In between golf, picking the NCAA basketball teams and vacationing in Brazil, President Barack Hussein Obama, over the weekend, found a little time to send American warplanes to Libya to attack Muammar Quaddafi’s forces that have all but destroyed the revolt against this Libyan tyrants rule.
I have to admit I’m still surprised at the deafening silence coming from the “We Hate America” crowd on the far, far left. No calls for impeachment from Code Pink and the rest of the lunatics who think sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya is a sure cure for war. No signs comparing Obama to Hitler. No signs calling him a baby-killer or murderer. No “No War For Oil” rhetoric. Surprisingly not much of that happening.
Oh silly me, I forgot; George Bush is not president anymore.
Alas, there is one lone voice crying out in the wilderness and it ain’t Glenn Beck or FOX News. It’s an uber-liberal from Ohio. In a recent FOX News interview, Representative Dennis “I am
not ET” Kucinich, D-Ohio read a quote from a famous black American, who
criticized President Bush for military action in the Mideast. Let’s see if you can guess who said:
“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.”
If you guessed Mike Tyson, you would be wrong. Unfortunately Mr. Tyson doesn’t know
what “unilaterally” means. So that
leaves him out.
The author of that
very accurate statement is none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Well, he might have read that on a teleprompter somewhere but he did make that comment on December 20,
2007.
He also said: The United States cannot use its military to
solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq
isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.”
And this surprising flash of common sense: “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on
the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000
troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a
consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an
interview with The Associated Press.
So you see, this professor of constitutional law actually knows what the constitution says. He just doesn’t think he bound by it.
On July 30, 1998, then Senator Joe Biden said in a Senate
speech: “The rationale for vesting
the power to launch war in Congress was simple. The Framers’ views were dominated by their experience with
the British King, who had unfettered power to start wars. Such powers the
Framers were determined to deny the President.”
In this speech to the Senate, Senator Biden accurately
summarized the notes of the Constitutional Convention.
“The original draft of the Constitution would have given to
Congress the power to ‘make war.’ At the Constitutional Convention, a motion
was made to change this to ‘declare war.’ The reason for the change is
instructive,” said Biden.
“At the Convention, James Madison and Elbridge Gerry argued
for the amendment solely in order to permit the President the power ‘to repel
sudden attacks,'” said Biden. “Just one delegate, Pierce Butler of South
Carolina, suggested that the President should be given the power to initiate
war.”
In citing Federalist No. 69, Biden noted that Alexander
Hamilton, who was the most vocal proponent of a strong executive branch, argued
that the Constitution gave the president the authority to direct the military
in action ONLY after that action was authorized by Congress.
“Even Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate of Presidential
power, emphasized that the President’s power as Commander in Chief would be
‘much inferior’ to the British King, amounting to ‘nothing more than the
supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces,’ while that of
the British King ‘extends to declaring of war and to the raising and regulating
of fleets and armies-all which, by the [U.S.] Constitution, would appertain to
the legislature,'” said Biden.
In his summation, introducing legislation replacing the 1973
War Powers Resolution, he said:
“Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to
grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”
This aforementioned bill would only allow the president to
commit U.S. forces, without Congressional pre-approval only in exigent
circumstances, such as:
(1)
To repel attack on U.S. territory or U.S. forces; (2) To deal
with urgent situations threatening supreme U.S. interests; (3) To extricate
imperiled U.S. citizens; (4) To forestall or retaliate against specific acts of
terrorism; (5) To defend against substantial threats to international sea lanes
or airspace.
I know there will be some who point their fingers at George
Bush and say “Oh yeah, well what about him. Didn’t he commit troops without a declaration of war? Well boys and girls, he went to
Congress before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq and each time Congress gave its
imprimatur.
Our Constitution is very specific about who has the
authority to send American troops into battle. Congress and only Congress has that authority.
Once
we forget that, we no longer have a president. We have a king.
