My original view for this blog was something akin to the Small Wars Journal where I would post more detailed and philosophical discussions about libertarianism while using the Weekly Roundup to share news articles. In trying build this, I realize that one person with other commitments cannot build a site like the Small Wars Journal. In reading other blogs, I see that many of their posts are about individual news articles. In putting up a Weekly Roundup I realized that I wanted to comment on many of the articles I used. Therefore, I am going to try changing things around a bit, and am spreading this week’s roundup over several days with commentary on each article. Hopefully this will allow me to create posts more often, keep the blog more interesting, and share some good information at the same time.
The next few posts all deal with US military and foreign policy, just like the last Roundup on the sidebar dealt with US domestic fiscal policy. This is installment one.
Libya Effort is Called Violation of War Act
The President continues to use US military force in Libya in direct violation of US law and the Constitution. This is not a partisan issue, but one that offends many politicians from across the political spectrum.
“Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, said the administration was treating lawmakers as ‘irrelevant’.” He goes on to say that “’It’s time for Congress to step forward,’ […]. ‘It’s time to stop shredding the U.S. Constitution in a presumed effort to bring democracy and constitutional rule of law to Libya.’”
No matter whether you agree with the use of force or not, everyone should be able to find common ground in the fact that the force is not currently authorized and those using it have not followed the proper channels to do so.
I will continue to push this issue as long as it exists. This type of use of force is the most dangerous of all, a subject on which I will expound in another post this week.
2 comments:
This is spot on. Louis Fisher, in his spectacular work called Presidential War Power, outlined how the founders viewed the authority to wage war unilaterally as with the most corrupt and liberty stealing actions, and thus associated it with the characteristics of a King. They argued extensively over how much power to give the President when it came to initiating wars. You know what they came to in those debates? He had none.
Obama has continued a long tradition of ignorance in foreign policy in regard to the constitution's parameters. It really took off with Truman and the Korean War, but it started with James Polk and his provocation of the Mexicans in order to take California in a war. At least during Polk's time, Congress was willing to censure him for unconstitutional actions for "needlessly provoking a war without their permission." Congress has become impotent, and while it's nice to see them actually starting to grumble about Obama's Kinglike activities, they've done it before, and never have the political courage to stand up to the President.
-Andrew Eisenberger
You are right. I have always viewed the relationship as Congress decides where and when, President decides how. In other words, when it comes ot waging war, the President is just like the biggest general--he doesn't decide where to send to troops to fight, but commands them all once they are committed by Congress.
Post a Comment