Obama’s “Nixonian” Moments – Ignores White House Lawyers On Constitutional Authority To Wage War In Libya

So, you’re a liberal who protested against President Bush for being an imperial megalomanic out to control the world and wars against all those oppose him. Now that you’re living with President Obama, who now shows he has even overstepped Nixon’s legacy for imperialism, are you out there protesting?

I thought not:

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

His Acting Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel and his top DoD lawyer, both of whom are charged with giving him advice on these kinds of subjects, told him that he must abide by the War Powers Act in regards to Libya.

So what does he do? He went lawyer shopping and found a few that told him what he wanted to hear. That, in some alternative universe, it’s not a war because they aren’t shooting back at us. Nevermind we are dropping bombs, firing missiles, and all that other war making jazz. Naw, it’s not a war.

Guess who else disagreed with our Imperial Overlord?

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s [DoD general counsel] view, officials said.

He directs the DOJ to stop defending the Defense On Marriage Act, he orders the EPA to do an end-around Congress and installs cap & trade via regulations instead, he pushes through a bill that allows the federal government to take over health care, and now he wages war without congressional approval and against the advice of his lawyers.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8[/youtube]

So why is it that those who opposed President Bush’s “power grabs” and protested non-stop doing the same for this man?

I wonder.

I actually agree with John Yoo here, the War Powers Resolution is not constitutional:

The treatment isn’t to force everyone to obey an unconstitutional law, the War Powers Resolution, that is both untrue to the Framers’ original understanding and unsuited to the exigencies of modern war. The New York Times’s [editorialists’] solution is the equivalent of using leeches on a patient with the common cold. The right constitutional answer (as I explain in this morning’s Wall Street Journal) is to toss the empty symbolism of the Resolution and meaningless lawsuits aside and let them fight it out using their own powers — commander-in-chief versus the purse — in the political process.

Every President since that bad resolution was passed has refused to accept the premise of the legislation, which basically says that Congress can dictate to the President the specifics of committing our military to hostilities abroad. Congress has the power of the purse, that is their power in regards to these hostilities, any other powers are unconstitutional. But even though every President has not accepted the Resolution, they have all consulted Congress and stayed within the bounds of the reporting requirements.

Not so with Obama.

An when it was convenient, Obama and his fans would rail against the behavior of Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan, calling his actions unilateral and imperial, even though he DID consult with Congress and the reporting requirements.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNUufdROKTs[/youtube]

A Republican President not consulting Congress as he waged war would be raked over the coals.

Not so now.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

Exit thought:

Just one of the three major differences between Barack H. Obama’s wars and Bush’s wars:

• Whatever one may think of how the peace has gone, it’s impossible to dispute that George W. Bush won the “major combat operations” phase of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. (I argue he also won the peace, as both countries are markedly better off, more democratic, and less a threat to the United States than either was on January 20th, 2001.)

• When George W. went to war, he led from in front; he didn’t try to “lead from behind.” He picked the generals, the strategy, he got out front and forcefully defended them, he promised victory, and he delivered. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Afghanistan and Iraq were America’s wars… not NATO’s, not the UN’s, not France’s or Germany’s. And Bush stud up like a man and personally took the political hits as the wars “dragged on” longer than the unrealistic expectations of American voters.

• And again, whatever the merits of Afghanistan and Iraq, and whatever qualms or second-thoughts the Left might have about them now, the indisputable fact remains that Bush got congressional approval for each, as the Constitution requires: A congressional “authorization for the use of military force” has been held to be legally the same as a declaration of war.

As pathetic as the economy is under Obamunism, it’s the president’s national-security policy that most clearly illuminates how incompetent, inattentive, flighty, hysterical, fickle, and in general, unserious his team is. The entire administration of President B.O. is like unto a ditsy blonde in a TV sitcom — think Chrissy Snow in Three’s Company — but without the honesty or heart of gold such farcical characters usually display.

I can only say, once again, thank God for Ronald Reagan; if a dolt of the caliber of Barack Obama had been up against a Brezhnev or Gorbachev, we’d all be drinking vodka and whistling “Polyushko Polye.”

Curt

See author page