Senator Obama, 12-20-2007..."The President does NOT have the authority..."

[bvar22]

[font size=3]"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.” [/font]---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

Clear?

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Maybe his Nobel came with a couple of Free War coupons. nt

[cthulu2016]

4. Ouch!

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. ...

[leftyohiolib]

14. i think potus should give that back

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Goddamnit I shouldn't be laughing as much as I have been reading these threads...

I guess gallows humor brings out the best in me.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. Crystal

[global1]

3. Maybe The President's Strategy Is To Go To Congress For The Authorization.....

and you know - everything he is for - the Repugs are against. So knowing that - they won't authorize a strike and then anything that happens henceforth would be blamed on the Repugs in Congress. (sarcasm)

[snappyturtle]

15. Congress is on vacation. Haven't heard any call for an

emergency session.

[jberryhill]

56. Haven't seen the president launch a strike either

He's still busy cutting social security.

[n2doc]

5. Maybe that too has been erased from the official record

And of course, in the age of Terror(tm) EVERYTHING is an imminent threat to the USA.

[City Lights]

6. Haha, that was then, this is now! nt

[KoKo]

7. His New Responsibilities weigh heavily on his head...

And...what can he do with Dick Cheney dogging him on the Sunday Shows every time a country in the ME has unrest because a Western Friendly Dictator causes the people there to rise up? To make sure he got the message on Syria, I read that Colin Powell was thrown in on this past Sunday's Show to verify Cheney's view, just for good measure.

What can he do? What can he do.....sigh. It's out of his hands now that he's President. A Senator has so much more power that a President.

[tsuki]

12. With only 9% of the nation wanting war, you'd think he's listen to

something other than the Sunday Pun-Twits.

[KoKo]

24. Rational People would think that! But, we haven't lived in

"Rational Times"....since...

Well...I can't remember..

[Progressive dog]

9. In answer to this question

. 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?)

President Obama has yet to bomb Iran, unless I missed it.

Just for accuracy, this is the rest of Senator Obama's reply.

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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

[snappyturtle]

16. How is what the President seems bent on doing in defense of the U.S.? nt

[leftstreet]

10. That's back when he was a Constitutional Scholar

DURec

[Divernan]

22. He was NEVER a constitutional SCHOLAR, never published a scholarly paper, wasn't on tenure track.

He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors - at University of Chicago. They are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He taught three courses:

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3)RACISM AND LAW.

Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.

Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured.

[bvar22]

23. Thank You for the History.

Filed away for future reference.

I would like to know a little more about his Community Organizing too.
So much of it now seems like a smokescreen,
and even grooming for a run at the White House

Even though I found him to be charismatic and inspiring at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I always wondered how a little known State Senator with NO record at all, landed such a coveted speaking spot so high on the Prime Time Democratic Party Convention schedule.
Politicians will KILL for that kind of PRIME Time National Exposure!

[jsr]

58. +1984

[kath]

11. How dare you compare CANDIDATE Obama to President Obama!

The nerve!!

[hamsterjill]

13. Exactly!

I just heard a blip of John King (CNN) saying that "running for President is very different than being President".

Politics as usual. Say what they want to hear to get elected; then do what you want when you are.

[Enthusiast]

17. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

18. What about the Syrian situation would be him unilaterally authorizing a military attack?

Because that's not what I'm seeing discussed anywhere.

[morningfog]

38. Lack of congressional authorization or a UN mandate.

I doubt he can even get a NATO resolution.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. But they are seeking a UN resolution.

http://descrier.co.uk/world/2013/08/syria-uk-propose-un-security-council-resolution/

The UK is to propose a UN Security Council resolution today which would authorise "necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.

You were saying?

[morningfog]

42. Get back to me after it passes.

Seeking a resolution is good. But, getting one that authorizes force is necessary.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. *beep beep beep* Goalposts coming through.... n/t

[morningfog]

47. Not in the least.

[morningfog]

57. Here you go:

Earlier, Washington bluntly signaled that a UN Security Council resolution proposed by Britain that could have given a legal basis for an assault was going nowhere, owing to Russian opposition.

