A topic of recent interest is whether President Obama has ignored the law by engaging the U.S. Armed Forces in Libya, Yemen and elsewhere. Hopefully this article will shed light on that subject.
On this issue the Constitution is of little assistance. While the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (Art II, Sec. 2) only Congress has the power to declare war (Art. I , Sec. 8(11) )
It appears the drafters of the Constitution, being well aware that war is a major undertaking, intended to require consent of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Unfortunately there are a number of instances in U.S. history when the two branches could not agree. Korea, Vietnam and Bosnia are a few examples that come quickly to mind.
In 1973 both Houses of Congress passed by a 2/3 majority an act correctly known as the “War Powers Resolution”. The Resolution was to “insure that the collective judgment of both Congress and the President” would be required to wage war in the future. Nixon refused to sign the resolution and it remains, to this day, a Joint Congressional Resolution and not a law approved by the Executive branch of government. Traditionally however joint resolutions (even those not approved by the President) have been given the full force of law, particularly where, as here, Nixon’s veto was overridden.
In a contemporary context President Obama has unilaterally committed U. S. Forces against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi without first obtaining the consent of Congress.
Both House Democrats and House Republicans have publicly denounced the President’s action. House leftist Dennis Kucinich (D. Ohio and long-time dove) has joined with House Speaker John Boehner in speaking out against Obama’s unilateral action in Libya calling U. S. involvement there “illegal”. They have threatened to file a lawsuit to have his actions declared as such.
In the meanwhile Congress has reluctantly approved Obama’s past Libyan involvement, but with a clear message to the President that no further action there would be approved or financed.
Obama defends his actions in Libya as consistent with the N.A.T.O. mandates. This is a radical assertion by Obama smacking of one-world government. Presumably Obama would defend future actions across the world as dictated by the U.N. also. (Our involvement in the U.N. and in N.A.T.O. should be reassessed.)
Never in my wildest dreams did I picture myself in agreement with Dennis Kucinich on any issue. In this instance, however, I am. It is clear to me that Obama has proceeded to involve the U.S. on several new fronts without Congressional approval.
Obama refuses to call Libya a “war” and not, therefore, requiring Congressional consent. No responsible person could accept that attempted rationalization.
Two other acts of war have occurred recently. Al Quada leaders in Yemen were “eliminated” via a drone attack (another act of war). Even more recently Al Quada leaders were taken out in Somalia by drone attack. In that instance, U.S. soldiers (or C.I.A.) actually put “boots on the ground” to retrieve the bodies of those who had been killed.
While these actions by the President were undoubtedly well received by Americans they were acts of war. They point out the dilemma of who should be approving actions which can be deemed acts of war.
The real fear is what this portends for the future. Will Obama continue to deploy U. S. troops at his whim and in total disregard of Congress. It doesn’t take an Alice-in-Wonderland imagination to appreciate the danger Obama could conger up for this Country before he exits at the end of 2012.
Will our next involvement target Syria? Egypt? Tunisia? The possibilities are literally endless and are horribly frightening. This country’s military is strained to the breaking point by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our national debt grows exponentially from these commitments reaching nearly $17 trillion and growing daily.
The War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress to eliminate future unilateral war involvement of the U. S. Obama would do well to use this Resolution in the future. This is, after all, a nation founded on laws.
Reader Comments(0)