Obama’s War on Libya vs the Constitution ☀
“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.”— Barack Obama (via azspot, kateoplis, and correlationstonone)
This text has been circulating today along, along with the implication that President Obama has abandoned the principles on which he campaigned by authorizing a military attack with out an authorization for the use of force from Congress. I don’t think it’s anything that exciting.
Obama had just been asked about the circumstances under which the U.S. might attack Iran. Thus the presumed attack implicitly hung on some potential threat to the United States. Obama said that a distant threat such as the continued development of a nuclear program would require a Congressional consultation but an imminent threat (such as a nuclear missile being moved to the launch pad) would not. The standard for preemptive (but defensive) attacks is “imminent threat to the nation”. In adopting this answer, Obama seems to be implicitly accepting the War Powers Resolution.
The Libya situation hinged on a different issue. There was no time for a formal congressional consultation. The President needed to either act immediately or not act at all. He chose immediate action, purportedly to prevent violence against Libyan civilians. Whether or not we think he made a good choice, it’s pretty clear that there wasn’t any additional time for deliberation. Consultation was not possible. The requirements of the War Powers Resolution were met.
The War Powers Resolution is an explicit Congressional authorization for the use of force in a situation exactly like that in Libya. I doubt even Candidate Obama would dispute that. Because Congress already acted, it’s not even a unilateral action by the President. The action was pre-approved.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation.
James Madison wrote:
The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
Irrespective of Obama’s Constitutional imbroglio, there still remains the matter of twisting Candidate Obama’s words or adding imaginary qualifying clauses to strike a different note than what was intended to resonate with supporters during an election campaign. Dissembler. Deceiver. Hypocrite. Or whatever apt pejorative you prefer.
