Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Loses His 'Constitutional Law Professor Hat'
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama was a Distinguished Constitutional Scholar. As a president waging an illegal war, he's just some guy who, gosh, isn't really in a position to talk about that complex document he took an oath to uphold and defend.
At a press conference this week, NBC correspondent Chuck Todd -- presumably under strict orders not to ask about Newsweek's Princess Di cover -- questioned the erstwhile legal scholar about whether he felt the War Powers Resolution, which forbids the president from deploying troops without congressional consent except in cases of imminent danger to national security, and even then for only 60 days, passed constitutional muster.
Well, the president replied, "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not -- I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here." And so he didn't, declaring it irrelevant -- "I don't even have to get to the constitutional question" -- as he was already abiding by the law in question, rejecting the claim his actions "in any way violate the War Powers Resolution."
But the president didn't really want to get into legal specifics, other than to point out the that the resolution was passed in the wake of the Vietnam war and probably wasn't intended to apply to countries merely having the shit bombed out of them by U.S. forces (like, say, Cambodia). There's a reason Obama didn't want to put on his "constitutional law professor hat" during the press conference: he lost it during the 2008 campaign.
Back then, ages ago I know, Obama had no qualms addressing thorny legal issues concerning executive power. "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," he told The Boston Globe.
You can see how such become inconvenient when you're the one unilaterally authorizing the wars.
Obama also probably didn't want to delve into the details because, when not reading the War Powers Resolution with the special goggles handed out to die-hard Democratic loyalists, it's quite clear -- indisputable, really -- that the Obama administration is violating the letter of the law. Contrary to administration claims, bombing a country and trying to assassinate its leader most certainly do qualify as acts of war, or "hostilities" in the resolution's terminology. And it's most certainly the case that by helping its NATO allies do the same, U.S. forces are being asked to "command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government," and that there's an "imminent threat" that those forces "will become engaged," all of which triggers the War Powers Resolution. That means Obama's roughly three-month old war is, if it wasn't illegal from the start, explicitly so since the 60 day limit on non-congressionally authorized troop deployments expired a month ago.
As for all those complaining about the blatant illegality of the latest and greatest humanitarian bombing campaign -- what Obama called the "noise about process and congressional consultation and so forth" -- the president declared it was much ado about nothing. "I've had all the members of Congress over to talk about it," he patiently explained, maintaining U.S. involvement in the war he once said would last "days, not weeks," had. "So a lot of this fuss is politics."
Politicians being politicians, the president's assessment is no doubt partially true, though it's a two-edged sword as Obama's own unwillingness to seek what almost certainly would have been easy congressional approval of the Libya war back in March likewise had a lot to do with politics. Seeking congressional approval may have spurred a wider debate about the wisdom of entering yet another war at a time when social programs at home are being slashed and Americans are increasingly tired of being known only for burgers and bombs, and seeking an authorization to use force may have required Obama to layout an endgame scenario -- an actual plan -- rather than platitudes about freedom and America's uniquely heroic role in world affairs.
"We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend," Obama added during the press conference, bravely taking on the influential Gaddafi Lobby in Washington. "[W]e should be sending out a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give his people a fair chance to live their lives without fear. And -- and this suddenly becomes the cause celebre for some folks in Congress? Come on."
Got that? Dissent aids the enemy. Unity is Strength. The rule of law is a campaign slogan, nothing more. And Barack Obama is George W. Bush.
17 Comments so far
Show AllNYT reporter and mid east bureau chief Anthony Shadid who was captured by Gaddafi's soldiers near Benghazi, and released a few weeks later, told Democracy Now (4/6/11) that he had seen no evidence of an imminent massacre in that city.....
.
Why would the 'ol Oilybomber worry himself over trivial details like, you know, laws and the constitution and stuff? So much fuss and noise! I mean whats a president gotta go through to start a good old fashioned illegal war of empire based on lies and propaganda these days?
I salute the irreverence that Mr. Davis brings to this issue. Somehow what comes to mind here is a memory of my father, and the way he (and many from his Depression-era generation) used to head to specific stores to buy 2 for 1 bargain purchases. I think the PR/psy-ops people did a 3 for 1 on U.S. media buyers (along with their political sponsors)...
Heck, by utilizing the same script, and only needing to tweak small details in the essential plot lines, the action surrounding the kill/capture of the following 3 "BAD GUYS" seems to have been recycled, and thus gotten on the cheap (karmic blow-back not withstanding):
Saddam
Osama
Gaddafi
Americans seem to RELISH the same story line, since far too many "buy" into it every time! It must have something to do with ages of Hollywood conditioning around bi-polar simplistic themes featuring cowboys versus Indians, or American heroes versus The Rest of The World.
