FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Not a Step in the Right Direction

by MICHAEL BOLDIN

In response to heavy public opposition to a unilateral executive war against Syria (yes, limited strikes on another country are certainly a “war in the legal sense), the Obama administration has given the appearance of a tip of the hat to Constitutional procedure by “seeking approval” from Congress.

I know quite a few people who, while still rightly opposed to intervention in Syria from a moral standpoint, have referred to this as “at least going in the right direction.”

I don’t.

In fact, beyond a temporary delay before the imperial president’s next foreign crime, this changes nothing. It’s a band-aid, at best.

Here’s three reasons why.

1. Dick, is that you?

The rhetoric coming from the “peace candidate” would have fit quite nicely anywhere in the Bush war years. When Obama says he doesn’t actually need permission from Congress to wage war against another country, and that he “always reserves the right and responsibility to act,” it may-well have been the words of Dick Cheney.

John Kerry, the reformed anti-war activist, might as well be Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz, or any of the other criminals of those unfortunate days.

FACT: These people don’t have principles or sound morals. They have power. And they want to use it. Asking for permission to declare war while claiming it’s not needed doesn’t give me warm fuzzies, it makes me angry.

You didn’t get a “Peace President.” You’ve been had.

2. In Any Case

This so-called constitutional process proposed by the Obama administration is wildly unconstitutional, at best. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t understand the constitutional underpinnings of congressional and executive war powers, so it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Here’s the short version.

The Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress. The President, then, has the power to wage the war once declared by Congress. Just because Congress “authorizes” something, does not mean it has fulfilled this requirement.

Usually, it’s just a sham.

In October, 2002, that’s exactly what happened. Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq. While it sure is nice that those politicians wanted us to think they were doing their job, making sure it was the representatives of the People making the determination whether or not the country would be engaged in war, they did nothing of the sort.

The important language from that AUMF is:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

No. That’s not constitutional. Not even close.

Congress didn’t declare war. They told George Bush, “You make the call. Let us know what you decide.”

That flies in the face of what James Madison had to say:

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war”

In ANY case.

Yeah, that includes the “case” where congress might say to the President, “you decide,” as happened in 2002.

Fast forward to today, and Barack Obama wants the same power that George Bush was handed. From the text of the president’s proposed AUMF for Syria:

(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to —

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

You see that? It’s the exact same thing. This would authorize the President to make the actual determination as to whether or not diplomacy or war will be what this country pursues.

James Madison said the executive doesn’t have that right – in any case.

I think I’m pretty safe siding with the “Father of the Constitution” over Bush and Obama on war powers.

3. Bad vs Bad

The so-called “more limited” AUMF proposed in the Senate is unconstitutional garbage as well.

The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to: (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria; (2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and (3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future.

If you believe that handing the president the same power to make the final determination over war is somehow a better situation, I’ve got some land on Saturn to sell you.

Just One Person?

There’s good reason to want a system where just one person would never have the power to determine if an entire country will go to war. To determine if you’ll have to pay for their killing. To determine, possibly, if you or your children may have to fight and die for their cause.

The Founders knew this because they experienced it.

You and I should know this too, because you and I are experiencing it first hand.

No one in the world wages more war than the United States of America. And it’s been like that for a long time.

On the one hand, I would argue that this “shoot first” mentality is not just morally wrong, it’s a complete failure. Well, unless of course success is measured by the amount of money they need to keep taking from you to hand over to the war machine.

On the other hand, this just reaffirms the fact that neither Congress nor the President should be trusted no matter who is in power.

These people will never stop the power and cash cow on their own. They need to be resisted.

I, for one, am ready to stand against them. Are you with me?

Michael Boldin is the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center.  He welcomes your email at info@tenthamendmentcenter.com  

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 09, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nasty As They Wanna Be
Henry Giroux
Trump’s Second Gilded Age: Overcoming the Rule of Billionaires and Militarists
Andrew Levine
Trump’s Chumps: Victims of the Old Bait and Switch
Chris Welzenbach
The Forgotten Sneak Attack
Lewis Lapham
Hostile Takeover
Joshua Frank
This Week at CounterPunch: More Hollow Smears and Baseless Accusations
Paul Street
The Democrats Do Their Job, Again
Vijay Prashad
The Cuban Revolution: Defying Imperialism From Its Backyard
Michael Hudson - Sharmini Peries
Orwellian Economics
Mark Ames
The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying
Erin McCarley
American Nazis and the Fight for US History
Yoav Litvin
Resist or Conform: Lessons in Fortitude and Weakness From the Israeli Left
Conn Hallinan
India & Pakistan: the Unthinkable
Andrew Smolski
Third Coast Pillory: Nativism on the Left – A Realer Smith
Joshua Sperber
Trump in the Age of Identity Politics
Brandy Baker
Jill Stein Sees Russia From Her House
Katheryne Schulz
Report from Santiago de Cuba: Celebrating Fidel’s Rebellious Life
Nelson Valdes
Fidel and the Good People
Norman Solomon
McCarthy’s Smiling Ghost: Democrats Point the Finger at Russia
Renee Parsons
The Snowflake Nation and Trump on Immigration
Margaret Kimberley
Black Fear of Trump
Michael J. Sainato
A Pruitt Running Through It: Trump Kills Nearly Useless EPA With Nomination of Oil Industry Hack
Ron Jacobs
Surviving Hate and Death—The AIDS Crisis in 1980s USA
David Swanson
Virginia’s Constitution Needs Improving
Louis Proyect
Narcos and the Story of Colombia’s Unhappiness
Paul Atwood
War Has Been, is, and Will be the American Way of Life…Unless?
John Wight
Syria and the Bodyguard of Lies
Richard Hardigan
Anti-Semitism Awareness Act: Senate Bill Criminalizes Criticism of Israel
Kathy Kelly
See How We Live
David Macaray
Trump Picks his Secretary of Labor. Ho-Hum.
Howard Lisnoff
Interview with a Political Organizer
Yves Engler
BDS and Anti-Semitism
Adam Parsons
Home Truths About the Climate Emergency
Brian Cloughley
The Decline and Fall of Britain
Eamonn Fingleton
U.S. China Policy: Is Obama Schizoid?
Graham Peebles
Worldwide Air Pollution is Making us Ill
Joseph Natoli
Fake News is Subjective?
Andre Vltchek
Tough-Talking Philippine President Duterte
Binoy Kampmark
Total Surveillance: Snooping in the United Kingdom
Guillermo R. Gil
Vivirse la película: Willful Opposition to the Fiscal Control Board in Puerto Rico
Patrick Bond
South Africa’s Junk Credit Rating was Avoided, But at the Cost of Junk Analysis
Clancy Sigal
Investigate the Protesters! A Trial Balloon Filled With Poison Gas
Pierre Labossiere – Margaret Prescod
Human Rights and Alternative Media Delegation Report on Haiti’s Elections
Charles R. Larson
Review:  Helon Habila’s The Chibok Girls: the Boko Haram Kidnappings and Islamist Militancy in Nigeria
David Yearsley
Brahms and the Tears of Britain’s Oppressed
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail