Replies

“It is the law until it's declared un-Constitutional by a Court. Until such time it must be obeyed.”

That is a common view, but it is not common sense. It's common nonsense and leftist nonsense at that. No conservative, in fact no rational person, should be making such a statement.

The President doesn't have to get a permission slip from the Supreme Court to fulfill his constitutional duties as he sees fit. Obama is entitled to conclude that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional as have all of his predecessors since it was passed. He is free to conclude that the Resolution doesn't apply to circumstances in Libya. The only remedy if he reaches the wrong conclusion is for Congress to stick up for itself, either by impeaching him or by cutting off funds for his misbegotten Libyan adventure. Congress hasn't done either and it won't. On this matter, then Obama gets the final word. That's how separation of powers works.

The executive power of the United States is vested in the President. The Constitution says so in so many words. It doesn't say, or even hint, that the President has to consult the courts to determine what his executive responsibilities require him to do and the idea that he should is absurd. Obama’s legal interpretations are always flawed and frequently ridiculous, but he's President and he's the one with the power to make them. Elections have consequences.

The law suit seeking to enforce the WPR in court is going nowhere. The courts won't, and shouldn't, touch this. It will be dismissed as a political question, probably summarily by the District Court. It's a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch which is none of the judiciary’s business. Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope. This is one of them.

There is more than enough to throw at Obama without trying to resurrect the WPR from its constitutional grave and deploy it against him. The WPR was an artifact of the post-Watergate leftist ascendancy. It was a bad, unconstitutional, left wing idea which deliberately sought to subvert separation of powers and shackle America's military might. It's been dead for decades and good riddance. I'm all for beating up on Obama but not just any stick will do.

It's a shame that Obama’s President, but he is. He gets to exercise all the powers of the office. We can't redefine the office so that it's small enough to fit him without risking permanent damage to the constitutional order.

There are just a whole host of ridiculous statements in this post that make me wonder where in the hell you are coming from.

ie "Obama is entitled to decide…..what is Constitutional and what is not……"
"Obam gets the final word."
"Courts aren't all powerful and many constitutional issues are entirely outside of their scope."br>

Those ridiculous assumptions aside, I suggest you re-read post #33:

you have COMPLETELY missed the point, and have been living on another Planet for the last decade.

It’s not the War Powers Act itself. It’s that Dems DEMANDED IT under Reagan, DEMANDED (including OBAMA) that Bush comply with it after 9/11, and now UTTERLY IGNORE IT.

It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. And the media KNOWS they became so biased under Bush, that they DO NOT DARE report the facts about this now.

I haven't missed any points; you never had one in the first place. Of course the Dems are hypocritical, and in other news, dogs slobber. They were wrong before and they're right now, at least about the President's constitutional prerogatives. The charge of hypocrisy has no political weight; tossing it around is an onanistic waste of time.

Where I'm coming from should be perfectly transparent. I get annoyed when ignorant twits trash the separation of powers for the sake of scoring a few cheap points on today's President. Focus on something that matters.

The Libyan adventure is idiotic on any number of levels. Attack it on substance, not the silly procedural point that Obama’s consultation with Congress was inadequate. Do you really think America can be persuaded to care about that?! Process is not where the rubber hits the road. The point here is that Obama’s foreign policy is adrift and subordinated to the UN and NATO. Libya is important evidence of that. Getting upset because Obama arguably hasn't complied with applicable law when there's no way to make him do so is beside the point.

Save your outrage for something that matters.