Know what else is on the line here? And a really big thing at that?

[WilliamPitt]

The Unitary Executive Theory.

If the House votes against attacking Syria, and Obama abides by that vote and refrains from attacking...well, that Theory will take a really big hit.

I seem to remember hatred of the Unitary Executive Theory being one of the things we all had in common about five years ago.

Well, here we are, on the precipice of rolling back something we all rightfully despised.

How do you feel about that?

[The Link]

1. No President will leave office having weakened it in any way.

[truebluegreen]

42. sometimes they don't have a choice.

[another_liberal]

47. Nixon did.

He was first to resign.

[jsr]

2. Obama will attack Syria with or without Congress.

[sibelian]

4. That's not going to go well. nt

[HooptieWagon]

18. No, not at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. doubt him? Do you remember what he has accomplished (twice) with Seal Team Six?

I think the man is much smarter than some give him credit for....

[Tippy]

55. Agreed he is very smart...

...With so many children being gassed He may have out Higher Power on his side

[David__77]

59. I don't think god supports terrorism.

Or al Qaeda.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Who does?

Are you saying Obama is a secret Muslim Al Queda loving terrorist just like the teabaggers claimed all along?

[David__77]

61. No, I did not say that.

Assad is a Muslim, Obama is not. Al Qaeda is a threat to both the US and to Syria.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. Will Seal Team 6 be attacking GOP legislators preparing articles of impeachment? n/t

[MNBrewer]

64. Yes, Obama is a tactical genius!!

[99th_Monkey]

28. Took words out of my mouth, on both counts

that he'll do it anyway,
and that it won't go well at all.

[markpkessinger]

34. And he'll likely face an impeachment effort . . .

. . . that would have a good chance of success at that point.

[99th_Monkey]

37. So now it's the GOP's turn to say "PLEASE PROCEED Mr. President" ? it would appear so. eom

[kelliekat44]

31. I really believe we are missing what is going on here. Obama does not REALLY want to attack

Syria. I think he played this very well. He knows that the GOP and the other haters will vote against anything he is for. He is counting on it. His only loss will be if the Congress approves an attack and things hit the shitter! Obama is smarter than most folks. And he is a good actor. Any divisions within the Dem party will quickly disappear (except for the original anti-Obama faction).

[markpkessinger]

40. I have seen nothing to support the view that he doesn't want to do this . . .

. . . and I'm seeing a lot of wishful thinking on the part of people who are trying to rationalize his actions.

[Oilwellian]

71. Well, kelliekat was right about one thing

Obama is a very good actor.

[quakerboy]

41. Time will tell.

I want to believe that you are right.

I dont think history would testify in favor of that likelyhood.

I really hope you are right.

I guess we will see what the congress actually does, and then what the president actually does.

[99Forever]

65. Please provide even one scrap of evdence that supports that nonsense.

And wishful thinking doesn't count.

Like it or not, Obama has made it quite clear he is advocating an act of war on another sovereign nation that is of no threat and has done absolutely to our nation.

Show us anything that proves otherwise. ANYTHING.

[brush]

57. I don't think so

If he was going to do it he wouldn't have gone to Congress.

Let's hope this president if finally the one that has the inner strength and personal courage to stand against the military, the arms manufacturers, their congressional puppets, the corporate media war drummers and even Democrats with 2014 and 2016 political agendas. Otherwise we're doomed to keep repeating the war/occupation/treasury-draining cycle with tons of money flowing into one-percenter pockets while the rest of us 99 percenters sink deeper and deeper into a low-wage, near-third world, service-jobs-only economy.

I have an inkling that President Obama's heart is not really into this intervention but being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMAMDER-IN-CHIEF OF EMPIRE demands continual war to keep MIC coffers full. His flipping of the script to turn the decision over to Congress, IMHO, shows that he's trying to find a way out of intervention but he has to maintain the facade of being for it.

Let's hope he has another chess move to make that will avoid yet another war.

[iamthebandfanman]

73. Not sure why congress matters..

seeing as they voted FOR the Iraq war.. which was based on 10 year old evidence and a DRAWING of a truck.

ive spent almost every day on here for the last 4 years talking about how moronic and childish the congress is, only to be told now that they have some sort of moral authority.. kinda laughable if you ask me.

