iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael Ratner

GET UPDATES FROM Michael Ratner
 

To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War

Posted: 03/30/11 01:22 PM ET

How is it that Congress isn't screaming at President Obama for usurping its power to take this nation to war against Libya? (Even Bushes #41 and #43 had their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq authorized.) And if Congress isn't screaming, then why aren't we? We should be. The power to make war impacts us all: it kills, it costs our dwindling treasury, and it has serious consequences.

Those are just some of the reasons why the Constitution doesn't allow the president to make the decision to go to war unilaterally -- a fact that Obama, himself a former constitutional law professor, knows full well. If fact, when candidate Obama was asked if the president could bomb Iran without authority from Congress, he categorically responded: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Candidate Obama's letter perfect response reveals precisely how well he understands the framers' fear of giving the power to initiate war to the president. As James Madison, principal author of the Constitution wrote, "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." Consequently, Article 1, section 8, cl. 11 states that Congress and only Congress can authorize the use of military force against another country. It makes no difference whether it's called war or a "military action" -- Obama's term for the attack on Libya.

Some have argued that it would have made little difference for Obama to have asked for authority -- that Congress would have approved the war anyway. Whether or not that's true, it's not the point. Had Obama gone to Congress there would have been the kind of public debate that's necessary in any country that calls itself a democracy.

A debate would have served several vital functions. It would have involved the American people in a momentous decision. It would have given Congress the option of rejecting Obama's war or putting conditions on it. Most importantly, it might have aired some difficult, vital questions: Why Libya and not the Ivory Coast, where thousands are being murdered? Why Libya and not Israel when it was killing 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza? Was this really a war about saving lives or was it about oil? Why is the African Union not supporting the war? Is this war really about regime change? Are not three wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, three too many?

Obama's decision is another shocking example of his grab for the kind of executive power he eschewed in his predecessor's administration -- so long as he was still a candidate. Many of us had hoped that the ghost of Vietnam, our infamous Executive-made war, would be exorcised by this Nobel Peace Prize-winning President. Instead, Obama has brought this specter back from the dead.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 557
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Partisanship is a mental illness
09:55 AM on 04/07/2011
It's nice to read some common sense and accurate perception rather than rabid rote partisanship.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cleverboots
08:37 PM on 04/03/2011
President Obama is along way away from Candidate Obama.Will he pull the same presto changeo in 2012?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:27 PM on 03/31/2011
"when candidate Obama was asked if the president could bomb Iran without authority from Congress, he categorically responded: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Damn. I hate it it when someone records what I say...
12:56 PM on 03/31/2011
Thanks for a voice of reason, Mr. Ratner.

Inaction speaks louder than words which is why the TP House is going to be eaten alive in 2012 if they don't move for impeachment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
meetnewbosssameasoldboss
I am smarter than you...yes that means you.
12:41 PM on 03/31/2011
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Does anybody like this guy anymore? Does anybody trust this guy anymore? Does anybody believe he wants "change" anymore?
12:34 PM on 03/31/2011
"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."

Section 6 of this article http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp
08:33 PM on 03/31/2011
You're misreading it. The forces referred to in "forces...provided for therein" is referring to forces previously approved by Congress under Article 43 (which has never happened).

In plain language, if Congress approves forces for Article 43, then the President does not need further authorization to use those forces for Article 42 UNSC action. This is not what happened in Libya. The UN has never stood up Article 43 forces.

The UNPA does not exempt the President from authorization totally.

-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518
https://twitter.com/cardcarryingame
08:54 PM on 03/31/2011
That's 1945, here's 1973:

(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.
10:56 AM on 03/31/2011
The President has done this kind of maneuver before, other than in Libya. The US armed forces are conducting military BOMBING campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bombing someone's country by your military is an ACT OF WAR.

The people who contend that they can redefine reality by calling a rose a sunflower are in need of psychiatric help.

A rose is a rose by any other name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rose_by_any_other_name_would_smell_as_sweet

A war is a war by any other name.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy E Pearson
A man in search of the right questions.
12:20 PM on 03/31/2011
Actually not so much. An act of war is not a war. In 1962 Kennedy authorized a blockade of Cuba, which was an act of war. There was no war.

