Skip to comments.Obama Embraces the Imperial Presidency
Posted on 08/28/2013 9:39:15 AM PDT by neverdem
Suddenly liberals are comfortable with monarchical war-making powers.
British prime minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament from summer vacation for a special session on Thursday, where there will be a clear government motion and vote on the United Kingdoms response to chemical weapons attacks, Cameron promised on Twitter.
President Obama has a different view. The U.S. governments Voice of America reports: Pressed about calls for congressional authorization, White House spokesman Jay Carney Tuesday indicated the president believes consulting with congressional leaders is enough.
Oh my, how liberals have learned to love the imperial presidency they used to so scorn when Richard Nixon or George W. Bush was in office. Last night, I appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight with Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant whose clients have included the late Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, our current secretary of state. Armed with the latest Democratic talking points, she dismissed any need for Obama to consult with what she dismissed as a special Congress.
Marsh is worth quoting at length:
There is a special Congress that were dealing with right now that has the lowest popularity rating in history and Republicans who overwhelmingly would oppose taking any action. The president of the United States cannot be handcuffed by the same Republicans that are holding the rest of the country hostage on every other issue. That is wrong.
She then dismissed the fact that President Bush sought a vote authorizing combat operations in Iraq in 2002. He won approval from both houses, including a hostile Senate controlled by obstructionist Democrats. That was clearly a special Congress. But Marsh was unimpressed with that argument: President Bush was clearly looking for political cover he got it. And so many of the people who voted for those wars now regret it.
That makes no sense. What if we wind up regretting the intervention in Syria should its terrorist ally Hezbollah or the Iranian government react to the strike by attacking the U.S. or Israel? A cruise-missile strike that makes us feel good and restores President Obamas credibility could soon lead to all-out war. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich notes:
There is no victory to be had there. Syria is not the greatest threat in the Middle East to the U.S. or world security. The Iranian regime is working every day to get a nuclear weapon. It poses a direct threat to Israels survival and a long-term threat to America.
President Obama, who taught about the separation of powers at the University of Chicago Law School, was quite clear on abuses of executive power when he ran for president in 2008.
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, he told the Boston Globe in a candidate questionnaire in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in instances of self-defense.
Vice President Joe Biden, now a cheerleader for an immediate strike against Syria, used to feel the same way. The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless were attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked, Biden said in 2007.
Republican congressman Tom McClintock of California says that both Obama and Biden were right back when they didnt control the Pentagon. The presidents authority as commander-in-chief to order a military attack on a foreign government is implicitly limited by the Constitution to repelling an attack, he said in a statement.
The authors of the Constitution were explicit on this point. As James Madison noted, In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. . . . Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist that there was a clear distinction between the U.S. presidents authority as commander-in-chief, which involved nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces and that of the British king, who could declare war unilaterally.
How ironic it would be if this country were to be plunged into a possible war of unintended consequences by the actions and will of a single man while the British prime minister thinks it important to consult with and receive support from his nations elected representatives before undertaking such a momentous act.
In 1781, the British troops at Yorktown had their band play the tune The World Turned Upside Down as they marched out to surrender to George Washington. Sadly, it appears the tables are now turned as we pay less heed to prudence and the rule of law than our monarchical forebears do.
John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
Suddenly John Fund gives a flip about presidential war-making powers? There really is no sense of shame in our political elites.
I loathe these leftists and their god. May every last putrid one of them die a slow, agonizing death and then spend eternity on a bed of blazing coal.
obama acts as he does because he is confident there will be no reprisals, no holding him to account (not really), and no “checks and balances” carried out by the tepid justices on the Supreme Court (who know better) and the even weaker so-called “opposition party” (who lack courage and a commitment to traditional American values).
The president has taken the bit in his mouth. The constitution is out the window. Unless legislature reigns him in hard, it is going to be impossible to stop him soon.
Blah Blah Blah Obama Bad Blah Blah Blah
When the squeegee “Republicans” grow a set and DO something about this freak, give me a call
Otherwise, who cares? He’s clearly free to do what he wants other then a little carping from Cruz, Paul and Lee.
Back then, Parliament held a rather firm grip on the purse strings. Today's Congress? Want a trillion dollars? Here's a trillion dollars.
“...and then spend eternity on a bed of blazing coal....”
Oh, they will!!! But, rest assured, hell will be a lot hotter than just meager blazing coal. It will be an eternity, days without number, of sheer agony beyond the human mind’s ability to even conceive such pain in that fire that burns but does not consume. I wish it on no mortal human flesh and soul, but the communist/socialist libs throughout mankind’s history, especially the current breed that are set on destroying the greatest free country to have ever existed, are certainly most deserving of it. I struggle to even ask God to have mercy on their souls. Let em burn..and burn well.
LIBs/DIMs/Anti-American COMMIES...all do what they feel is expedoient when they feel it is expedient to justify their asshat/moonbbat policies. They will kill you, your sons & daughters, your unborn to advance their uber-idiocy.
Fund was merely exposing leftwing hypocrisy involving a non-alleged nuclear power (which Kerry, Gore, Biden, and the Clintons maintained Irag was)
With so much of his own neocon hypocrisy to answer for, he’s the wrong messenger.
Fund is correct to point out the hypocrisy of liberal Democrats who criticized Bush’s wars and Bush’s executive overreach while not saying a word about Obama’s. The trouble is, we get the exact mirror image of this hypocrisy from many Republicans. I wonder how many Republicans who (rightly) oppose intervention in Syria by Obama would be cheerleading for it if a Republican administration were advocating precisely the same policies (and ditto for about a dozen other issues).
My point is that hypocrisy is an offense against truth, and that neither Fund nor Obama cares about truth. Therefore Fund is being manipulative, exploiting the truth to complain about Obama’s hypocrisy. Simply one devil chasing another. A plague on both, say I.
What will these same people say when he announces the constitution is no longer in effect? They’ll cheer!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.