimony. Vice President Joseph Biden has declared: “The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was of the same opinion: “If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.”
Barack Obama has further isolated the U.S. in the world by going to war against Libya, contrary to his claims of being a part of a broad international effort. This can only do more damage to our country, bleeding now with so many problems. Consider the vote in UN Security Council. Michael Lind informs us of the demographics and power relationships lying behind the UN vote as follows: “In the vote to authorize war against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France joined by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa. Abstaining from the vote were five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany.”
“What do the five countries that registered their opposition to the Libyan war have in common? They make up most of the great powers of the early twenty-first century. A few years back, Goldman Sachs identified the so-called “BRIC’s” — Brazil, Russia, India and China — as the most important emerging countries in the world. The opponents of the Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC’s plus Germany, the most populous and richest country in Europe.”
“Including the United States, the Security Council nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution have a combined population of a little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security Council countries that showed their disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the vote have a combined population of about 3 billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion.”
“If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the Security Council is even more striking. The countries that abstained from the vote account for more than 40 percent of the human race. The countries that joined the U.S. in voting to authorize attacks on Libya, including Britain and France, have a combined population that adds up to a little more than 5 percent of the human race.”
The situation appears worse the more one regards it. Lebanon’s government controls only part of its territory. Gabon is a statelet with a mere 1.6 million people, smaller than many American cities. And the UN ambassadors of two of the countries who sided with the U.S., Nigeria and South Africa, were not present when the vote was scheduled to be taken. Ambassador Rice had to leave the Security Council chamber, find them and usher them in herself.
Partisan considerations should not impede the move to impeach Barack Obama. When George W. Bush was president, many on the Democratic Party Left called for his impeachment. They must do the same for President Obama who has more clearly violated the Constitution than President Bush since he did not even seek the dubious Congressional “authorization” which George W. Bush asked for and received. If the Left cannot do this, its credibility will be in shambles, and quite deservedly so. On the other side clearly there is reason to indict Bush, and some on the Left are calling for that as are certain authorities in European countries where former President dare not go. But at the moment Barack Obama is in charge and capable of greater damage if he is not stopped by impeachment. Impeachment of Barack Obama can no longer be avoided.
Both Right and Left have good reasons to impeach Obama. With this coalition it may be possible to get the ball rolling and at long last impeach an imperial president. If it can be done once, the warning will be there and it will be the first step in curbing our imperial presidency.
President Barack Obama has violated the U.S. Constitution and employed the armed forces of the U.S. as a king’s army. The U.S. made its revolution to escape such a predicament, and if this usurper of Congressional authority is not stopped and punished, these crimes will continue under each succeeding executive. This must end and it must end now. Impeachment proceedings must begin at once.
If you’re serious, where can I find the legislation Speaker Boehner just pushed through Congress, defunding the intervention and demanding an immediate end to U.S. involvement? Okay, but he has introduced such legislation, right? Anything? Nothing?
The fact is, Congress doesn’t want the responsibility of declaring war, so it has abandoned that duty, freeing Presidents to act on (or in the absence of) nebulous grants of authority to exercise military power. How many nations has the U.S. bombed since WWII? During that period, how many times has it declared war?
Sure, we have a divergence between “The way things are,” and “The way things should be.” But it’s difficult to think of a President since FDR who couldn’t have been impeached under the standard you propose.
As for “offenses related to torture and violation of the civil liberties of U. S. citizens”, I’m not going to look through your past writings to try to find out, so I have to ask: did you call for the impeachment of Bush? The same goes for his having “ordered the bombing of Pakistan”, although obviously the context for those bombings is a lot more complicated than you suggest above.
Impeach Obama? The anti-racist ideologues would go ballistic.
Sigh.
The President is authorised to use US military forces without a Congressional declaration of war only in the specific instances laid out by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was designed to – limit – the Presidency’s powers as Commander-in-Chief of the US military.
