Get PJ Media on your Apple

Obama’s Extra-Constitutional Abdication

Barack Obama needs to take off the mom jeans and put on the big-boy pants if he wants to be commander-in-chief.

by
Tom Blumer

Bio

September 5, 2013 - 11:07 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

At least a few people understand what’s going on here. New York Congressman Peter King got it exactly right on Saturday when he said: ”President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents.”

House Speaker John Boehner has already indicated support for a military response. There’s nothing wrong with that. But Boehner and Congress need to make clear in their resolution’s language that what they are providing is only a sense of congressional sentiment and not a formal authorization for use of force.

The president can then take that sense of Congress — which could be for or against, as it really won’t matter — and weigh it in his decision. But it still must be his decision as commander-in-chief. Barack Obama needs to put on his big-boy pants and make it.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Along with having a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development, Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been a PJM contributor since 2008.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Let’s look at what the War Powers Resolution Act actually says with regard to its purpose and policy:


50 U.S.C. § 1541 – Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces INTO HOSTILITIES, OR INTO SITUATIONS WHERE IMMINENT INVOLVEMENT IN HOSTILITIES IS CLEARLY INDICATED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; LIMITATION

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.

Has Syria declared war on the United States?

No, but AQ has and it is part of the ‘rebels’ of whom we are asked to arm and assist.

Is there any specific statutory authorisation for airstrikes on Syria?

Not yet.

Has a national emergency been created by an attack from Syria upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?

Nope.

Declaring War Is One Power That The President Absolutely Does Not Have

http://tinyurl.com/lu96efp
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Muslim Middle East will continue to hate all non-Muslims and work against them at every turn. We have zero to gain and lots to lose. The faster Al Qaeda wins, the faster we'll see those nerve gas bombs deployed in the United States. Helping Al Qaeda is madness and treasonous.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"If he succeeds in getting the congressional authorization he claims he doesn’t need, that maneuver will set the precedent-setting expectation that a president must seek congressional blessing for all military actions."

With all due respect, Tom, no it won't.

What it will do, however, is very possibly set the expectation that future presidents who wish to engage in foreign adventurism to cover their own rear ends politically because of their own stupid and naive rhetoric, or to distract attention from numerous serious scandals and demonstrations of complete incompetence, or to further his or her own other demagogic ends, will have to get Congressional approval to do so.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (47)
All Comments   (47)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­▬
Isaac. true that Jack`s article is unimaginable, I just bought a top of the range Dodge sincee geting a check for $5549 this past five weeks and-even more than, ten thousand this past-month. it's by-far my favourite-job Ive had. I actually started 10-months ago and immediately startad bringin home over $74 per/hr. investigate this site http://www.wep6.com
Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­▬
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The living document nonsense is contradicted by the Tenth Amendment and also by the repeated fact of the specification of powers throughout the document. Many do the same with the Bible, reducing the meaning to the vague and indefinite. Such is intellectual dishonesty and it is deliberate. Whether political or theological, it is a rationale for evil behavior. Its supporters know this, of course, and laugh when the naive, ignorant, stupid and cowardly fail to respond to their malice with appropriate force.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Silly stuff. The president hitting the red button to stop a flight of incoming nukes is not nearly the same as an unprovoked strike on an enemy suspected of planning to attack us. Our presidents have become increasingly dictatorial, at least since Wilson,(excuse the expression), probably because their CFR masters so demand of them. We don't want and will not abide a dictator.The kommie kid from chikago better wise up.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All this wringing of hands over presidential credibility. What about the integrity of our constitutional syste? What about our credentials in the word as a nation governed by law, not men? What about our reputation as a nation governed of, by and for the people? All those matter more than any presidents' personal or presidential credibility. His credibility depends more on all the others listed above.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I believe this article assumes there are no circumstances in which the President would be required to seek a declaration of war. It would make a nullity of the congressional war declaring power. Well, that can't be automatically presumed if we take it to be that the omission of such a premise denies it. Yet it is clearly implied. If that is a premise of the article, I would say no if for no other reason that to preserve the congressional power.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Meanwhile, the media have followed Obama's lead in taking our attention away from the exploding debt into the quagmire of the Middle East and its perpetual conflicts. See http://clarespark.com/2013/09/06/the-credibility-conundrum/. The men in suits are saying "trust me."
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"If he succeeds in getting the congressional authorization he claims he doesn’t need, that maneuver will set the precedent-setting expectation that a president must seek congressional blessing for all military actions."

And?

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To … declare War … ."

War Powers Resolution:

"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."
-50 U.S.C. §1541(c)

So basically, you are listing all the times Presidents have violated the Constitution and have broken US Law. If I break the law, will you write an article rationalizing and condoning my behavior for me? Hate to set a precedent…
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
PredictableHistory already made this point, I see.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
in time of crisis we have an unpatriotic irresponsible person in the oval office, who thinks that he is a politician with skills because he grew up in Indonesia.