[KittyWampus]

3. The House may be trying to weasel out of a vote>>>

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357794/house-might-not-vote-obamas-syria-resolution-john-fund

[arcane1]

7. That figures.

[WilliamPitt]

8. I have to take that with a grain of salt.

All day, people have been telling me most GOP House members will vote against the resolution because the president is for it, because they hate him and want him to fail. Now those same GOP House members are going to "spare the president the humiliation of a defeat"?

I can hold two contrary thoughts in my head as well as anyone, but this feels like a bridge too far. If they can humiliate the president, they'll do it...hell, they'll do it 47 times if they can, a la their repeal-Obamacare farces.

[KittyWampus]

12. if they want to weasel out they need a better excuse than we are cowards weaseling out

if they want to humiliate the POTUS they can easily wrap it in "concern" for the country.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Forget that.

If Boehner suspends or shuts down this vote and denies the Teahadists their chance to shame the president, they'll hang a dead goat around his neck and hurl him into the Potomac with a trebuchet.

[hootinholler]

22. I would pay good money to see that!

Any workday is fine with me, I'll already be near the Capitol.

[cliffordu]

33. Well....

Bwhahahahahhah!!!



I'd fly out to watch that.

[Jackpine Radical]

38. A bridge too far?

I think that bridge only stretches from Manhattan to Brooklyn. The real question is who's buying & who's selling.

[progressoid]

11. The National Review?

[calimary]

56. Indeed. And john fund??????

Uh-huh.

Look who's supporting this. As soon as bill kristol opens his yap, my ears close, my feet turn toward the exit door, and my middle finger starts standing up straight and tall. When THAT particular PNAC armchair asshole decides to man up, suit up, and go personally to face full-on combat and put his comfy, coddled ass on the line in harm's way and fight in the wars he wants so desperately badly. When he does that, instead of sitting at home in his comfy chair and air conditioning and those nice high-tech TV talk show sets and getting his nice makeup done and collecting his nice speaking wrong-wing special-celebrity-guest speaking fees and the adulation as a "lion of the so-called right wing," then I just might listen to him occasionally.

[lark]

29. I call BS to this

The conservative house would absolutely love, get ecstatic, strip and dance naked to have any way whatsoever to embarass Obama. They don't give a shit about the prestige of the presidency, that's ludicrous. What they do care about is that their campaign funding will get cut if they don't vote pro war. That's why they don't want to vote - it's always "follow the money" with them. They can't appease the MIC and diss Obama on this and that creates a real cognitive dissonance for them. Poor babies!

[busterbrown]

62. Disagree..

Just because a naturally pro war inclined republican votes once ( in order to embarrass and screw up Obama’s foreign policy) against a war.. the MIC in no way will punish them for doing so... In the end they realize that the situation is just an anomaly.

[spanone]

5. when a republican is elected president this will all be forgotten

[rhett o rick]

70. I agree. This can strengthen the Unitary Executive Theory but not weaken it because

a future Republican president will not accept this as precedence.

[bigtree]

6. Obama's still hedging. he's already claimed to posess 'unitary' authority to attack w/out Congress

. . . approval.

The rebuke would be mostly Congress'; especially if he initiates military action in Syria in contradiction to the vote.

[L0oniX]

30. He's moved to the right so far that he's sounding and acting like Bush. n/t

[avaistheone1]

9. The Bush Doctrine is also on the line

if Obama doesn't act like war-drunk George Bush and get a conflagration going with Syria.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Yes, this is a major opportunity

The greatest thing the president could do would be to take a hit for all of us and restore some balance to US governance.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I think that's a good idea...

That would be his greatest thing over this particular issue... the strategy that resulted in PNAC could begin to die.

But, my feeling is that the American People have to have a stronger voice in telling him to do that. I mean, the majority polling one way is just "answering the question", which is a question by design.

In the same vein as Million (man/woman) March, we should fire that shot to hopefully be heard round the world.

[Hydra]

13. Unitary executive already took a hit here

The problem was the lazy propaganda. If they'd made a better case for it, most people would have supported a strike ordered solely by the Executive Branch.

If Congress votes no, the momentum will be screwed...but they'll be back next week with "more compelling evidence." I don't think it will be the end of a really bad idea, mores the pity.

