Congress raises and supports the military, but the president is the commander. Declaring war and making war are two different functions. There's no question President Obama has the authority to do what he did (via First Read):
Because…
“Mr. Obama's actions are consistent with the way every president since Richard Nixon has treated the War Powers Act, choosing to notify Congress only after a decision has been made to sign orders authorizing military operations.”
A point to consider…
“His actions do, however, appear to contradict the view he expressed as a candidate. In December 2007, he told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a 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."
What next?
“So who's right? Constitutional questions, and legal battles over violations of federal laws, are normally resolved by judges. But this is an area where the courts have been reluctant to tread, unwilling to referee what they see as disputes between the political branches of the government.”
So where does that leave us?
1 comment:
Those of you who want Congress to declare war; you shouldn't be asking yourselves whether the president's authority should be circumscribed by Congress' power to declare war... The question you should be asking yourselves is whether you want the president to have a free hand to commit troops and make us responsible for Libya for generations to come--by Congress declaring war. Congress voting to give the president a ton of more power? Doesn't circumscribe the power of the president.
Post a Comment