1.10.14 Obama’s ISIS War Is Illegal The president is subverting the Constitution—and America’s latest undeclared war in the Middle East is just the latest example.
For a generation, Democrats stood up against Republican presidents who they deemed to be too eager to go to war—or too ready to put troops in harm’s way without the full consent of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress.
Where have those Democratic protectors of the constitutional authority of Congress gone? Was it always just a partisan attack on Republican presidents?
If not, when will Democrats—who so vociferously opposed a Republican president’s extraconstitutional war-making powers—stand up and oppose President Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of war-making powers?
Yale Professor Bruce Ackerman puts it succinctly: “The war against the Islamic State is now illegal. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gave President Obama 60 days to gain consent from Congress and required him to end ‘hostilities’ within 30 days if he failed to do so. This 90-day clock expired this week.” And yet, there’s been no consent, and no end to the fighting.
I believe the president must come to Congress to begin a war. I also believe the War Powers Act is misunderstood; President Obama acted without true constitutional authority even before the 90 days expired, since we were not under attack at that time.
But in either case, this war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended.
Congress has a duty to act, one way or the other.
But it’s not the only area where action is needed. This is, of course, not the only way in which this president is acting like a king.
Conservatives have rightly decried President Obama’s unconstitutional executive action on Obamacare—and his promises to do the same with immigration. With both branches of Congress now under Republican control, we should act to halt those power grabs, too.
But conservatives can’t simply be angry at the president’s lawlessness when they disagree with his policies. They should end their conspicuous silence about the president’s usurpation of Congress’ sole authority to declare war—even if (especially if) they support going after ISIS, as I do.
This is important. We can’t be for the rule of law at our own convenience. It matters how we act both when we agree and when we disagree with the president.
Conservatives who blast the president for ignoring the separation of powers on immigration display a fatal inconsistency by embracing unlimited war-making powers.
Secretary of State Kerry became famous as an anti-war liberal decades ago, when he asked Congress “who will be the last to die for a mistake.”
That same man is now probably the most visible liberal proponent of unlimited war-making powers, as a member of this administration.
When I asked him at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing how on God’s green Earth a resolution to use force against the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan could be construed to apply to the Islamic State in Iraq in 2014, he replied that it didn’t matter. The president could justify basically any war making as an “Article II” power.
For those who believe in unlimited Article II power, the argument goes that since Article II makes the president the “commander in chief” and that really Congress is only a flimsy appendage to be grudgingly consulted—but never to be bound by.
The war against the Islamic State is now illegal. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gave President Obama 60 days to gain consent from Congress and required him to end “hostilities” within 30 days if he failed to do so. This 90-day clock expired this week.
Recent attempts to replace the War Powers Act miss the point completely and attempt to mandate more consulting but do nothing to reinforce or acknowledge the primary point: that the Constitution demands authorization for a war—not a cup of tea while the war drums beat.
This argument is vital to a larger argument: Do we obey the rules set up to constrain government or not? Do we survive as a constitutional republic, or not?
Prominent Republicans from the interventionist wing of the party parrot and applaud Kerry’s position. If ever there was too much bipartisanship, it would be the bipartisan acceptance of unlimited presidential war-making power.
Conservatives should realize, though, what unfettered presidential power means. Proponents of this theory argue that congressional laws cannot limit the president’s power to perform warrantless searches, carry out wiretaps, detain perceived enemies of the state, or even torture people—not just of enemy soldiers, but American citizens not engaged in combat.
Apologists for unlimited presidential war power, like former Bush administration official John Yoo, claim that no law “can place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response.” Yoo further argues for unchecked executive power by claiming that the explicit constitutional power for Congress to declare war is really not a check at all. In a remarkable work of double-speak, Yoo writes that the Declare War Clause does not grant Congress any power to initiate war, but only the “judicial power” to recognize whether “the nation was [already] in a legal state of war” for purposes of “domestic” law.
It would appear that these advocates of unlimited Article II powers would even argue that fundamental Bill of Rights privileges could be ignored in time of war. For those who argue but this will only occur in the dangerous time of war, realize that we are now engaged in war that has no temporal or geographic limits. Realize that we now have soldiers fighting a war that began when they were toddlers and shows no signs of ending.
Unchecked government power, without the necessary checks and balances, is contrary to our heritage and allows for injustices most Americans would find appalling, such as indefinite detention without legal representation and torture of American citizens.
Fred Korematsu was one of the thousands of Japanese Americans interned during WWII by people who believed in unlimited presidential power. Korematsu knew firsthand the dangers of war-time hysteria and pleaded that we not make that mistake again.
Not only is the Constitution explicit that war is to be initiated by Congress alone, our Founders doubled down on this proposition in the Federalist Papers. Madison wrote that history demonstrates what the Constitution supposes, that the Executive Branch is the branch most prone to war, therefore the Constitution vested the power to declare war in the legislature.