[DonCoquixote]

49. Nope

The thing is, especially after he killed Ben Ladin and Gaddafi, there was NO WAY the GOp would let people feel a BLACK MAN would actually beat them at war. Eevn if they are doing the right thing, they are doing it for evil reasons, reasons that will be ignored when a GOP or Hillary is on the throne.

[deutsey]

15. "Unitary Executive"? Isn't that a fancy phrase for "King" or "Emperor"?

That's one of the reasons I hated it, anyway.

[Kolesar]

17. Oh, yeah. We have our "kings", too ... eom

[FiveGoodMen]

27. Yes. And King or Emperor are pretty good titles

for someone who can have anyone -- anywhere in the world -- killed just because he says so.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. Checks and Balances --

I like them, especially when it comes to war.

We have a lot of "military adventures" in foreign lands for the past 50 years -- the vast majority of them total bullshit. "National security/interests" has been stretched to the point it has all but become meaningless -- it's about damn time that we return to the standard that the President be required to get full Congressional approval to use our military forces by making a strong case our true security is at stake. If we were ever to get attacked or an ally was attacked I have NO doubt that Congress would step in and quickly offer full authorization.

And crack down on any President who would try to weasel it, a la Clinton with Kosovo.

[phantom power]

19. I feel very good about it, except for one thing....

and that one thing is: the next GOP president will in all probability shit on any such new precedent, seeing as they were the ones who pulled "unitary executive" directly out of their asses in the first place.

[wandy]

20. Somewhere in the back of my cluttered mind I wonder if......

this is exactly what President Obama is working toward.
You have to admit, his actions have been somewhat hawkish. Not exactly in character.
Words fail trying to explain John Kerry.

Still, Obama does the right thing and puts this before congress.
I can not remember the last time any president asked congresses approval before going to war.

Obama makes for a far better negotiator than a 'war president'.
Yes I wonder.

[MrMickeysMom]

23. From your cluttered mind...

... to God's ears (or anything else in the universe that can make this happen).

[oberliner]

24. Have you got any more tweets from right-wing Tea Party Republicans?

Lots of stopped clocks over there apparently.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Not so sure.

Obama has always maintained that he's just looking for Congress to weigh in, not to decide.

Assuming he keeps droning people that don't pose an immediate threat to the US, and he maintains his secret kill list, he's still maintaining at least a lot of the Unitary Executive BS.

[Emit]

26. Don't know how this relates, but this just came across my desk

The Senate's Syria Resolution Has a Huge Secret Giveaway to the President

Though Congress plays at narrowing Obama's authority, the draft authorization could actually give him and future presidents sweeping new powers to intervene overseas.

Many years ago, I attended a panel consisting of the legendary Barney Frank. (I think there were others, but somehow they didn't get a word in.) An audience member asked Frank how Congress could take back some of its power to declare war, which had been "usurped by the executive."

Frank gave him his trademark who-let-you-in-you-moron look. "Usurped it?" he said. "USURPED it? We throw it at him! We BEG him to take it!"

Not much has changed in the past 20 years. Faced with a question of war and peace, Congress as an institution seems to hope the president will act without asking permission. That way, members can attack him if things go south, and pass resolutions praising themselves if they go well.

Even what seems like a step back for executive power may actually be a retreat for Congress's shared responsibility. For an example, look at the language of the Senate joint resolution approved this week by the Foreign Relations Committee to authorize a military strike in Syria. Hidden among the "whereas" boilerplate in the document -- mostly discussing the villainy of Assad and the danger of chemical weapons -- is this short clause: "Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States ..."

~snip~

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/The-Senates-Syria-Resolution-Has-a-Huge-Secret-Giveaway-to-the-President/279421/

Sorry for the lazy post and run but I'm at work (and shouldn't be on DU) and I also have a sick kid at home I'm running off to, so I don't have time to examine this article in specific relation to your OP. I saw this article (above) and it came to mind when I skimmed your OP.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. I'd feel pretty good if it happens.

The Urinary Executive Theory has been proven, under Lil Boots, to be a power that can not be trusted to any president.

It runs contrary to the rule of law and should be buried by a constitutional amendment.


Imagine if there were a president worse than Bush and s/he had that power. It could easily happen, and then where would America be?

Nobody should have that much power.

[DeSwiss]

35. It's all bullshit. Particularly political theories.

We're making this shit up as we go. Which in itself wouldn't be so bad.

- If we didn't keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.....