The WPR has been invoked many times since 1973, but there’s never been a legal challenge to it, and the United States Supreme Court has never ruled it unconstitutional. A lot of people – do – think it’s unconstitutional, including every inhabitant of the White House since 1973, but no one has – proven – it by getting the USSC to rule on it in their favour. Until that happens, Congresses claim that it has the constitutional right to restrain the Presidency’s war-making powers in this way according to the ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ remains the law of the land.
According to the WPR the President can use the military for a limited time when there is relevant statutory authorisation on the books. The statutory authorisation in this case is the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which lays out the terms under which the UN can ask member states to provide military assets to help it enforce Resolutions passed by the UNSC invoking Article 42. The UN Resolution imposing a no-fly zone over Libya invokes Article 42, and so meets the requirements of the UNPA.
I’m pretty sure you – must – have come across this argument at some point in your research. Kind of odd that you don’t even mention it, if only to blow it off.
Shorter me – there’s nothing impeachable here. Congress set these terms, the White House is meeting them; don’t like it, go get standing to bring a case to court and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Or even better, get a Congressman who agrees with you to do it for you. It’s their Resolution you’ve got a problem with, after all.
But that’s covered by the terms of the Treaty of Naganapen, so YMMV on whether you think it’s worth wasting your time.
“If you’re serious, where can I find the legislation Speaker Boehner just pushed through Congress, defunding the intervention and demanding an immediate end to U.S. involvement? Okay, but he has introduced such legislation, right? Anything? Nothing?”
Aaron, that’s a non sequitur. While you are correct that this legislation should indeed be forthcoming, even if it’s not, that doesn’t make what the President has done any less extra-constitutional. As far as Bush, yes he should’ve been impeached too, for his activities while in office. In fact, Obama could also be impeached for failure to execute his duties by not bringing Bush up on charges for torture, et. al!
We talk a lot in this country about making examples out of people to hopefully set precedent, and discourage future negative actions. It’s way past time we did it for Presidents who insist on treating the US military like their personal guard dogs.
Peace be with you.
For what it’s worth, from Michael Lind:
“However, while the Security Council can authorize member states to undertake a war for purposes other than national or regional self-defense, it cannot order any country to do so. The U.S. agreed to participate in the United Nations only because the U.N. charter makes it clear that each member state has the right to decide, on the basis of its internal constitutional processes, whether to take part in an enforcement action authorized by the Security Council.
In other words, there are two distinct systems of authorization, one international and one national. Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere “consultation” with the president.
The U.S. stayed out of the League of Nations after World War I in part because critics argued that it transferred the power to send the U.S. to war from Congress to an international body. Critics of U.S. participation in the United Nations after World War II similarly argued that the result would be presidential wars authorized by the U.N. but not by Congress.”
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/lind_libya_war/index.html
So based on this, one could say that the offensive offensive is internationally legal, but domestically illegal.
Peace be with you.
So just how much does the UN Fig Leaf cover?
It would seem that the 1973 War Powers Act and the U.N. Fig Leaf are separable questions. That fact that the WPA allows the President 60 days leeway to continue some adventure he has found for the country (by whatever tortuous route) before sending someone round to mislead the Congress does little to establish the “legality” of the current operation in, or above, Libya.
In the case of bombing Serbia, liberal imperialists appealed to the North Atlantic Treaty and only secondarily to the UN Charter. Strangely, no words in the original treaty had anything to do with blowing up countries that had not actually attacked a NATO member. Perhaps the members had adopted some new provisions between 1949 and 1999. If so, liberal imperialists never provided us with those.
Many writers attempt to ground the “legality” of the current exercise on the following statutory language (incorporating language from the UN Participation Act of December 1945):
‘Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations
‘The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.’
On the face of it, then, the President may do what the Security Council requests under the relevant articles of the Charter “pursuant to special agreement or agreements.” The only remaining question, then, would seem to be whether such agreement or agreements have ever been negotiated and approved by Congress and (if so) whether they meet the actual case at hand. As easy as it is these days to end large bodies of text around, I imagine the liberal imperialists will be getting back with us on this very shortly.
