June 16, 2011 - 8:34 pm
Finally! Nobody’s known exactly what it requires all these years, and a variety of smart people have been saying that it has to go to the Supreme Court so that we can find out what the rules are, really. At present it’s all about politics. So kudos to Boehner et al for forcing this clarification…I hope the debate gets better. As this thoughtful piece in the Atlantic shows, so far the response from the White House is typically sophomoric.
Was he really a Con Law prof? Then again, one of my lawyer buddies here in DC once said to me “there’s no such thing as Constitutional Law; it’s all politics.”
We’ll see.
Mr. Ledeen, speaking as another lawyer: Your lawyer buddy was misinformed, and it’s a type of cynicism which is very common in the legal academic world and among left-leaning lawyers. But I repeat myself.
It would also be common to many folks that have been watching the politicization of the courts.
Maybe the ‘cynicism’ was directed a tad bit toward reality?
Seems to me that a frustrated nation is trying to have a discussion right now about the reality of politics circumventing the constitution….though I may be wrong!
I am perfectly willing to leave the discussions of war powers to the lawyers. I am stuck on the idea that the smartest man in the world was too dumb to make his case for and identify the goals of his Libyan policy to Congress. For a man noted for his tendency to vote present, his willingness to assume full responsibility in this case strikes me as a little odd.
Well, I’m NOT willing to leave it up to the lawyers – I’m a citizen, and I presume Obama can read the Constitution as well as I can, and for the President to “reluctantly” have to make a flimsy case to Congress on something he;s required by law and statute to do just demonstrates once again his arrogance. He doesn’t have a problem with the War Powers Act – he just doesn’t think that it APPLIES TO HIM! He’s quoted in 2008 as saying that an American President has to justify taking this country on a war footing (which is what Libya is) within 90 days to Congress, or else cease operations until he (or she) does. That’s the law – and even a non-lawyer like myself can read and understand it. It’s not complicated – but that’s not the issue here anyway. The issue is Obama doing whatever he wants to do, Constitution or no.
I didn’t mean that I think that Obama’s evasion of the law is irrelevant. But I have read that other presidents have also disagreed with it, and that could make the issue confusing for some. However, I think most people would agree that is stupid to get involved in any military action without trying to make the case to Congress. It shows a total disregard for the military, our system of government, and the people, who deserve the right to ask questions through their representatives. I may not be able to make the legal arguments, but I can recognize stupidity and arrogance. These attributes have been pervasive in Obama’s foreign policy, even if some of his actions were perfectly legal.
It ain’t complicated. The Euros want Gaddafi gone (payback for Lockerbie flight PA 103) and we owe them (for help in Afghanistan).
It has nothing to do with Lockerbie — the Brits released the primary suspect in that attack, after all.
It’s about energy.
Our involvement has more to do with the fecklessness of the Obama administration.
Its not even about energy. Qaddafi was selling oil, no need to get rid of him to get oil. Whoever takes over when he’s gone will be selling oil, etc.
Its about Libyan refugees/illegal immigrants showing up in Europe. I wonder if escalating this civil war has slowed down, or accelerated, the flow of Libyans to Europe.