I agree with Barack Obama:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Senator Obama is absolutely right on the Constitutionality of the kind of action that President Obama is taking in 2011:

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. 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.

_____________

It's such a good thing we're not in a war right now or that anything like unilateral military action has been authorized. It is an even better thing that our constitutionally accurate Senator would never dare be so stupid as to intervene in other people's civil wars.  I cannot possibly fathom how if he was elected President that he would possibly be so strange as to not even remotely consider Congressional authorization before sending cruise missiles at a nation in the middle of civil war.

Why, if we were in such a war and there was such a thing as President Obama doing this, Senator Obama would be required to condemn President Obama. It's almost like expanding a nearly-10 year war into a frontier zone of a large, fragile country that really has nukes being necessary to win said already ongoing war, the genius mentality that led our boys into Cambodia and to Democratic Kamupchea. Heaven forfend that such a terrible and bizarre thing happen as a Democratic President taking us into a police action without consulting Congress first, right?

And yes, other Presidents have done this, and IMHO that is one reason why any consistent prosecution for illegal wars would rope in all generals and surviving members of Presidential Administrations since 1945. Wars are not constitutionally legal without a declaration of war passed Congress. Not that mealy-mouthed War Powers bullshit, a real declaration of war. This only makes one illegal war on top of all the other ones since 1950.

Comments

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

If the present Congress were teleported back to 1941 and expected to declare war - we would all be lounging around geisha houses in our lederhosen.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm oversharing, but I'm actually wearing lederhosen right now.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Pfftttt...if it were up to the modern Dems and Reps to fight WWII, we'd be living in a world where the Cold War was fought between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and the American Experiment would have been a footnote.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Don't feel bad, he suckered the Nobel Prize committee as well.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I thought that was a bad idea then, I think it is even more of one now.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Heh. A great line I heard today is that Obama's now fired more Tomahawk missiles than any other Peace Prize recipient.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

What? No "teleprompter" jokes.

I am disappoint.

[dartmouth05.livejournal.com]

Yes, other Presidents have done this and not just since 1950.

The list of post-1950 wars is long, of course. Reagan's invasion of Grenada, Reagan's attacks in Libya at Tripoli and (ironically) Benghazi, Bush Sr.'s invasion of Panama, Bush Sr.'s deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia, Clinton's deployment of troops into Hati, Clinton's airstrikes against Yugoslavia and US involvement with the Bosnian conflict, Clinton sending US armed forces into combat with Somalia's Unified Task Force and UNOSOM I and II, Clinton's airstrikes in Afghanistan and Sudan... (And those are just the examples after the passing of the War Powers Act-there are many, many examples of Presidents entering US into wars without express prior authorization from Congress, including the Korean War and elements of the Vietnam War.)

The pre-1950s wars without express Congressional authorization include the US war in Nicaragua circa 1927, the Philippines-American war from 1898-1903, pretty much all (if not actually all) of the Indian Wars.

And there are plenty of wars with a level of authorization from Congress, explicit or otherwise, but with no declaration of war including the First and Second Barbary wars, intervention in the Russian Civil War, the 1958 Lebanon crisis, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq War #2.

Nothing new under the sun.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is all true. Unfortunately that seems to just emphasize the point that we haven't been willing to actually *have* a constitutional war since 1950. War is horrible enough on its own. Pussyfooting around that fact just makes them worse for everyone involved.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The Philippines-American war definitely reminds me of all the imperialist wars that were being waged around the world for conquest of native peoples.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Previous presidents have done actions that they explicitly described as unconstitutional before they were president? Which ones?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why, if we were in such a war and there was such a thing as President Obama doing this, Senator Obama would be required to condemn President Obama. It's almost like expanding a nearly-10 year war into a frontier zone of a large, fragile country that really has nukes being necessary to win said already ongoing war, the genius mentality that led our boys into Cambodia and to Democratic Kamupchea. Heaven forfend that such a terrible and bizarre thing happen as a Democratic President taking us into a police action without consulting Congress first, right?

Is he not merely following the actions of the UN, in which the US is a member and follows many of the decisions made?

Wars are not constitutionally legal without a declaration of war passed Congress. Not that mealy-mouthed War Powers bullshit, a real declaration of war. This only makes one illegal war on top of all the other ones since 1950.

