Obama's new view of his own war powers

[MNBrewer]

<http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/31/executive_power/index.html>

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make."

[Divernan]

1. K&R - The spirits of John Yoo & W still walk the White House halls.

You know how it goes. The night shift will unrec, but in about 1/2 an hour, we will outnumber them.

From the link:
That claim -- that the President and he alone possesses all powers relating to war under the "Commander-in-Chief" clause of Article II -- became the cornerstone of Bush's "ideology of lawlessness." In a post that same month defining that ideology, I argued that this lawlessness was grounded in the September 25, 2001, War Powers memo by John Yoo, which infamously concluded as follows:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, 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. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

That was the heart and soul of Bush lawlessness: no "statute can place any limits on the President's determinations" as "these decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make."

[MNBrewer]

2. The shiny levers of power look different when YOU'RE the one in the Oval Office, I think

Once B.O. got there, he decided he liked all that power. And he's a good guy, after all, right? Good heart, good motivations. No reason to put that genie back into the bottle. As long as a Republican never gets elected again, we're A.O.K.

[RC]

3. I'm beginning to wonder, what's the difference?

If Obama were a Republican, this board would be up in arms! But since he's not, back to the FUD of the nukes.

[MNBrewer]

4. If it's "Circle-D" brand, it's A.O.K.!

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Now THAT'S funny!

Yeh, pard; looks like we done bin hornswoggled.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Leftists swooning with love over monarchy; strange times indeed

Cult. I've called it this since 2006: the extremists are in such a frenzy of hero-worship that any act he performs is by definition glorious.

It's bad enough to want dictatorial power, but it's quite another to seize it in violation of the law to use for wars-of-choice.

[bvar22]

15. "Campaign" Obama vs "President" Obama:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[msongs]

5. umm Hillary if it is not declared war by congress there are no "wartime decisions" allowed nt

[Vattel]

6. John Yoo's stupid views on executive power prevail.

[frylock]

7. c'mon now! if mccain were president we'd prolly be going to war against libya..

or something.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Good for him. The Congress is a partisan black hole.

[MNBrewer]

12. Damn that pesky Constitution

[AtomicKitten]

13. Numbnuts like Rand Paul are politicizing foreign policy.

He voted by unanimous consent on a 3/1/11 resolution re: Libya. Clause 7:

"... urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory"

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/4441/what-was-the-senates-intent

He then went on the Senate floor and on Faux News and slammed the same policy he just voted for. Perhaps you are comfortable with this; I am not. Congress is teaming with teabagger clowns politicizing foreign policy. I am fine with Pres O not allowing them to do this unscathed.

[MNBrewer]

14. The presence of teabaggers in congress doesn't mean

Obama can do whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases. Shall we just go ahead and declare the end of the Republic, because the Congress is full of clown?

[bhikkhu]

9. I support the action in Libya, but congress needs to get its act together

...part of the whole problem (and this spans many presidents and apparently 125 actions) is that congress has never done its part of the job, held a single president to the letter of the law, or reframed the law into something workable.

Practically speaking, the US needs to be able to act with approximately the same competence and determination and purpose as any other country on the world stage, or we simply look like ineffective idiots and get our lunch eaten as well. If congress wanted to come up with some practical plan, I'd support it. In the meantime Obama does what has to be done, according to precedent, and congress acts like a bunch of backstabbing fools who couldn't direct themselves successfully out of a paper sack.