An interesting yet mostly unremarked upon consequence of Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional authorization for attacking Syria is that it perversely has the effect of delegitimizing the role of Congress in making war as well as the separation of powers.
Let me explain.
If the legislative branch has equal weight with the executive – you know, the way the founding fathers intended, what you learned in school – then Obama’s statement that he has the right to attack Syria without congressional approval but is simply asking in order to have a vigorous debate makes him the head of a parliamentary monarchy, not a president. Students of history will recall that King Louis XVI recalled the monarchal French parliament, the Estates-General, in 1789 in order to propose solutions to his government’s financial problems. They were a consultative body. But they served at the pleasure of the king and could be disbanded by him.
The former University of Chicago law professor is essentially arguing that Congress exists as a consultative body, not one with equal powers to him. In fact, under the United States Constitution, Congress has far more warmaking powers than the president, and the oft-talked-about term “commander-in-chief”, under the meaning of the 18th century when it was written, was a largely ceremonial position.
It is true that many presidents, going back to the early 19th century, have usurped Congress’ role. However, that doesn’t make it legal. What Obama is doing goes even further than presidents who ignored or bypassed Congress. He is in effect saying that whether Congress is consulted or not is up to him. It is amazing that nobody sees this.
Bear in mind, the fact that Obama claims that he is doing this in order to respect democracy is belied by his attempt to get his British allies to ram through approval, only to have it turned down by Parliament. He wanted to do this without Congress, but he can’t do it without the British or any significant popular support among the American people. So in a sense, he is allowing the Republicans to take the blame for whatever happens or doesn’t happen in Syria due to action or inaction. It’s just another cynical move.
By attempting to rush the American people into a war in under a week, and undermining the basic separation of powers to an unprecedented extent, President Obama may well be the most dangerous chief executive who has led United States of America.
14 Comments.
Yeah, I don’t know Ted. I respect the work you’ve done here, this is a well researched and coherent piece; but I think your anti-war stance is blinding you to some positive developments.
I see it as a positive that Obama is coming to congress, especially, even, that he has the courage to do so in this clumsy way. Firstly, he is slowing down his rush to war. Secondly, and most importantly, in seeking congressional approval now, he has essentially admitted that he has made mistakes in the process leading up to this point. Obviously, if he was going to seek approval, he should have done so much earlier, even before issuing his red-lines, etc.
We have to create space for politicians to make mistakes–as long as they are willing to admit them and take steps to fix them. This is a healthy process. Over the last 24 hours it has almost seemed like we had a rational functioning government.
This morning I’ve seen several republicans on the telly actually discussing these developments like civilized beings. Some have even gone through an entire 2 minute fox news interview without spewing any idiocy or gotcha politics whatsoever. Unprecedented! And good for our domestic politics.
As far as the war itself goes, and what we do or don’t do, it’s not going to matter that much in the long run either way. And the people of that region are royally screwed with or without us.
The world has a couple of big wars coming up here directly. First the middle-east regional qualifier: Shia vs. Sunni. The winner of which moves on to meet the US in the world championships. Good and good. We need to lance these boils and move on.
@Aaron, I suppose I am well past giving Pres. Obama the benefit of the doubt on anything given the history of the last five years, but you are right that politicians have to have some leeway to make mistakes.
I think the broader issue is that all presidents should always seek congressional approval before committing military forces to any large extent. Not only is that what the constitution mandates, it makes good sense. I would actually go further, and amend the Constitution to require a national plebiscite every time United States commits military forces to a new theater or expands an existing one.
Representative democracy is becoming increasingly archaic in the age of the Internet, just a silly relic of the time when it used to take months to travel from the hinterlands to Washington or Philadelphia to cast a vote. Going to war, as many have said, including Obama, is the most serious act that a government can undertake and should not be done without the full support of the people. I don’t think anything less than 80% to 90% of the vote of the public – in an election with a very high turnout – suffices.