I don’t recall that Harry Truman bothered producing such agreements in 1950. But perhaps things have changed.
As for impeachment, I have no dog in that fight. Congress has tried it twice and pretty much managed to discredit the idea both times.
Joseph Stromberg
Impeachment would be a worthwhile exercise to educate the public on the illegality and unconstitutionality of this attack on Libya. Don’t worry about its improbable success. If a few good Congressmen can be found to initiate proceedings, their time could not be better spent. That much is obvious I hope. Obama’s own words in 2007 condemning as unconstitutional his very actions today can lead the discussion.
“As for impeachment, I have no dog in that fight. Congress has tried it twice and pretty much managed to discredit the idea both times. ”
Actually, they tried it three times: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Both Johnson and Clinton beat impeachment, but Nixon beat it out of town before the House voted for impeachent, which the overwhelmingly Democratic House surely would have done.
Tony J wrote:
“Shorter me – there’s nothing impeachable here.”
Well wait a minute, Tony, it seems to me a very good chance that if a Congress impeached a Prez. under *any* at-least-colorable claim of him or her committing a high crime or misdemeanor the Supreme Court would not interfere, saying that the “Political Question” doctrine prevented same, and that Congress too has some authority to decide what the Const. allows and doesn’t.
That’s not to say that I agree it should try to impeach Obama here, in fact I think it’s kinda nuts for Republicans to even argue same. (Esp. given the glee with which they greeted freaking astounding actions of past Repub. Presidents.) But, still, theoretically speaking….
Moreover I think something else may be noted as well. You refer for instance to the War Powers Resolution insofar as its intent was to constrain a Prez. (Which indeed is the reason that no Prez. since has conceded its constitutionality.)
But what about the idea—which indeed seems to represent much of reality—that the way things have turned out the WPR has effectively *enlarged* Prez. power from how it was typically (but not exclusively) used before?
That … whereas before many if not most Presidents were much more consultative of Congress given the fear they had of the relatively categorical words of the Const. about “declaring war.” But that then, with all that nice, gauzy language in the WPR, well hell it sure can seem, Presidents left and right have damn near gone wild ordering things all on their ownsomes, because they can then point to their interpretation of that gauzy language and say “see, even *if* the WPR is constitutional it allows me to do what I want, so….”
Look, for instance, at Obama talking about how Libya threatens U.S. interests. What a laugh, but there he was still, no matter how ludicrous, watching his legal back essentially….
As for the main question, nut;, I think the legalities here are really no longer even academically relevant. The practical reality is that because of so much past practice the only real constraint on Prez. power to take us to war is the political, period. Will they or won’t they get re-elected or not due to what they order?
Congress simply *likes* not having to record its vote on most of these things, and then likes to pretend otherwise. Just like with Vietnam they liked to bitch, but when push came to shove they funded it right up until the bitter end. And I don’t see why that reality is likely to change anytime soon.
Whatever academics debate about the Constitution or judges defer, a healthy majority of the American people are inclined to believe- correctly- that the Executive is completely out of sync with any normal interpretation of his constitutional war powers. This is not a “police action”, this is not a rapid response to an attack on America, This is a deliberate and (somewhat) planned war against a sovereign state without any consultation or approval by that body, Congress, that has the sole power to enable a continuing state of war. It wasn’t a typo and the reasons are constantly obvious. An impeachment threat assists at a minimum in the political weakening of the royal war. Moving from the acknowledgement of collaboration,i.e. Tonkin Gulf or the Gulf War resolutions, to simple royal fiat is more than symbolic.
TomB – “Well wait a minute, Tony, it seems to me a very good chance that if a Congress impeached a Prez. under *any* at-least-colorable claim of him or her committing a high crime or misdemeanor the Supreme Court would not interfere, saying that the “Political Question” doctrine prevented same, and that Congress too has some authority to decide what the Const. allows and doesn’t.”
