I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country — especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense — but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when — during the campaign — he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:So is the War Powers Act now officially dead?
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA: 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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
And how about what he said as a senator about raising the debt limit, and how that's now entirely opposite of his view as president?
2 comments:
The War Powers Act is dead until such time that a Republican President attempts to do the same as President Obama. The War Powers Act will be resurrected by the Left Wing Media.
Look, Darren ... Obama has basically been double-dog-dared to do something. He has to. Really. It doesn't matter too much what it is, but he has to do something. Or he's a feeb.
-Mark Roulo
Post a Comment