“We see no avenue forward, given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful Council action on Syria,” State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said.

“We cannot be held up in responding by Russia’s continued intransigence at the United Nations, and quite frankly the situation is so serious that it demands a response,” Harf said.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/obama-not-ready-to-order-syria-strike-but-gives-up-on-un/

I said get back to me because I knew there was no way in hell anything was coming from the UN Security Council.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. But this isn't still acting unilaterally.

Even if it's just the UK and the USA, it's not unilateral. Words mean things. So take your sad little trump card and put it back in the deck.

Acting unilaterally is the point of this OP, morningfog. It's quoting Senator Obama's words as if to say that President Obama's being hypocritical. But that isn't what's happening here - even if the UN proposal comes to nothing, there is still no action unilaterally. Congress is being consulted. There are other partners involved in any proposed action. And when I point this out, you move the goalposts.

[Seeking Serenity]

61. No, "unilaterally" in this context means

the executive acting on his own authority without the approval or consent of Congress.

In 2007, then-Sen. Joe Biden thought a president using military force (or as he said, "taking us in to war&quot was an impeachable offense. See Post #59

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Even that is not happening.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/29/20244932-white-house-to-brief-increasingly-skeptical-lawmakers-on-syria

The OP is just fear mongering.

[morningfog]

62. No, without the UN, it is an illegal war.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Bullshit. n/t

[morningfog]

71. Unless it is in response to an actual attack on the US or NATO,

without UN sanction is most certainly an illegal war. You saying "bullshit" is worth everything else you say and doesn't change the international law.

[treestar]

63. They just want President Obama to be in the wrong

The only real goal.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. You'd think they could deal with what's actually happening

instead of making crap up, though. It would give their arguments more weight.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. I've got $5K that says Russia vetoes.

You were saying?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Even so, the UK was presenting the proposal.

So it's still not unilateral.

Please proceed.

[PoliticAverse]

19. He didn't get congressional approval to attack Libya in March 2011...

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/obama-can-strike-syria-unilaterally/

[Maedhros]

21. Yes, but Obama has stretched the concept of "imminence" to cover just about anything

or anyone that he wants to blow up:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

But this rhetorical tactic is totally misleading. The memo is authorizing assassinations against citizens in circumstances far beyond this understanding of "imminence". Indeed, the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future". The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc.

[99Forever]

25. I often wonder where the body of ...

... that Barack Obama is hidden. Seems that about the only thing that guy had in common with the Prez, is a name and physical appearance.

[leeroysphitz]

26. I'll bet the president changes his mind on that one... n/t

[MuseRider]

27. He said that?

Well of course he said that. He has said many things that are 100% different than the way he has and is governing.

Thanks bvar, I have been reading, you have been doing some great posting.

[HooptieWagon]

28. I kind of liked that Senator Obama guy...

...whatever happened to him?

[WillyT]

29. Good Question...

[rhett o rick]

30. The Powers To Be sat him down and told him what was what. nm

[Doctor_J]

31. the pre-2009 Obama was a completely different person than the post-2008 one

The current Obama is indistinguishable from the Republicans.

[RandiFan1290]

32. Now watch this drive!

[Little Star]

33. Rachel Maddow had a segment on this last night....

The clip starts off slow. The good part starts at the 7:00 mark.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52861022

[The Straight Story]

34. He has already spoken with congress and we are talking to the UN on it

So I don't think he is planning on doing it unilaterally.

[joshcryer]

35. without UN it would be a war crime

[The Straight Story]

36. Maybe not:

R2P - Responsibility to Protect

If it comes to action, albeit limited, the British, French and Americans are likely to fall back on a number of arguments to legitimise the use of force.

Among them are the breaking of the Geneva Conventions, various treaties reacting to chemical weapons which date all the way back to 1925, and a concept known as R2P - Responsibility to Protect.

In 1999 US President Bill Clinton justified the bombing of Serbia on the ground of the moral responsibility protect large numbers of civilians.