K&R

Ed McMahon: ''Oh Carnac The Magnificent, mystical sage that you are -- I hold in my hands a letter that has been hermetically-sealed and placed inside a mayonnaise jar, held on Funk and Wagnall's back porch until NOON TODAY! NO ONE! No one has seen the contents of this letter. But you with your strange and mysterious powers of divination shall reveal to us their contents without opening it.'' {hands him the letter}

Carnac The Magnificent: {holds letter to his head and closes his eyes} ''Twerking and even Congress.''

Ed McMahon: {annoyingly repeating} ''Twerking and even Congress.''

Carnac The Magnificent: {glares at Ed, then says} ''Name anything more popular than bombing Syria right now.''

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

36. I have a sad old feeling,

just like the one I had after millions marched worldwide and the US invaded Iraq anyway.

People could fill the streets from coast to coast in opposition to attacking Syria and the US will attack anyway.

So sad.

[AgingAmerican]

39. I would back going after Assad on one condition

It would have to be a NATO/UN action. Otherwise, no go.

I didn't buy into the "Unitary Executive" nonsense with the last president, and I won't buy into it with this one.

[Rebellious Republican]

43. I would agree with one exception.....

NATO is part of the global plutocracy. They are owned. The UN is the only one I have any faith left in. Just my opinion, for what it is worth. However I do agree with your sentiment AgingAmerican.

For What it's Worth-Buffalo Springfield

[MoonRiver]

44. Roll er back, and let the chips fall where they will.

[another_liberal]

45. No matter which Party is in the White House . . .

The President should never have the power to begin a war of choice by his decision alone. If we are attacked, that is entirely different.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. "...well, that Theory will take a really big hit." You forget: IOKIYAR.

[ladyVet]

48. I hope it does get rolled back.

Stupid damn thing anyway. Didn't we fight a revolution to get away from one person having all the power?

I'd have more faith in Obama, if he didn't end up doing whatever the pukes wanted anyway.

[blkmusclmachine]

50. Let's ask a Constitutional Scholar.

Anybody know one???

[WilliamPitt]

51. Brace Yourselves

[Oilwellian]

75. You don't need a scholar to figure this one out

The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[polichick]

53. I'm all for rolling it back, but don't think Obama wants that...

though I wish he did want that.

[LWolf]

54. I feel hopeful. nt

[valerief]

63. Does the Unitary Executive Theory require a president to ALWAYS do something that hurts the

99% and helps the 1%? Has a Unitary Executive action ever been used to help the 99%?

[99Forever]

66. I love it.

Couldn't happen to a nicer POS policy.

[Precisely]

67. So many people talking about what "Obama" wants as if he's behind all of this

or in charge of it.

[Richard D]

68. When I saw he deferred to congress . . .

. . . I wondered if that wasn't part of his desire for his legacy. Just a hopeful thought.

[rhett o rick]

69. If Pres Obama over rules the Congress on this, it will be a huge shot in the arm

for the UE Theory. If he concedes it will not hurt the theory because it can be attributed to his personal weakness and not the weakness of the Presidency.

I think the Powers To Be would love for him to be in position to over rule Congress on this.

[iamthebandfanman]

72. Not.

People do realize that drone attacks have still been going on around the world while weve been discussing congress and Syria right?

that we just struck targets in yemen this past week?

didn't see anyone ask congress for that :p


glad the President didn't seek their approval for the raid on the bin laden compound either.

[malthaussen]

74. We need to dispose of the War Powers Act

... and all related such garbage. In that sense, I'm all for nerfing the Unitary Executive. Congress has, since WWII, cravenly and spinelessly surrendered the power entrusted in it by the Constitution to be the sole voice in sending the country to war. I am, in fact, pleased that Mr Obama decided to make at least a concession to this Constitutional provision, although I am not quite sure of his motives.

To those who think that leaving war to Congress as the Constitution demands will hinder our reaction time in a crisis and that Congress would be highly unlikely to agree on a war unless there was a genuinely clear and present danger, I simply ask: and you think this is a bad thing? Isaac Asimov once wrote that "War is the last refuge of the incompetent." He was wrong. War is the first refuge of the incompetent.

-- Mal

[upi402]

76. did he walk into this pickle?

'Wag the Dog' is on tv now - lol
Coincidence?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. We need fewer "leaders" and more representatives.