What's the difference between a resolution allowing for military action and a "formal declaration" for you?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Frankly this is why the "Iraq would be legal if the UN authorized it" argument didn't make sense once I got past the age of 14. Constitutionally whether the UN authorizes a war is irrelevant. It is relevant in the sense of international law, but no war is legal without the formal declaration of war. The difference is Congress has to vote on those, where this is like the "filibuster" that is a mere procedure.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Is he not merely following the actions of the UN, in which the US is a member and follows many of the decisions made?

It is a strange thing to see me agreeing absolutely with Badlydrawnjeff, folks, but I want to make it clear that this has just happened.

Ii don't know the niceties and fine detail of the American constitution , but I do hope it does not include thepower of Congress or anyone else to refuse to help a UN Resolution.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Wasn't Iraq I declared?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, not a declared war. there hasn't been one since ww2.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What Dwer said.

...but it's a HUMANITARIAN motive!

[russj.livejournal.com]

There is such a thing as a "just war" where one country can morally intervene in the affairs of another soverign nation.

This instance is such a case.

But the fact that this is a just war does not mean that we are obligated to expend our blood or treasure to get involved.

And this instance does violate the U.S. Constitution. Most presidents don't care, because they hold the strings of power.

And I dislike the fact that our most recent Democratic presidents (Clinton & Obama) will only intervene if the USA has little or NO self-interest in so-doing. I call it the "Clinton Doctrine". At least Bush fought in our self-interest.

Re: ...but it's a HUMANITARIAN motive!

[evildamsel.livejournal.com]

Really? Bush fought in our self-interest? Really really? Actually, I'm pretty sure he fought because he had a special -ahem- for taking down Saddam and some kind of daddy issues were involved. And I'm equally sure that very little about the Iraq war has been of any benefit to us.

I hate to do this since we were getting along so swimmingly, but...

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

...are you the same person who not just this afternoon said:

"The Constitution is a document of the 18th Century, when what we would today term oligarchy was identified as liberty, and reflects the virtues and failings of that time, but is increasingly inadequate for a 21st Century superpower and attempts to hold to its letter and spirit sound increasingly like Lucius Cornelius Sulla or perhaps King Canute."

My mind. It needs reconciliation.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

Is it any mystery why we haven't had a clear and decisive victory since our last Congressionally declared war, which was WWII? And I'm talking about a Constitutionally Declaration of War from Congress and not just an authorization for military action.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

I keep hearing from a friend, the argument that to win our current wars we must be willing to fully commit to victory. As he puts it, that would mean first thinking very hard about whether fighting is worth the horror of the following... and if we decide to, ruthlessly slaughtering everyone who gets in our way along with any civilians who need killing to convince the rest that supporting us is the only way they can continue to live. In Tokyo for instance, our conventional bombing slaughtered over 100,000 people in one night, mostly civilians and including a lot of women and children. And it was the first time Japanese media began to seriously and openly question whether they could win. The horrible violence worked. So based on that theory at least, the problem is more a lack of commitment in general than the lack of an explicit war declaration, specifically. But yes, if we're not willing to have Congress say "a state of war exists", how can we expect endorsement for actually killing people?

we need a war that represents the founding fathers...

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Like when President Jefferson invaded Tripoli.

Re: we need a war that represents the founding fathers...

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

I've studied the Barbary Wars. The enemy in Algiers and Tripoli actually declared war on us first (as part of their habit of declaring war on anyone who hadn't bribed them enough lately), and the Navy was explicitly built with war against the Barbary Pirates in mind. I'm trying to remember whether there was an explicit declaration of war from Congress though.

[404.livejournal.com]

Off topic, but are you ever NOT cynical?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Off topic, but

But of course.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

It's amazing that some people are only now starting to see what a hypocrite obama truly is.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You say that after the Democrats in 2008 decided they didn't like the Afghanistan War after electing a man who'd promised to expand it all the way back in 2007? I've known he was a hypocrite and the Democratic base prefers reality as they want it to be over what it is since then.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Cambodia was a "righteous" hit.....just sayin'

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

God bless Ho Chih Minh's boys, eh?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Told you so.