WE have new realities in the world, time for new thinking and more informed criticism. Clearly citizens need to keep their institutions of Governance honest, but the best way to not try to fight the fighting of old wars when it is not applicable.
01:29 PM on 03/31/2011
If you remember, this is what happened when we were bombed:

FDR:


Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt - December 8, 1941

Things haven't changed thatmuch.
01:35 PM on 03/31/2011
According to our Supreme Court, "War has been well defined to be, 'That state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force.'" Therefore, under our laws, acts of war are war.
12:36 PM on 03/31/2011
OK. Given that, what was your view during the 8 years of Bush?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Partisanship is a mental illness
09:59 AM on 04/07/2011
Lets focus hard on the rear view mirror when we aren't moving forward ignoring present realities.
photo
JerseyCity
I Like Pancakes......yum yum
10:50 AM on 03/31/2011
Why are you an Obama hater?

You forget, we have our guy in the White House, so now it's ok.

USA
USA
USA
photo
keepertrout
think big fish
10:37 AM on 03/31/2011
PanAm flight 103 was an attack on Americans and no matter how you slice it Gadahfi can't be trusted.
Obviuosly other countries feel the same way and the world seems to fed up with terrorism.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dr. Jonathan David Farley
mathematician
11:50 AM on 03/31/2011
Unless it was due to a malfunction.
10:17 AM on 03/31/2011
Right, give the gasbags in Congress the issue of Gaddafi's murdering of his own people, and then ask them to decide what should be done. We can expect a hesitant answer within two or three years, but by then Gaddafi would have likely finished killing off all those he wanted to kill off. Case closed for the Lawyers in Congress.
10:48 AM on 03/31/2011
The Japanese attacked on the 7th. Congress declared war on the 8th.

Al Qaeda attacked on the 11th. Congress authorized military force on the 18th.

When the case is compelling, Congress acts quickly. When it's not...well...doesn't that say something?

-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518
https://twitter.com/cardcarryingame
09:42 AM on 03/31/2011
Yeah, right, cuz in this case with Libya there was no UN backing, no UN resolution to intervene, and the US said screw the world, we know best, and went in with the endorsement from no one.

Oh, wait......
11:16 AM on 03/31/2011
would you rather have the U.N.'s backing or the backing of the U.S. Congress before going to war?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dr. Jonathan David Farley
mathematician
11:51 AM on 03/31/2011
The UN resolution was not for war.
12:35 PM on 03/31/2011
How do you define "war"?
photo
sanevoter
Still never missed a vote since 1965
09:11 AM on 03/31/2011
Mr. Ratner, please read Senate Resolution 85 passed 3/1/11.
10:28 AM on 03/31/2011
There is no authorization to use U.S. military forces in that resolution.

Besides that, as it was not a joint resolution of both houses, it does not meet the statutory requirement of the War Powers Act.

-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518
https://twitter.com/cardcarryingame
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason N
Proud Firebagger Lefty
01:04 PM on 03/31/2011
The War Powers Act specifically gives President Obama the power to do what he's done through only a Congressional notification. Perhaps Congress shouldn't have left the wording of "imminent national security threat" so vague, as it allows threat to our economy, allies, or various interest abroad to be considered threats to national security
11:02 AM on 03/31/2011
War Powers Resolution calls for specific statutory authorizat­ion, so Senate Resolution 85 does not fit this requirement
Why?
simple resolution - Designated "S. Res.," simple resolutions are used to express nonbinding positions of the Senate or to deal with the Senate's internal affairs, such as the creation of a special committee. They do not require action by the House of Representatives.
Source: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/simple_resolution.htm
Hence SR 85 is not a law,so does not provide statutory authorizat­ion

and to answer the next question:
Statutes are laws enacted by the legislature
http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeDo/ResearchGuides/Basics.cfm#IV
09:11 AM on 03/31/2011
I think that the most obvious question is who is this guy really? What can he do given four more years?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:25 AM on 03/31/2011
Imperial Presidency expanding the empire. Same tune.
photo
RED66
We must return to a Constitutional government.
08:20 AM on 03/31/2011
Another first for President Obama.

He has fired more cruise missiles and dropped more bombs than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined!
wsdave
Abusive or Insulting? I won't be responding.
01:20 PM on 03/31/2011
In fact, he intends to set the bar so high that nobody can ever top him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Theycallmelurch
Enemies strengthen you. Allies weaken.
01:40 AM on 04/02/2011
Them's fightin' woids....the GOP would be happy to take you up on that challenge, buddy!