The Justice Department has decided: it is perfectly acceptable for the president to send American troops into foreign military adventures without so much as consulting Congress, as long as he is carrying out the will of the United Nations.
Just before Barack Obama’s speech on the budget on Wednesday, the White House revealed that American jets have continued to bomb Libya, after giving the impression this would end. Since the “hand-off,” U.S. troops have operated under NATO command. And some figures are beginning to catch on that there is no evidence the Libyan intervention prevented genocide.
With the evidence piling up, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel weighed in on Obama’s war-by-decree in Libya. Although figures as diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have declared the military adventure is grounds for impeachment, the OLC found that Obama acted within his “constitutional authority.” James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned the report on the CFR’s blog last Friday. The OLC’s opinion states:
As we advised you prior to the commencement of military operations, we believe that, under these circumstances, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad, even without prior specific congressional approval.
It states “a variety of national interests…alone or in combination, may justify use of military force by a President.” Among them is “maintaining the credibility of United Nations Security Council mandates” or “enforcing UNSC mandates,” citing such national mistakes as Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia. Libya involved “the combination of at least two national interests…preserving regional stability and supporting the UNSC’s credibility and effectiveness,” and this “provided a sufficient basis for the President’s [sic. -- government entities always capitalize their titles as though they were Oriental deities] exercise of his constitutional authority to to order the use of military force.”
This means two things: 1) Barack Obama had time to consult with the OLC, as well as the Arab League, NATO, and the United Nations Security Council before war, but not Congress; and 2) the OLC could not care less about the Founding Fathers’ interpretation of our founding document.
Indeed, the OLC says as much in its opinion. The president’s top legal advisers state their “understanding of the President’s constitutional authority reflects not only the express assignment of powers and responsibilities to the President and congress in the Constitution, but also, as noted, the ‘historical gloss’ placed on the Constitution by two centuries of practice.”
Under this scheme, violations of the Constitution become as important as the words of the Constitution.
The opinion cites legal precedents as hoary as…1941, offered by then-Attorney General Robert Jackson, later a New Deal judicial activist on the Supreme Court. To flesh out this “historical gloss,” the OLC refers its readers to Richard F. Grimmett’s “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2008,” a virtually comprehensive list of military incursions overseas.
Upon reading the list, one is struck by the reality that the overwhelming majority of instances were instant retaliation for some attack upon American citizens. Instances of attack without congressional authorization are underwhelming. Grimmett’s list includes, e.g., an incident in 1831-2 in which a captain “investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels.” That’s it. Investigated. Another case is Commodore David Porter’s 1824 attack upon a Puerto Rican town, following which he “was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.”
Apparently, even instances worthy of the brig “prove” the acceptability of ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s clear wording on which branch of government possesses war-making powers.
To buoy its argument, the OLC states the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is “proof” Congress has no interest in overseeing “more limited engagements.” The War Powers Act — which stands on dubious constitutional grounds — specifically limits the president’s ability to send U.S. troops into “hostilities”:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to(1) a declaration of war,(2) specific statutory authorization, or(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (Emphasis added.)
Clearly, intervention in a Muslim civil war does not meet those grounds.
The DoJ is not completely averse to the Constitution. It acknowledges “one possible constitutionally-based limit on this presidential authority to employ military force in defense of important national interests — a planned military engagement that constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the Declaration of War Clause may require prior congressional authorization.” Possible? May? Even these weak, shifting, murky grounds are “satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.” What if there is “substantial risk” for a short period? What if estimates are wrong and casualties force an escalation to full-blown war? We never get an answer to these questions.
Thus, the Attorney General’s boys find themselves in the odd position of arguing that the airborne destruction of an entire sovereign nation’s air force, the bombing of the leader’s compound, and a none-too-coded declaration from NATO leaders that they will push for regime change (“It is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power”) is not a war.
How waging an undeclared, unauthorized war on behalf on North African Muslims advances American interests is anyone’s guess. But it clearly cements the president’s role as a king-like figure tasked with carrying out the bidding of the United Nations, whether the people back home like it or not.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Just one damn moment! Who the hell is the OLC and the United
Nations believe the are? They have over-stepped their authority here,
and Obama has clearly over-stepped his. He is NOT a king, in spite
of his delusions of grandeur; in fact, given the growing avalanche of
public inquiry regarding his eligibility, it’s dubious that he is even the
president. Again, Holder is continuing to set himself up for criminal
charges and arrest. If one American serviceman’s life is lost in Libya,
these two clowns should be charged with criminal mischief. They, together,
are testing the American people to see how much they can get away with.