But then this person tells us he drew a line in the sand, ignores his line in the sand and says that it is not his credibility on the line, but the country's/

well the country says no, and since he has no crediblity on the line, time for B.O. to step aside and let the people deal with the problems he creates, looks to avoid the consequence but then look to claim the credit.


Funny how he claims the credit for Bin Laden when it is reported he left the room to go play spades with Reggie, and during Benghazi couldn't even be found while he prepared to go to a fund raiser as troops were ordered to stand down and US citizens murdered.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All of which actions, and many more, aided and abetted our enemies attacks upon us. He is a traitor, actively and repeatedly engaged in acts of treason. Have we no Person-in-Power to deal with him?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
WRONG! This Syrian thing is NOT something the president can or should be deciding by executive action. US security is not threatened by what has happened so far. If the president's request is appropriate congress will approve his action.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack, with virtually no reaction from the UN or the Treaty Organizations at the Hague, is a perfect example how meaningless these organizations truly are, and how little they provide to the safety of the people of the World.

Yet, these same "One World Government" Progressives insist that they must give their permission before a sovereign nation can protect it people and its interests. Interestingly, these same One Worlders were quick to indict President Bush and Former Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld, for war crimes, because he acted on compelling evidence that Saddam not only used chemical weapons to kill Kruds in Northern, and began Ethnic Cleansing of the Swamp Arabs of Iraq, but that he also stalled anti-proliferation inspectors trying to inspect for WMD's in his country. Interestingly, Saddam moved his WMD's, with Russian Spenaz cooperation into Lebanon's Syrian controlled Bekaa Valley. Perhaps the Syrian government used these WMD's to gas it's people.

It is about time that the US gets out of the UN, tell NATO it is time for them to arm themselves to protect against a reemerging Russia, and to tell the WTO that if it can't get China to live up to its trade obligation that the US is bailing out and setting its trade policy to benefit its industry and working people.

Where were the UN or Hague sanctions when Russia genetically cleansed its Chechens, or when it invaded the independent state of Georgia? Where was the US.

The best thing the US can do to minimize the influence of the Mohammedan World in the US, is to open up the drilling of all US reserves, build the US-Canadian pipeline, build fifty new refineries and 100 micro clean-coal fired power plants. Of course the "Climate Terrorists" will go nuts, and even start terrorizing the the US oil and refining facilities. Of course, if they do, we could round them up, like the Jihadists and send to Gitmo for recuperation.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I disagree.

I don't want one man (and a highly ambitious and self-regarding man as is requisite to achieve the presidency) deciding for the entire nation whether we all go to war. And that is a truth of war: when it commences it takes every last citizen along with it.
We have representative government for the precise reason that the Founding Fathers sought to eliminate the dangers and abuses that are inevitable when one man has total control of a people. The nation and its government belong to all the citizens and as such the citizenry (through their legislature) should have the final voice in matters as deadly serious as the question of whether to send their sons and daughters to war.
Inconvenience and inefficiency were engineered into the government for precisely the purpose of hobbling it in order to avoid precipitate and unwise (and politically ambitious) actions such as this.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The best of our Presidents took actions to protect the Nation and the Constitutions, without waiting for permission from the Congress. Had President Lincoln not suspended habeas corpus in the Lt. John Merryman case (see In Re Merryman) without the Congress, it may have been possible that the United States would have lost the Civil War within a few months of its start.

Interestingly, the same Chief US Supreme Court Justice that wrote Dred Scott decision and sworn Lincoln in as President, also, acting as a District Court Justice for Maryland, wrote the decision In Re Merryman requiring the Commanding General of Fort McHenry to deliver Lt. Merryman to his court.

This case, however, was a perfect example of a "Clear and Present Danger" to the Constitution and the the Government of the United States, as the Maryland Militia Officer Lt. Merryman was activating try to disrupt rail transport through Maryland of Pennsylvania militia troop heading to Washington, DC to defend against an Army of Northern Virginia siege and capture of Washington, DC.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
There ain't no right way to do wrong. There is no constitutional provision for the suspension of habeas corpus. Nor for the promulgation of any emancipation proclamation. Lincoln was a pathological liar and a sociopath. Read his political speeches as his campaign trains moved from town to town and he repeatedly contradicted himself to please the locals.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
and don't forget he is doing this when saying it isn't even his credibility on the line.

so if you have nothing at stake and the people say no, bow out, and it would be nice if while bowing out you didn't let the doors at the white house hit you in your rear as you leave, permanently, in handcuffs, and heading to jail, which would be nice start
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All

4 Trackbacks to “Obama’s Extra-Constitutional Abdication”