Obama is, in short, a tyrant, or dictator, ruling by fiat and with any law and the Constitution rendered mere words on pieces of disposable paper. When will he order the round up of dissidents, indeed anyone who would dare to question his royal perogatives and decisions? The Congress and Courts, supposedly co-equal branches of government, are direct collaborators and/or rendered null and void. Some thought the Bush/Cheney pair would claim permanent occupation of the dictatorship position, but Bush is a dunce and Cheney sick in all dimensions and the ruling elites found the slick tongued Obama as the preferable front man. Don't be surprised if they keep him indefinitely by rigged election or fiat.
"...keep him indefinitely..." I think not. The oligarchy gains too much from our faux election cycles. Think of all the pomp and circumstances surrounding our presidential elections. There's a lot of money to be made in advertising, fund-raising, and gala ball organizing. Hell, it'll probably increase GDP by a percentage point. Then there's all the rhetorical bloviating and patriotic grand-standing. Mmmmm. Can't wait.
Elections are the new bubble. Rent your lawn out for political signage. Run for office, any office. Start a super pac, ask for donations. Make your home campaign Hqs and remodel with campaign funds. It's your civic duty and might keep the wolves from the door. Or be a wolf yourself. May god bless you and god bless America..
Thank you all very much.
Obama lost his constitutional scholar credentials with me when he said that Army PFC Bradley Manning was being treated in an appropriate manner at Quantico. After that, Obama's own law professor, along with over 200 legal experts, signed a petition saying that Manning's treatment was torture and violated at least a couple of different amendments. I think it finally took a formal protest by the British government, which passed a resolution declaring Manning a British citizen through his Welsh mother, to get the administration to direct the military to transfer him to Leavenworth and upgrade his treatment to medium security. The only way Obama will regain my respect over this matter is if he drops the charges against Manning or pardons him.
Barack W. Bush has lost the legal legitimacy to wear his 'Constitutional Scholar Hat'...Obama should be ashamed of smearing those (several are Democrats) who had serious legal, constitutional concerns over Obama's military action in Libya as playing politics and aiding a dictator...he sounded like Bush.
On reversing constitutional abuses of the imperial presidency, Obama has failed, in fact he has made it worse. I'm very disappointed in Obama on war and militarism...Obama promised to be an improvement over Bush's infamous record of presidential power abuse and countless constitutional violations...Obama's failure to reverse and address Bush's record and his embrace of many of the most constitutionally destructive policies of the Bush Admin. is very damaging to our democracy.
Where are our priorities? We're slashing spending on programs providing vital, indispensable health services for the disabled, children and elderly like Medicaid as hundreds of billions are wasted on militarism and war. This must stop. We can be an empire or democracy, not both.
See the comments concerning the question about Obama's "cover" at this site:
http://www.topix.com/forum/atlanta/TVR4J52PVGA83TLT9
Is Obama a total fraud and part of the biggest con of all time?
"Obama Loses His 'Constitutional Law Professor Hat'"
____________________
To paraphrase an idiomatic expression often applied to Obama's predecessor: Obama is all hat and no Constitution.
I voted for this fool and I did so because I thought his professional self-image would require some wrongs be righted. Like Guantanamo Bay. Like Habeus Corpus. Like secret jail sites.
He's a suit.
If in my nursing profession I did the equivalent of what he is doing, I'd like to think that my dead professors would haunt me and my school would renounce my degrees.
Obama is impeachable. He was impeachable from day 1, for failing to prosecute Bush, and he is impeachable now, for waging war without Congress' permission.
He is also liable under the Nuremberg principles.
Clinton and Nixon were bad, but Obama is a league beyond them.
The rethugs wont impeach him. Hes the best thing they've got going for them right now. They probably woop his ass on the golf course too.
AMEN!
Obama=Bush
The Unitary Executive thrives and the Judiciary Branch is utterly corrupt. We live in post-legal america.
Jack Kane
When you say "Clinton was bad..." What majority are you referencing that joins you in this opinion? It's not even possible to find a man more highly regarded these days, than Clinton. It seems to me, that the consensus opinion in this country is that Clinton was "good," that Nixon was "bad," and that the opinion most people hold of Obama has yet to get squared away. But I predict that the judgement about Obama will end up "bad." I always expect to find a Clinton hater in these posts, regardless of the subject at hand. But try what you will, Clinton has risen to a level of public approbation that cannot be brought down by the handful of Clinton haters working feverishly to diminish him.
The ONLY hat Obama has now is a Corporate Shill hat.