14 Reasons to Not Bomb Syria; Obama Weighs His Option; Flashback to the Ancient Days When Barack Obama Thought the President Did Not Have Unilateral Power to Launch Attacks on Countries Which Had Not Attacked Us

Great post.

And The Onion is relevant again, suddenly. CDRSalamander links this article, which he calls "almost good," and that leads the reader to this also almost good article, which relies on the the unexpected singular form of nouns for humor. Yeah, it's funnier than I made it sound.

Over at Hot Air, a bipartisan group of 81 Congressmen have written a letter to Barack Obama, insisting that he seek Congressional authorization before beginning his third Nobel Peace Prize War of Choice. How quaint.

“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets,” the group, which so far includes 69 Republicans and 13 Democrats, writes. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

But Obama doesn't want to do this. Why? Because he fears Congress might, after the debating the issue, say No.

So of course that's what the Constitution's war-making clause means: You have to get Congress' authorization, so long as you know they'll say yes, but if you think they'll say no, then of course all war-making power vests in One Man Alone.

This is his same reasoning on domestic policy, too. Sure, he'd prefer to have actual laws passed which execute his preferred policies into law, but since Congress disagrees with him, naturally all law-making power flows into his singular person.

Obviously that's what the Constitution means. I mean, duh. How can you read The Federalist Papers and come away not realizing that?

Also over there, some additional reporting on when the Democrats threatened impeachment should George Bush launch airstrikes on Iran. Among the persons noting that the president does not have the unilaterally attack a country absent the justification of urgent self-defense was onetime guest lecturer on constitutional law, Sen. Barack H. Obama.

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.

Oh, that's funny, because now you say, like, he does?

@johnekdahl got this ball rolling yesterday, by the way. Not the Real Reporters of the media -- but Just a Blogger who did some searching on Ancient Archival Records from, you know, 2007.

posted by Ace at 02:21 PM

| Access Comments