Fair enough, but in this case Congress used its authority back in 1973 to say “what the Const. allows and doesn’t”, and the White House has stayed well within the bounds it set. That’s what I mean by ‘there’s nothing impeachable’ here.
For example, Congress – could – change the law to prevent the Presidency authorising any use of military force without getting Congress to vote on it first, or a challenge to the War Powers Act – could – reach the Supreme Court and get a verdict that declared it unconstitutional, but that wouldn’t make anything the Obama Administration has done vis a vis Libya unconstitutional. Judgements aren’t retrospective.
Any attempt by the GOP’s House majority to push for impeachment procedings here would be partisan theatre designed to appeal to their base, nothing more. There’s simply no legal basis for it in the law as it stands.
“Congress simply *likes* not having to record its vote on most of these things, and then likes to pretend otherwise. Just like with Vietnam they liked to bitch, but when push came to shove they funded it right up until the bitter end. And I don’t see why that reality is likely to change anytime soon.”
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
L. Howard – “Impeachment would be a worthwhile exercise to educate the public on the illegality and unconstitutionality of this attack on Libya.”
Broken record here – but the action taken against Libya is both legal and constitutional. You may not like it, for whatever reason, but that doesn’t change what the Constitution says. Congress can delegate some of the enforcement of its powers to other bodies under the ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’, that’s what the War Powers Resolution of 1973 does, and the United Nation’s Participation Act that Congress passed in 1945 gives the Administration the statutory authorisation the WPR calls for.
That’s the law as it stands. Congress – could – pass an Act changing it along the lines you suggest, which IMHO would be a good thing, but it wouldn’t change a thing about the legality or constitutionality of the action in Libya.
There are simply no grounds for impeachment here other than the Party affiliation of the President in the White House, and while that might be enough for the 27% who form the GOP’s base, it’s not something that will go over well with an Electorate already getting pissed off and outraged by the ideologically driven overreach of the Class of 2010.
“Obama’s own words in 2007 condemning as unconstitutional his very actions today can lead the discussion”
Sorry to burst your talking-point bubble, but in 2007 Obama was talking about unilateral military action that had no basis in US or international law. The UN No-Fly Zone imposed on Libya is a coalition effort justified by US and international law. Apples and oranges, not the same.
@ L.Howard:
For what it’s worth, L., gotta say that I think Tony J. is spot on in his response to you.
Not that I don’t feel your pain, esp. because of the logic that, damnit, if *someone* doesn’t yell “stop” at *some* point in time to Executive aggrandizement of the power to essentially declare war, well then it’s hopeless. And of course if that’s ever gonna happen it’s almost certain to be a partisan effort. Thus the “if not now, when” cry makes some sense. (Although as Tony has noted with this Libya thing now is not the time as Obama is on strong grounds.)
For what it’s further worth though despite that “now or never” logic I also think “never” is gonna be the time, and it’s just too late. Too much water has gone over that dam to call it back. Maybe the problem started with Congresses’ ducking their duty to vote up or down on declaring wars way back when and instead just doing so via funding the damn things. Or maybe with the Supreme Court recognizing that no formal declaration of wars is necessary for Congress to approve of them, I don’t know.
But the die is cast now I think, and the historical reality— demonstrated to be still very vibrant today— is clear: Congress loves to *complain* about not being consulted, but in truth as a body it loves dodging the responsibility to have to declare itself.
And I know; I know, it seems unconstitutional as hell. And indeed defining what’s “constitutional” in any ordinary sense would indeed support that reading, as you note. But that “ordinary sense” is not and has not been the reigning sense.
One more ratchet-step away from understanding the constitution the way ordinary people understand it, and thus I suspect one more step away from understanding it the way it Framers mostly intended it too. I don’t think they really felt they were writing for some little clerisy, that’s for sure. So again I’m sympathetic to your impulses at least.
