A Wild Gnome appears!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Senator Kucinich managed to briefly make the news when he claimed that Obama is committing an impeachable offense by taking part in the UN backed military action against Libya.

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said."

Kucinich did not say he would go ahead with impeachment but at least he's being consistent. He wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney for the same thing.

Now, at the risk of turning this in to yet another Libya yes vs no post, I have some related considerations:

What's his goal here? 2012 election? He does that from time to time. When a politician starts making the news circuits saying pandering type things, one starts to wonder. I mean presidents have been doing this for ages. Kucinich *knows* nothing is going to come from this angle, except maybe raising some support. What else could he be going for?

I like Kucinich, and I would have voted for him last election if I had the chance, but he was out before Oregon even got to vote. I think he's being over-alarmist in this case claiming dire consequences, but I guess he knows his audience. I agree with him that perhaps the president shouldn't be able to perform military actions, but I think he's being a little phony declaring it an impeachable offense.

Do you think he's right? Obviously its not an impeachable offense-- in our precedent based system especially, but should presidents be able to authorize military actions? He's the commander of the Army and all, but military action can have huge far-reaching consequences for the country, as we have seen many times over. *huge* consequences. My opinion is that something like that should be hard. It should take lots of debate and questioning. Or would that hamstring our executive too much, leaving it unable to respond to national threats? Is there some sort of middle-ground on this?

Lastly, ever since its inception, the office of the executive has been taking more power. The initial intent was for a system of checks and balances. Are we out of balance? Is the executive too strong? And how would one reverse such a thing? Its not something people seem willing to do when their guy is in power, but oh man its a threat to freedom and democracy when the other guy is.

Comments

[dierdrae.livejournal.com]

Man, I have to say, I love a guy who manages to not be a hypocrite. That's what makes me happy about this. I know, you know, he knows, that Obama is not going to be impeached and that this isn't the biggest deal in the world. But despite that, he's still talking about it, on principle. Love that man.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Don't know a lot about Kucinich personally, however I find the likelihood that he is actually taking a principled stand here to be about as high as the likelihood of a democratic state spontaneously emerging in Lybia.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

The proof for that: rasilio feels like it, so it must be true. Next.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

The War Powers Resolution might arguably require re-writing, but I don't think there is any legislative action is required HERE for this particular instance.


U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution approved by Congress pursuant to their Constitutional right to declare war clearly say that Obama's orders in Libya are not lawful without Congressional approval.

Congress needs to either approve or countermand his orders.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

You really think an "unenlightened electorate" is to blame for the way Presidents have expanded the power of the office?

/remembers Dick Cheney's fantasies of a Unitary Executive

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Well, the problem as it stands right now is that Congresspersons can agitate for military action without taking any responsibility for such. If you simply authorize emergency funding, whilst criticizing whatever happens, you can turn war into your own personal re-election campaign. Do we wonder why this happens? Do we wonder why the Congress will continually authorize funds for wars, without actually authorizing "a war", and then whine about whatever the President does? It doesn't matter if the President does X or Y or A or B. The only thing that matters is creating and sustaining the situation which provides constant fodder for your campaign. You can sit in the Congress and agitate for war, and then use that war as a platform against your opponents. After all, nobody is doing it the right way. Too late? Too soon? Too little? Too much. Take your pick. They all apply.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Perhaps A problem, as it stands, I wouldn't say that is THE problem.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Congress has no interest in bringing the War Powers legislation to a Supreme Court decision. Neither does the executive. Whether or not it is constitutional is a moot point, since it will never get anywhere near that level of review. The executive has certain foreign commitments based on treat obligations which carry with them the force of constitutional law. How this works with the UN isn't clear. If NATO does something, the President can always execute his policy as a matter of treaty.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

You have the WIN for clarity.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

By the way, I was listening to 'talk of the Nation' on the radio today and a caller brought up a similar issue. Basically congress acting as armchair generals. They hear the news too, they know what's going on and they have plenty of opportunity to act and lead, but they just wait until after the fact then complain complain complain instead of risking doing anything. Had the guest sputtering. So the issue isn't going unheard anyways.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

I don't see how it's "obviously not" an impeachable offense. Article I Sec. 8 grants Congress the authority to declare war. Congress says "go fight Country X" and the President then has authority as commander-in-chief to figure out exactly how. If Congress has in this case said "impose a no-fly zone" and what we're actually doing is trying to overthrow the dictator, then the President is using force unlawfully. UN mandates do not give the President legal authority within US law, treaties do not override the Constitution, and it would defeat the purpose of Congress' war authority if Congress could legitimately grant the President standing permission to invade anyone without being on a very short leash.

