Panetta: We Don't Need Congressional Authorization For War; We Only Need "International Permission" [Ace]

Hi. Using the Open Blogger pass until I can get my computer (with its saved passwords) running.

I'm sure this has been covered, but forgive me, I'm behind, and this is something I'm afraid of.

Imagine if Obama wins. He will in all likelihood not have the House. That means there is a negative check on him. Congress can, in theory, check him through inaction, through refusing (per its Constitutional power) to pass this law or that resolution.

The House, however, does not have the power to govern affirmatively. It can't replace the President. Even if that would be preferable.

So Obama continues to dream up new "authorities" by which he can rule using what he claims is the implicit tyrannical power of the executive itself.

He has claimed he can appoint people to posts without Congressional approval, by claiming he can declare when Congress is adjourned. He claims that he can change the law by using the administrative agencies to rewrite the law -- claiming direct changes in the meaning of the law are just "regulations" to be fixed by bureaucrats.

And now even regarding the most important political check that exists-- the Constitution requires Congressional approval for war?

Obama finds that part of the Constitution no longer operative.

This will, of course, continue and worsen. No tyrant has ever drank of the poisoned well and decided he'd whetted his thirst for unchecked power enough.

posted by Open Blogger at 12:31 PM

| Access Comments