EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War
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?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
29 Comments so far
Show All- Article 1, section 8, cl. 11 states that Congress and only Congress can authorize the use of military force against another country. -
No, it doesn't.
I/8/11 states "to declare war".
I see nothing in that about 'another country'. This author has no right to add his own words.
And that's why there's so much confusion regarding Public Law 107-40, which declared war against enemies to be named later (and Bush baby named al-Qaeda and the Taliban, neither of which are countries).
The argument that war can only be against 'another country' is so 18th century.
Ever since Obama moved into the White House, Americans who accused Dubya of being a "unitary executive" have been AWOL when Obama pressured Congress to allow him to unlilaterally bail out banks, when Obama uniltaerally negotiated Obamacare with insurance and drug industry cronies, and on several other occasions where Obama has proven to be more of a unitary executive than Dubya ever was.
Obama is using his constitutional law knowledge to subvert the US Constitution just as Ben Bernanke is using his great depression expertise to repeat Hoover Herbert's actions that exacerbated and extended the impact of the great depression on working Americans.
You wrote: "Ever since Obama moved into the White House, Americans who accused Dubya of being a "unitary executive" have been AWOL when Obama pressured Congress to allow him to unlilaterally bail out banks, when Obama uniltaerally negotiated Obamacare with insurance and drug industry cronies, and on several other occasions where Obama has proven to be more of a unitary executive than Dubya ever was."
Not quite. Many of us, and now a growing number, have known Obama was a neocon/neoliberal/corporate shill long before we decioded NOT to vote for him in 2008. But our Corpstream Media can never do nuance, so everyone on the left must have been an Obama supporter, right?
Bullshit.
Many of us who opposed the Bush/Cheney unitary executive authoritarianism have been critical since Day 1 of the Obama regime. And every outrage makes us more fervent in our opposition.
Just because the media doesn't acknowledge our opposition does not mean we are not here, and increasing daily.
True enough.
But don't the folks who can't see that OIABOWTB (Obama is as bad or worse than Bush) put The Fear into your heart?
I live in what is considered one of the most progressive enclaves in the country, and Obamabots stalk the streets like Dawn of the Dead.
Which would explain a lot, eh? Their brains have been eaten.
A rare slip for Ratner.
He should have written that that clause "gives Congress and only Congress the power to authorize...etc.".
Then the fact that the sentence was interpretation not quotation would have been clear.
107-40 is unconstitutional -in spirit,if not letter- and should be chucked. But I don't see any such case getting very far with today's Federal Courts.
I say Constitutional Convention time is here again.
Article I, Sec. 8, cll. 11-12 empower the Congress:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
The Constitution gives the Congress an additional, important power, the "power of the purse".
The United States's last declared war was World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya have all involved military actions for which the Congress have appropriated the necessary sums, and then some.
The Constitution does not require a congressional declaration of war before the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, can order the use of military force. If it did, we might be unable to repel an attack in an urgent situation. Of course, various Presidents have pushed the envelope in this area.
Uh, not true.
He does have the authority to act in this case under Article 2, section 2, which is the "Treaty Clause" of the US Constitution. And as the other members of NATO asked for our assistance in accordance with NATO terms, he's within his authority under NATO to authorize military action within the bounds of the NATO treaty. Under the Constitution, international law becomes part of our federal laws, so enforcement of/or actions in support of a previously signed and currently in place treaty is in accordance with federal and international law, and with the Constitution.
This thing against Libya didn't happen in a vacuum, and other NATO forces (it's the first time they've ever use the Eurofighter!) are involved.
Personally, I support the no fly zone, simply because it gives the rebels a fair and fighting chance for them to win their country back (to borrow a Tea Bagger phrase). I also support being on the side of the people of the middle east who've had enough of poverty, brutal dictatorships and austerity. We're on the right side of this one for change, and we shouldn't let our manufactured budget crisis stop us from doing the right thing. Churchill was right, was as American's do end up doing the right thing, after we've tried everything else.
There are two people that I'd also like remembered as the middle east erupts: Brad Manning and Mohamed Bouazizi. They started this thing, and it may turn out to be one of the best things to happen to our world in a long time. Any move away from right wing austerity and elitism is a good thing.
Oh Yeh, J-.............Why don't you take a look at:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27797.htm!!!!
No.
The Treaty Power does not allow the Prez to negate Congress's Warmaking power.
Otherwise, what is the point of "checking" an Executive's desire for War with putting the power in Congress's lap?
The Prez should get authorization of the use of the military from Congress even when he is otherwise in line with a treaty. As Ratner pointed out above, both Bush's did so in their Iraq wars, even though both considered such action already authorized by the UN Security Council.
And NATO doesn't matter a fig unless the UN Security council has okayed the thing- all members are UN Charter signers and so this higher international applies to them just as it does us.
As locust reminded us above, Obama's dubious authority here rests on the open-ended War on Terror authorization (Public Law 107-40).
This seems to be a test as to whether the Prez can really get away with starting new wars underneath the umbrella of that unconstitutional and anti-democratic law.