And just like the spoiled little brats that they are, if they’re not slapped down
and stopped, there will be hell to pay. Our legal team is looking into this
matter, and actions against them will increase. It’s time to take down and
dismantle the corrupt Obama Chicago machine. For citizen involvement,
go the below site. The Patriots are rising up, and these demented souls’ days
are numbered!
http://www.ccaabo.com
Here's the rule Ben Johnson, the first time an organization's name is use it is spelled out. The short cut abbreviation is not the name, it's an abbreviation. You didn't follow that rule to our dismay.
OLC, OLC, OLC, OLC, NATO, NATO, NATO, DoJ, DoJ, DoJ, UNSC, UNSC, UNSC,
I really get tired of abbreviations, it's not like you were conserving words, so get out of the habit. CFR is not an abbreviation that we use every day so help us out here. Spell it out for me and others that have to catch up fast and can't re-read everything you write just to find out the department you're talking about.
Council on Foreign Relations is CFR,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization is NATO
United Nations Security Council is UNSC
Office of Legal Council is LOC
@Bill from Laos:
I posted this already but wanted to make sure that you saw this:
It is a VIOLATION of the US Constitution for Obama/Soetoro to be on the Security Council for The United Nations.
No sitting US President can be involved in any governing authority that would affect the sovereignty of The United States of America.
It is a CRIME against The US Constitution – for obama/Soetoro to sit on the Security Council of The United Nations.
What he did with military action against Lybia – in honoring his position on the Security Council of The United Nations – and consulting with the Arab League – refusing to inform our US Congress of his "intentions" or to consult with Congress = failing to honor his position as POTUS.
Obama/soetoro should be removed form office by military action – along with Eric Holder as US Attorney General for repeatedly providing cover for the ENEMY in the WHite House =
through legal fiats – not by rule of law.
Bill, I say when Obama is found out, he needs to be charged with 1st degree murder for knowingly and purposly using our military, causing the deaths of our brave men and women, which amounts to MURDER.
How long are American citizens going to sit back and let this man break the most sacred laws of this nation? At this rate, Americans will have no freedoms, there will be no more elections, and he will band together with all other countries to take us over. We need to form a non violent militia and throw this tyrant out of this country. Hopefully, we can demand he leave peacefully and he will comply.
Consider also that BHO is reasonably sure the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the "democratic demonstrations" and equally sure that the end result will be yet another totally Islamic country ushered in by, you guessed it, US – the USA!! After all, we've a Muslim president being manipulated by the power brokers such as G; Soros. No wonder he kowtows to and does the will of Allah and his followers.
Is this a great big suprise?
BO and Holder do not care about anything that they do not like.
I feel like our forefathers who had to live under a King.
I had better read some history
This was expected. Omaba wants the US under UN control. As George Soros states "A new world order;"
We CAN NOT take our eyes off of GEORGE SOROS THE SNAKE.
Reminder:
It is a VIOLATION of the US Constitution – for Obama/Soetoro to be sitting on The Security Council of The United Nations.
No sitting US president can be involved in any governing authority that would affect the sovereignty of The United States of America.
Usurper President Obama/Soetoro sitting on The Security Council of The United Nations – is a CRIME against The US Constitution.
***********
The fact that he failed to even inform Congress of what he "intended" to do in Lybia – indicates that Obama/soetoro is operating on his own = personal pursuits – but using his position as POTUS to conspire/consult with the Arab League and The United Nations – and making use of our US taxpayer money to do it – is EMBEZZLEMENT, EXTORTION and LOOTING The US TREASURY – to finance his personal pursuits – again!
An he HAS NO RIGHT TO START ANYTHING WITH OUT -Conger’s apporal. An befor he start’s his Capane for the Presdent he had better come up with a REAL BRITH ceiefect an Crongres has the right to see it an NO Copey —-the redfox
This man needs to be STOPPED NOW from using our military any longer to further he and his terrorist friends agenda. They really mean nothing to them because they are just being used as pawns in their grand scheme of A NEW WORLD ORDER.
This is long overdue – -obama, biden, holder, reid, pelosi, clinton, et al have operated outside the Constitutional boundaries since day one! All are guilty of high crimes, espionage AND treason (against the USA and other countries); immediate arrest, trial, conviction and execution are in order! The House Armed Services Committee should have no problem getting our own military to carry out the detail. With "o's" threats to shut down government and "withhold" military pay, last week, he, basically, shot himself in the foot! Let's stop wasting time and money!