Yesterday, President Obama said he's decided that the United States should take military action in Syria, but he's going to seek Congressional authorization first. However, he also said he believes he has the authority to take military action without Congressional authorization.
So why bother? To give the appearance of a checked Executive, I suppose.
The Adventure Begins
2 weeks ago
We're particularly troubled by Secretary Kerry's use of the word "right" instead of "power."
Obama "has the right to do this no matter what Congress does."
Presidents have enumerated powers, granted by the Constitution. These powers are limited to safeguard the inherent rights of citizens.
Kerry is arguing for an upside Constitution in which the power of citizens, expressed through Congress, to declare war is subordinate to the president's "right" to wage war.
Very troubling rhetoric coming from someone whose job requires careful word selection.
We're back to "Obama is a victm, don't violate his rights."
No one has a right to wage war. The Congress has the power to declare war and the President has the responsibility to execute such declared wars.
It is our rights that are violated when the President violates the Constitutional limits on his power.
Kerry's arrogant incompetence is a genuine surprise. What a time for a blueblood flairup--just when you are appealing to a nation to go to war based on the President saving face. What pre-Enlightenment century is Kerry living in? He's like a Lannister in Game of Thrones.
Maybe he could start by reading the Magna Carta, if it doesn't shock his royal sensibilities too much, and go from there. He definitely deserves a refund from Yale.
Obama ignored the House vote on Libya, but I doubt he could ignore a vote that fails one or both houses, particularly since he could submit another resolution whenever, particularly if facts change. Why bring about a Constitutional crisis?
Obama is looking for a way out, and, up or down, Congress is it.
The bad news is Kerry plans to run for president again.
The good news is that he can't decide whether to run as a Tory or a Whig.
If Animal Farm had been about democracy, now would be the scene where the animals realize the pigs have become indistingishable from their previous rulers.
I'm as troubled by Obama's claim that he has authorization, though. What is he referring to? Not the war powers resolution, not AUMF. Has there been secret law passed? By whom?
To me, the question might better be phrased:
If the President can do whatever he wants and this debate is just a show, then why have elections, Congress, courts, laws, or a Constitution?
If the law of the land doesn't apply to oath-taking Obama, then why should it apply to anyone else, from Snowden to soldiers to us?
Are we also authorized to do whatever the hell we want to do?
I say let's invade someplace nicer then. Maybe Jamaica.
Post a Comment