-matti.
They (the Powers That Be) don't care about the legal justifications. They have teams of experts to spin out some language that will make it, to them, OK. I hope you're right about this all turning out to be one "one of the best things to happen to our world". That would really be a pleasant surprise to me.
"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."
like the debate to attack Afghanistan?
I must've missed that one.
To Hell with the Constitution - Broke Oblahblah administration
It's just a goddamned piece of paper. - dubya bush administration
It depends on what the definition of "is" is. - Slick Willy Clinton administration
One term, not fair! I tried to get rid of Reagan! - gWHiner bush administration
Um, well, I am the oldest president ever. Huh? - the Alzheimers administration
Wow, We have had some real winners paraded about by the PuppetMasters for quite some time now.
Ah, that quaint old Constitution! If it's not in Hell already, sections of it have long ago been consigned to Limbo.
The doublespeak of Amerikan political culture permits lively discussion of the "constitutionality" of government actions, even though certain vital components of the Constitution, such as the provisions pertaining to the powers and process for declaring war, have long ago been vitiated and abandoned in spirit. They're like those spittoons and gas mantles left in place, but long abandoned and unused, in historic houses: relics.
As Ratner notes, the Founders carefully designed Constitutional checks and balances intended to restrain a bellicose Executive Branch from too readily going to war; they believed that only "just" wars should be declared and fought after thorough deliberation, and with general public support.
That proved to be an impossible standard, especially when Amerika's heads of state acquired the resource of a standing army and navy, and innumerable opportunities to use it to further Amerikan power, security, and economic interest (as the heads of state and their cronies and allies saw it).
The prospects of acquiring territory there for the taking from other weakened and diminished empires was too strong a temptation-- and after the easy real estate was grabbed, the abundant prospect of strong-arming Amerikan interests by acquiring a controlling interest in other sovereignties burgeoned.
The creaky old Constitutional checks and balances simply prohibited the quick and decisive military action demanded by going concerns like the modern Amerikan Imperium, especially if the Executive asserted a crisis or "emergency" in which speedy intervention is of the essence. And, in general, the Elected Misrepresentatives in Congress had more and more incentive to favor the military juggernaut and accede to, if not encourage, the Executive's use of the military.
So the branches of government gradually and cumulatively colluded to circumvent the letter and spirit of the Constitution by designing alternative means to the necessary end-- installing and using modern short-cuts and conveniences right next to the reverently preserved old fixtures that give the Executive greater discretion to unilaterally initiate military operations.
These conveniences took the form of semantic end-runs, e.g. substituting "police action"-- now tweaked as "kinetic military action"-- or "no-fly zone" for "warfare", "advisors" for "combat troops", and giving no-war wars the color of law by papering over the Constitution with legal subterfuges like the "War Powers Act".
This month, it's allegedly the doomed and desperate freedom fighters and beleaguered citizens in Libya who require a rapid response. But they're just the latest in a long list of supplicants allegedly crying out to heaven for Amerikan military intervention.
Waving the Constitution may be a compelling intellectual exercise, and good political drama. But the executive and legislative branches (and the judiciary, when it gets dragged in) have come to slyly collude to maximize culpable deniability all around instead of taking and assigning responsibility as contemplated by the its authors.
The constitutional system of a tripartite government with rigorous checks and balances has devolved into an endless game of political "Hot Potato". Regardless of the superficial piety and reverence for the Constitution that persists in political rhetoric, crucial elements have been superseded with impunity; they exist nowadays only as historic ornaments and curiosities.
As succinct an argument for a Constitutional Convention as I have ever read.
To the Second Republic!
Jesus Christ, you're good... incredible post. Similar in tone and substance to some recent essays by Mumia Abu-Jamal. You sir, are in good company.
Scream all you want.
Your masters like it when you scream.
As for the illusion of "constitutional republic," that also provides much hilarity for your masters.
The simple fact is that we no longer have a President, we have sequentially elected dictators who opperate outside the rule of law. Get over it, we, the citizens, have lost all control over our government and its our own fault for allowing it to happen without any real resistance. Sadly, the Oklanhoma City bomber was 100% right.
Impeach Neocon war criminal Barack Obama!
While we're at it, why don't we impeach Richard Nixon and Earl Warren.
It is amazing the degree of deceit and fraud that Obama has employed. But he is getting away with it.
The amount of deceit and fraud that Obama is not so amazing. The fact that he's been getting away with it isn't surprising either.
in the entire region libya and syria are the only countries left for the shareholders to get in - michael ranter reads to much press but than again what he would write about if he didn't
oops
Some constitutional law professor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, eh?
There is no functioning congress, just a pack of corporate shills for hire at any cost to the global citizens of any nationstate.
The people, the planet, and justice are wholly unrepresented.
The current squatter in the whitewashed house is just doing his job for his masters. He is, frankly, entirely irrelevant in the long term struggle against those he represents.