He assembled the Nato countries to give "international cover" on what was a US-led operation.

In 2005, the UN adopted R2P as an "international norm" but there is fierce debate about whether it can be invoked without a UN Security Council resolution.

http://news.sky.com/story/1133677/syrian-crisis-morality-of-war-and-jungle-law

[joshcryer]

37. sovereignity

r2p can be invoked if all parties agree otherwise you need UN

[The Straight Story]

41. From the Air Force general counsel blog:

Syria & International Law

With increasing speculation about a possible U.S. action against Syria, along with a consensus that Russia would block any U.N. Security Council authorization for such an action, speculation has begun as to possible legal justifications for a U.S. action in the absence of U.N. authorization. Last night, Elise Abbott of CNN summarized this as follows:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in Indonesia Monday, said “if there is any action taken, it will be in concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification.”

The United States is examining a variety of potential legal justifications for any type of military action. While three United Nations Security Council resolutions have failed to pass because of Russian veto power, officials say some in the administration believe it may be worth it to make the effort. But with Moscow already promising to declare any military intervention illegal, the United States and its allies would likely have to act without a U.N. mandate.

Officials have pointed to the 1999 conflict in Kosovo as a precedent, where President Bill Clinton used NATO backing and the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) as a legal basis for airstrikes without a U.N. mandate. Adopted by the United Nations, including Russia, as an international norm in 2005, the R2P seeks to justify outside intervention in a country’s internal affairs, if that state had failed to protect its population from atrocities.

Given that the use of chemical weapons is considered a crime against humanity and banned by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the R2P could be applied to Syria, although its legitimacy in the absence of a U.N. mandate is debatable.

Meanwhile, Professor Julian Ku wrote this piece about some takes on the legality of a potential action from the UK, France, and Russia.

http://afgeneralcounsel.dodlive.mil/2013/08/27/syria-international-law/

There is precedence. I would not be surprised if they will use it since Russia will veto anything we put forth.

[joshcryer]

50. But limited airstrikes won't protect civilians.

They will result in the Syrian government going all out to destroy the anti-government threat, meaning that any civilians that support the anti-government threat will be massacred. And guess who gets the blame? Obama / the US.

[The Straight Story]

51. So let him use chemical weapons or he will kill more people if we stop him

Obviously we are not dealing with a rational 'leader'.

[joshcryer]

52. He needs a pretext.

He can't kill massive numbers without the world looking elsewhere. Elsewhere will be the smoldering "orphanages" that the US is bound to be hitting.

Otherwise he has to keep the slow slog going, the back and forth, the "pew pew." This slow civil war is killing his regime slowly but surely, ala Algiers. He can't afford for it to go on for many more years. Better to end it with as much brutal force as possible. And he simply can't do that without the world saying something.

[rug]

39. I wish that guy was elected.

[nashville_brook]

46. [phone]

[Motown_Johnny]

44. True, the authority comes from the War Powers Resolution.

The Constitution does not directly grant him that authority. It is granted to the Congress, which in turn granted the authority to The President, within certain limitations.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541

^snip^



(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

[Octafish]

45. Well, that was just campaign rhetoric, you know, a slogan, a saying, a meme...

...once elected, he doesn't have to do anything he promised, you know, like Republicans say about "exit strategy" and "nation building." Just words. And commas. Ha ha.

[Rex]

48. As clear as the regulars that are avoiding this thread.

nt.

[bvar22]

49. That is pretty clear too.

Its easier to ignore this than it is to argue with the Man Himself,
though I was curious as to how this would be twisted and tortured by someone insisting that Obama did not mean what he said.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. Key word...Unilateral...

[budkin]

54. Not the same person

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. knr

[Seeking Serenity]

59. Sen. Joe Biden, on Hardball in 2007

Stating that if the President of the United States took us to war without congressional approval, it would be an impeachable offense.

[bvar22]

64. Thank You!

Adding to my library of clips.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Good thing that's not happening here then, right?

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/29/20244932-white-house-to-brief-increasingly-skeptical-lawmakers-on-syria