Congratulations, TonyJ, for discovering a method for amending the Constitution that is not expicitly set forth in the Constitution. Rather than follow the cumbersome methods outlined in the Constitution, Article V, it appears that Congress removed the authority of Congress to declare war merely by passing the United Nations Authorization Act in 1945. That article clearly requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress to approve an amendment and that, subsequently, the amendment must be aproved by 3/4 of the States (legislatures or conventions). I think you may win a Nobel Prize of some sort for your work. I can’t wait until the U.N. adopts a resolution banning free speech and free practice of religion. I am sure you will be performing back flips saying the First Amendment of the Constitution is dead meat unless the U.S. Congress votes to defund the U.N. But will that solve the problem?
Thraton makes a good point. Laws “repugnant to the Constitution” are unconstitutional on their face.
There is no necessity for the SC or Congress to rule on a particular law for it to be void under the Constitution, and neither can Congress amend the Constitution by proposing exceptions or special conditions. Nor can any branch of the US government surrender their legal duties, sworn under oath, to we who put them there as our servants, not our masters.
The President cannot use American blood and treasure without Congressional approval, subject to the Constitutional litmus test of actions the President may undertake, for any purpose, whether it is a war, a “police action”, humanitarian relief, or rounding up Charlie Sheen and incarcerating him in the Guantanamo prison.
I recommend the article at http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/21/obamas-war-on-libya-a-constitutional-view/
for an analysis of how and why the Libyan excursion is in-your-face unconstitutional madness.
I am sickened by the way the President leaps to take marching orders from the UN to bomb and kill but will not fulfill his responsibility to the American people – whom he clearly despises and holds in amused contempt – to create a militarized border with Mexico and so protect the USA.
tbraton,
How are you able to clutch those pearls so tightly while sticking your fingers in your ears at the same time? That’s quite a talent.
tbraton and Mr. MacLeod:
While I sympathize with your views it does come down to a matter of form in the end it seems to me.
You object essentially because Congress has not approved this Libya action (in a certain way).
But it *has* approved this Libya action in other ways. Even if you discount that the UN Act authorizes Obama here (and I would so discount that I think, surely more than Tony J., since no Act of congress can trump the Constitution), well then there’s the War Powers Resolution.
And then there’s the fact that, well, Congress hasn’t *condemned* this Libya thing, has it? It not only hasn’t passed it hasn’t even moved a non-binding resolution saying so. And the same with a binding resolution.
And then there’s the fact that it’s allowing the *funding* of it. And when it comes to money/appropriations, the Dean of American foreign-policy law has said this is the “complete answer” to the ridiculous claims of Congressional helplessness in the face of aggrandizing Presidents. Congress, this afternoon, could pass a binding resolution absolutely forbidding the expenditure of even one more single cent on this Libya business, and yet of course it won’t.
Gets back to the hypocrisy of Congress in the Vietnam War: Loved to talk about how they were “fooled” into it, lied to, hated it, never voted on it, and blah blah blah. But oh they funded it, Oh they were afraid not to….
Once again like you guys I’d much prefer up or down votes to go to war or not, but how do you make Congress take up its responsibility? Especially when the electorate doesn’t punish it for not doing so?
Tony J, please identify the exact statement you believe constitutes Obama’s “apple” ?
TomB, an UN Security resolution is not American law and has nothing to do with the argument over “impeachment” although it raises the uncomfortable question of what happens to the international legality of the war when the resolution is ultimately breached. Must we send Obomber to the Hague? We are now in the sixth decade of undeclared wars, corrupt to our principles, bankrupt,without a draft and complaining about an electorate our establishment deliberately narcotizes. These wars are now unwinnable and endless.They are “criminal” in any normative sense. If you want the electorate to punish Congress and the Executive, it is helpful to point out their transgressions. They still believe in the Constitution, idealized or not. Ask’em. “Impeachment” is about politics; it will never come to a trial in the Senate and Dennis Kucinich should be encouraged to raise hell in the House.
The bottom line is that, under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Obama’s use of the American military in Libya, while it may be ill-advised and immoral, is not illegal. Mr. Walsh’s article is based on an incorrect premise – there are no grounds to impeach him based on this action.