If the Constitution were not enough, the War Powers Act reiterates the legislature’s prerogative. The War Powers Act does not allow for any military action to take place that is not authorized by Congress or to repel imminent attack. Period. The only exception is military action to repel an imminent attack. In that case, the president has 60 days to report to Congress. Obviously, it’s an exception that doesn’t apply to any of our current wars.
This administration has allowed, as Professor Michael J. Glennon writes, “nothing less than a collapse of the equilibrium of power, the balance expected to result from ambition set against ambition, the resistance to encroachment that was supposed to keep the three branches of the federal government in a state of equilibrium and to protect the people from the government.”
It’s time for conservatives to say enough is enough. Obama’s commandeering of Congress’s powers—from making war, to remaking our health-care system—has to stop. There needs to be an across-the-board, consistent defense of the constitutional separation of powers. Nothing less will win the day. That should include this current battle in the Middle East. Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not.
– Four men, including three former U.S. college students, were charged Thursday with conspiring to raise thousands of dollars that were later allegedly funneled to al-Qaeda's terror franchise in Yemen and its now-deceased leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
Accused in an eight-year fundraising effort, ending in 2012 with the alleged transfer of $22,000 to an al-Awlaki associate: Yahya Farooq Mohammad, 37; Ibrahim Zubair Mohammad,36; Asif Ahmed Salim, 35; and Sultane Room Salim, 40.
Al-Awlaki, an American citizen who became one of the terror group's most inspirational leaders, was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
BEIRUT, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The United States targeted British Islamic State leader "Jihadi John" in an air attack in northern Syria which Britain said would "strike at the heart of Islamic State".
Thank You President Barack Hussein Obama! Condolences to Cicero.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Thank You President Barack Hussein Obama! Condolences to Cicero.
Condolences to the US Constitution and sovereign borders. Thank You Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama for invading a sovereign nations air space and bombing a British citizen, along with killing or wounding God knows how many innocent civilians.
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I never said he was "A MUSLIM" - the graphic simply says "Muslim Agent" - I prefer the term "Muslim Sympathizer"
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
I never said he was "A MUSLIM" - the graphic simply says "Muslim Agent" - I prefer the term "Muslim Sympathizer"
Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment
Quoted Text
A phobia, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. It may be hard for the afflicted to sufficiently determine or communicate the source of this fear, but it exists.
Researchers and policy groups define Islamophobia in differing detail, but the term's essence is essentially the same, no matter the source: "An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life."
(Gallup)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If I put 100 m&m's in a bowl, and 10% of them were poison that would kill you instantly - but didn't tell you which ones, would you eat ANY?
I wouldn't - and I don't trust ANY of them. Sorry.
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
If I put 100 m&m's in a bowl, and 10% of them were poison that would kill you instantly - but didn't tell you which ones, would you eat ANY?
I wouldn't - and I don't trust ANY of them. Sorry.
So, it's kind of like how you don't trust Christians because of the 10% You know, like Adolph Hitler. Or the KKK who are a Christian organization... or Right Wing Christian Terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.
Do the poison "Christian" M&Ms taste any different than the poison "Muslim" M&Ms?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
So, it's kind of like how you don't trust Christians because of the 10% You know, like Adolph Hitler. Or the KKK who are a Christian organization... or Right Wing Christian Terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.
Do the poison "Christian" M&Ms taste any different than the poison "Muslim" M&Ms?
Nope, but at least they come with labels, sheets or visible signs. Obviously, you don't trust the "Christians" either.
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
Nope, but at least they come with labels, sheets or visible signs. Obviously, you don't trust the "Christians" either.
I have no problem with Christians or Muslims. I do have a problem with Fanatic Religious Extremists, no matte what their religion. I try not to 'hate' the vast majority of either group because of the actions of a small minority of that group.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I have no problem with Christians or Muslims. I do have a problem with Fanatic Religious Extremists, no matte what their religion. I try not to 'hate' the vast majority of either group because of the actions of a small minority of that group.
I DO have a problem with Muslims because their leadership simply does not condemn the actions of 'extremists'....You NEVER EVER NEVER see a top mullah come out apologizing.
Christians aren't destroying priceless historical and religious artifacts, burning down mosques, cutting off heads of those that don't convert, putting people in cages and either burning them alive or drowning them, stringing children up on crosses and crucifying them or kidnapping women and selling them as slaves so they can use them as sex toys.
You also don't see Christians taking down airliners with bombs or heading to Paris laden with bomb belts, fully automatic rifles and grenades to paint the town red.
Define a small minority. 2%? 5%? 10%? There are an estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world. 2% of 2B is 2 million. That's 2M 'extremists'
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
Logged
the fully fledged "war of terror" was the "new pretext" of predation on civilization 
Thank You Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama for invading a sovereign nations air space and bombing a British citizen, along with killing or wounding God knows how many innocent civilians.