When enough of you finally realize that we are engaged in a war for possession of our planet, perhaps effective change can be initiated, starting with direct actions against the enemies of human brotherhood, closely followed by regional
citizen forums to develop genuine, local "democracies", which as one should realize, is in and of itself a two-edged blade...
Surely it is better to openly confront the enemy, on any level, wherever one finds oneself, than to merely sit in a corner sniveling about the criminal machinations of that well known entity.
DENNIS KUCINICH is standing up and screaming to Obama about going to war without asking Congress!!! The one Congressman who actually remembers the Constitution.
Nothing in Obama's tenure in the office remotely suggests that he actually has ever read the Constitution. Maybe he just memorized, regurgitated, and then dumped the info out of his brain once he'd finished the courses . . .
Mr.Ratner should acquire a new job. He claims to be the president of the "Center For Constitutional Rights", not realizing that the Constitution has become superfluous and no longer applies to the American people.
The Constitution has been sullied, degraded and spit upon by the very same politicians who swore to uphold it, republican or democrat. It no longer holds the inalienable rights of the people sacred and free from political desecration. It has become what ex-president nixon called it "only a piece of paper!"
Mr Ratner also suggested a debate should have been held before any action by obama was taken. He also proposed a few questions that might have been asked. "Why Libya and not the Ivory Coast where thousands of people have been killed?" Ans. Not in our "interest" and the country is black. "Why Libya and not Israel, when Israel killed so many Palestinians?" Ans. Israel is Jewish.
"Is the war about people or oil?" That is an easy one.OIL. "Why is not the African Union supporting the war?" It's not in their interests. "Is the war about a regime change?" Ans. No its about OIL! "Are three wars three too many?" Evidently not.
Mr. Ratner feels the Constitution has been bypassed in obamas decision to go to war. On the contrary, the Constitution can not prevent any US's arbitrary actions against other countries or our own people.
If the US feels threatened by anything it will react to protect the GOVERNMENT and not the people. So much for feeling safe and secure under the Constitution. And the best goes on...........................
Lately, and because of Libya and the prospect of the coming explosion of a vastly broadening war from N. Africa, through the entire Middle East, and on to the very boarders of India and China, there has been a lot of talk in the corporatist "Vichy" media about, "What is the Obama Doctrine?"
Here's the definitive answer:
The Obama Doctrine = lies of omission about global Empire. (period)
Obama himself is the faux-emperor/president of the hidden global Empire.
Obama is lying through his teeth (via lies of omission) that any such thing as a disguised global Empire even exists.
The corporatist "Vichy" propaganda media in the US is helping Obama lie and hide the fact that a global Empire certainly DOES exist --- and that it exists precisely as the ruling-elite's global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE which has now fully 'captured' and controls our former country by hiding behind the facade of its 'bought and owned' TWO-Party "Vichy" sham of faux-democratic government!
And that this disguised, hidden, and lied about global Empire is 'right now' igniting and executing the beginning of a pre-conceived, pre-planned, and preemptive grand war plan across the entire swath of 5000 miles from N. Africa, through the Middle East, and to the doorsteps of India and China --- which war plan is clearly proven by merely looking at Thomas Barnett's 2004 Naval War College and national intelligence/security state "hot read" book, "The Pentagon's New Map" --- and which Obama and the traitorous media's lies of omission are covering up by not telling the American public 'word one' about the war plan and "The Pentagon's New Map".
This is almost an exact, but larger, version of the lying and deceptive technique of lying their to war in Afghanistan and Iraq that was ginned-up in the 1990's by Perle and Wolfowitz's PNAC, Defense Analysis, and "Clear Break" war plans --- which were put into use once Bush came into office in 2001, and once the supposedly unpredictable "second Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 occurred to "light the fuse".
Barnett's "Pentagon's New Map" plan was likewise fully developed in advance in 2004, and is now being 'set-off' and triggered to "light the fuse" across an area an order of magnitude bigger than Iraq and Afpak, by the supposedly equally "unpredictable" Arab Spring revolutions.
This GD thing is a "fixed game" and a fixed game of the hidden global EMPIRE right here in River City. And the US public is being played for suckers by a much better actor than George Bush.
The American public had finally almost caught-on to the repeated deceit of the arrogant and haughty war makers of the Bush/Cheney regime fronting for the global Empire, and then the Empire simply switched the players and brought in a promising new kid from the bench to take the starring role of Lucy in promising 'hope' and 'change' in really, really, finally "holding the ball" to give peace a chance --- and now anyone who is not blind and hopelessly naive can see the this new "Lucy" character is just a pawn of the same Empire pulling the peace football away again, but now with the sick excuse that "this is an exceptional and humanitarian crisis (in Libya) and we'll only go in there for a short time".
What Bull Shit!
The Obama Doctrine = lies of omission about global Empire --- and continuing Empire war. (period).
And the key to understanding and easily defusing this Bull Shit is just to look at the truth in Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" ---- which Obama and the corporatist media whores are lying about in omission, and keeping us from seeing so that the fun of global Empire war can proceed for their benefit.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty & democracy over violent empire -- People's party 2012