Tony J, the opposition to the latest war is rather non-partisan. I’m not sure why you believe the fed-up public would see this as a partisan attack when it can’t be- at least as I count the beans. If polls are reliable, it appears “independents” have the least early support for our new war. Many Republicans support the war because they like war and many Democrats support the war because they like Obama. I don’t think our new war is going to be popular at all in a few months and then the many might become the few. As to “broken records”, someone smarter than both of us once remarked our Constitution was all sail and no anchor. Those attorneys and academic nuisances that believe Obama’s actions are “impeachable” may yet have their appeal. That’s what we do: we argue that existing laws or actions are unconstitutional or illegal. You are bright enough and I am certainly experienced enough to know that the winds have moved the ship in directions we didn’t once believe were possible. Unfortunately, I am most afraid we are just sailing at a speedier clip in search of a…great…white whale. Don’t discount insanity as a feature of contemporary American foreign policy.
Pleasure, here’s the question he was asked in 2007 -
“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?)”
And he answered –
“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 notice the use of the word unilaterally? As in, the Presidency – itself – does not confer any constitutional authority on its holder to order an attack on a foreign country unless Congress has authorised it or there’s proof of an actual or imminent threat.
My point, the one you disagree with but still haven’t addressed, is that the President – does – have a constitutional right to deploy US armed forces in support of UN Resolutions invoking Article 42, because Congress delegated that authority to the Presidency under a combination of the UNPA of 1945 and the WPR of 1973, and Congress has the constitutional right to do this under the ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ of the Constitution.
Until the Supreme Court rules that any of the above is unconstitutional, it’s not. It’s U.S. law.
You can rail on about the Constitution all you like, but until you address my actual argument, it’s just internet bloviating, and irrelevant..
Here’s Obama’s “apple”, Tony J, from December 2007: the President does not have authority under the Constitution to unilaterally engage in military action without a threat of imminent harm to the United States. He specifically required prior Congressional authority. Now we can to our discredit try to imagine that this was an attack on the US he responded to but only a shill would eat that apple. We could also try and imagine that the UN Security Council is a branch of government under our Constitution but it isn’t. Maybe Obama has a new take on the Constitution-fair enough- but he ran for office with a different opinion. In the verbatim transcript I’ve read, Obama was responding to a question about attacking Iran. If his position has so changed, he may believe he can initiate war with Iran at his pleasure. The Security Council Resolution is a matter of international law; it cannot amend the Constitution. The next question though is that if the legality of this war is based on the resolution, the intervening forces are already probably in violation as they fight combatants(the bad guys) engaged in combat with other attacking combatants(our “guys”). As I read R.1973, it prohibits any intervention outside of protecting civilians, not combatants. Fitting a war designed to oust the current regime and end in the victory of “our guys” into R.1973 will only raise another interesting issue. If its “constitutional” to act on the wishes of the Security Council does it become “unconstitutional” if you act outside that enabling resolution. State Department lawyers, get to work.
TomB – “Even if you discount that the UN Act authorizes Obama here (and I would so discount that I think, surely more than Tony J., since no Act of congress can trump the Constitution), well then there’s the War Powers Resolution.”
Rather the other way around.
The WPR authorises the Presidency to deploy U.S. forces where there’s a statutory authorisation in place, the terms of the UNPA provide that statutory authorisation, and the ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ of the Constitution gives Congress the right to do all of this because it confers the power to delegate Congressional authority onto other bodies when they’re carrying out laws that Congress has passed.
But I do very much appreciate the vanishingly rare sight of someone on the Internet having a genuine debate, and politely at that. You’re a rare breed, sir.
The Executive has used the UNPA to authorize economic sanctions,etc. but I would be surprised if Obama invokes it as domestic authority to go to war. If he does,the legal challenges will ensue. As to the WPR, I’ll refer readers to Professor Ackerman’s article, Foreign Policy, 3/24. He convinces me the war is in violation of the WPR and is constitutionally dubious. As to Obama’s 2007 statement, under the “plain meaning” rule it is obvious that he did not mean “except where the UN gives me authority” because he could have said that. Your take on the UNPA is unique, Tony J, but we’ll see if you’re on a limb a bit when the President announces how he gets away with it. We can revisit this then.