We're also heading for a confrontation where the President has chosen to ignore court decisions on offshore drilling and health care, especially when the health care lawsuits reach the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if the President will echo Andrew Jackson by blatantly ignoring a Supreme Court ruling against him, or echo FDR by bullying the Court into radically reinterpreting the Constitution. In any event, if the President acts outside his legal authority, isn't that the main thing impeachment was created for, rather than to fire him if he commits perjury about adultery?

I'm proud, though not pleased, to have correctly warned people under GWB that a future Democrat President wouldn't give up the warrantless wiretapping, Internet spying, and USAPATRIOT Act powers Bush claimed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I can think of only a few cases where Presidents would have latitude to do that in context, but on the whole, and particularly in cases like this, the consultation of Congress and a Congressionally-voted on Declaration of War are not merely Constitutional mandates but necessities. The worst of all decisions in wartime is to bumble into a war without plans, without even wanting to call it a war, and to try to fight it without consistent plans. It prolongs the horrors of war without much effect to the good for *anyone.*

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What's his goal here? 2012 election? He does that from time to time. When a politician starts making the news circuits saying pandering type things, one starts to wonder. I mean presidents have been doing this for ages. Kucinich *knows* nothing is going to come from this angle, except maybe raising some support. What else could he be going for?

You're expecting a logical endgame from a crazy person.

Do you think he's right?

Not in this case. If this were a unilateral or outside-the-UN action, he might have a point worth arguing. I honestly, truly believe that Kucinich thinks a President exercising military power is illegal. That Obama is simply helping the UN under the auspices of the UN's way of doing things is completely legal.

Obviously its not an impeachable offense-- in our precedent based system especially, but should presidents be able to authorize military actions?

Well, if Obama was doing what Kucinich thinks he's doing, why wouldn't it be impeachable? If ignoring the Constitution isn't impeachable, I wonder if anything truly is. But, then again, Kucinich voted for the unconstitutional health care reform bill, so what does he know?

Or would that hamstring our executive too much, leaving it unable to respond to national threats? Is there some sort of middle-ground on this?

That's exactly why the War Powers Act of 1973 exists - to give the President the flexibility s/he needs in the event of an imminent threat.

Lastly, ever since its inception, the office of the executive has been taking more power. The initial intent was for a system of checks and balances. Are we out of balance? Is the executive too strong?

We're only out of balance because no one seems to care. The legislative and executive branches have both taken much more power than the Constitution grants them, but people either a) ignore it, or worse b) justify it. There's no real difference between abuse of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause and the unitary executive theory, really.

And how would one reverse such a thing?

Strict Constructionists in the Court and in the legislature.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

What's his goal here? 2012 election?

Isn't this how conspiracy theories get started?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I really dunno why everyone is getting so worked up about that election, since the world is gonna end in 2012 anyway :p

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Kucinich did not say he would go ahead with impeachment but at least he's being consistent. He wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney for the same thing.

Actually, he's not. With Bush/Cheney, he actually presented articles of impeachment before Congress. That's different from just saying that Obama should be impeached.

Iconloathe

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Icon fails the Flag Code. Commies and their inability to respect US tradition like honest God-fearing Americans.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

One other difference is that Bush's actions were authorized by congress. This satisfies the War Powers Act.

The UN is unable to provide this kind of authorization and, as far as I know, Obama hasn't asked congress for this.

I'm not saying that Obama's actions are illegal, the actions he's taken don't go nearly as far as what we did in Iraq, but Bush's actions seem much more consistent with US law.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The president has been able to authorize military action for DECADES.

I'm somewhat perplexed that suddenly this is "impeachable" when
this has been done since the 70's and 80's

"He wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney for the same thing."

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Kucinich's fail here being that it's not the same thing.

If there were a prize handed out for best legal foundation for a military intervention, Libya would take the gold.

Re: "He wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney for the same thing."

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well I mean the same reason, not because they're necessarily doing the exact same thing.