Tony J. wrote:
“The WPR authorises the Presidency to deploy U.S. forces where there’s a statutory authorisation in place, the terms of the UNPA provide that statutory authorisation [sic] ….”
Well I agree with the first part, Tony, but could you point to the precise language of the UNPA that you feel constitutes that authorization? And then, if anything, whatever further the UNPA said was needed for such authorization?
I suspect, that is, that Mr. Stromberg above has faithfully reproduced that section of the UNPA talking about a Prez. giving the U.N. Security Council “the call” on the use of U.S. armed forces, and as I read it while a Prez. is indeed authorized to affirmatively respond to that “call,” it is only per “special agreements” he or she has made with the Security Council, *with those agreements having been subject to Congress’ approval.*
Now I won’t ask you to link to a copy of any such “special agreement” w/re this Libya thing because I’d grant that maybe a purely verbal agreement has been made and that same might well be valid enough. But what then do you say about that “subject to the approval of the Congress” language?
Or perhaps is there some other provision of the UNPA that you are relying on?
Moreover, what’s interesting when I think about it, do we really know if Obama has invoked or would invoke the UNPA in defense of what he’s done? I kinda doubt it when I think about it because, after all, he would then be admitting that he had given control of U.S. armed forces to the U.N. which of course would be political dynamite here. Indeed, has *any* President every really technically invoked the UNPA *ever* and surrendered control of the U.S. military to the U.N.? Now that I think about it, I doubt it. (Except maybe some contribution of troops to some small peace-keeping force that is.)
But if Obama has given such control over to the U.N., then why aren’t our troops wearing blue helmets? And why is the U.S. still in charge?
Instead my sense is that once Presidents have seen Security Councils approve the use of force somewhere, they *don’t* then give our armed forces to the U.N. and *don’t* use the UNPA, but instead they just use the SC resolution as a general *political* justification for doing what they’ve done.
After all in the immediate wake of the Security Council approving action to oppose the North Korean invasion of the South, Truman, without the slightest “special agreement” and with hno Congressional approval, just sent our troops over, right?
But once again our guys weren’t under UN control, they didn’t wear blue helmets….
So do you even know for a fact if Obama *is* (or would be) invoking that UNPA?
Interesting issue.
let’s be honest here – regardless of legalities or otherwise, the entire behaviour of the GOP will lead people to believe (rightly, I suspect) that they only care about constitutional niceties when the democrats are in charge, and were more than happy to ignore the far more egregious actitivities taking place when there is a GOP president in the WH.
RMP wrote:
“let’s be honest here….”
Now look, Dude, I don’t know what game you’re playing trying to impose your ridiculous standard on things….
Devious bastard….
If it means he can’t run for office the next term, fine, otherwise why bother.
Obama should be impeached for dereliction of duty and breaching the War Powers Act. He is not upholding the U.S Consitution, and in fact doing the direct opposite that he promised during his campaign; to defund military action in the Middle East. His campaigning, in a sense, has never ended. He still seeks votes through naive and gullible younsters. Impeach this man for three reasons: not providing substantial evidence (i.e. a FREAKIN’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE) that he is a natural citizen, frivilous spending and not cohering to the War Powers Act. Even if he is not impeached, we will at least see a side of the President that is not pre-ordained, pre-packaged, and so easily deceptive. Thanks
Your assertion that Tea Baggers know the Constitution gives me a girlish case of the giggles. Their knowledge of the document consists of what Glen Beck tells them it says, which means they all know roughly as much about the Constitution as Sarah Palin does.
You paleos lost your last shred of credibility when you crawled into a sleeping bag with Bering Strait Barbie and the rest of the Zombies.
Jeff