I should have added, among the positive developments, that congress should be involved in these decisions of war of peace. One of the major criticisms already out there is that by going to congress Obama has weakened the powers of the imperial president. That is a good thing, is it not? And no, I do not think that he will go forward with a strike if congress votes no. Again, wow, rational debate and a meaningful congressional vote on war and peace; good stuff.
“We need to lance these boils and move on.” The smell of fascism is polluting the air around here. Here’s some some remedial viewing for aaronwilliams135, from somebody who embodies the American spirit better than anybody I’ve run across for a long time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XunOXRiOv0E
Alright name-caller, I watched your video. She seems like a nice, sincere lady.
Here’s some remedial viewing for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE
aaronwilliams135:
So we should kill ALL 1.7 billion Muslims in preemptive self-defense?
@Falco
It’s a good question.
I would hope that we could all just get along. I advocate a one-world, democratic, socially libertarian, fiscally communist utopia. This state would provide for universal citizenship, universal human rights, universal healthcare, universal education, and a guaranteed basic income for all that was not tied to work. John Lennon’s “Imagine” would be the national anthem. That is what I am for in the ideal.
Regarding the screwed up world in which we currently live however, I seems obvious that we do have to be concerned with Islam. I am certainly disgusted by the never ending low-grade, and sometimes not so low-grade conflicts over there. I am pissed off by 9/11 and the many other attacks that have been carried out on us and ours here and abroad. I yearn to just get it over with already. It seems as though in order to achieve peace, one side or the other has to win. Rather than just ineffectively treating the chronic symptoms, why not drastic and decisive surgery?
I am not saying that we are righteous in everything we do. Certainly not. I can see that our government is fucked up in all manner of ways, and I have commented in these pages to that effect on many occasions. Here at home we are far from the communist utopia that I describe above.
All that said, when it comes to a fight between us and them, fucked up as we are, I want us to win. Partly out of pure self-preservation, and partly because I think that, again, as fucked up as we are, our way of life in the west is objectively better than that in Islam.
I would take issue with the notion of any action on our part being preemptive. These wars have been going on for a very long time. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Ottoman_Wars
Yet another example of Obama’s shenanigans. You don’t really expect people to see such subtleties. Obama loves to appear to be moderate, reasonable, measured, calm, collected, understanding, methodical, ETC. He always “welcomes debate,” but as we saw with warrantless spying, he is actually manipulating perception of the issue as you address here. Yes, he is implying he does not have even to talk with Congress. “Well, I don’t HAVE to ask them, but I will because I’m so nice and gracious that way. I don’t really care what they say, but we pretend we like in a republic here, so, ya know…” He is far past being bound by the Constitution or another branch of the government. He is expanding the imperial presidency while appearing to reign it in. Next time, it won’t phase as many people when he says he is attacking without consulting Congress.
falco,
That’s about my reaction.
Good points Ted.
(apologies to Ted for heading off on a tangent, but, it wasn’t my intention to go here, I was riffing along as usual when Matt came off the top rope and called me a fascist and then one thing lead to another. having been called out, and then asked a direct and important question, I will respond.)
@Falco
It’s a good question.
I would hope that we could all just get along. I advocate the merger of all nation states and the creation of a unitary worldwide democratic, egalitarian, socially libertarian, fiscally communist utopia. This borderless state would provide for universal citizenship, universal human rights, freedom of travel and residence, universal healthcare, universal education, and a guaranteed basic income for all that was not tied to work. John Lennon’s “Imagine” would be the national anthem. That is what I am for in the ideal. No joke. As I would be willing to “break a few eggs” (Mao) to get there, maybe you could call me a militant communist or something, but my democratic and egalitarian beliefs mean that I am no fascist.
In order to get to the one world utopia, I contend that we do have to be concerned with, among other things, Fundamentalist Islam.
All kinds of objections could be raised about how they treat their own people, but I’ll leave that to the side for now, and focus on how they directly affect us.
I am certainly sickened by the never ending low-grade, and sometimes not so low-grade conflicts over there. I am pissed off by 9/11 and the many other attacks that have been carried out on us and ours here and abroad. I yearn to just get it over with already. It seems as though in order to achieve peace, one side or the other has to win. Rather than just ineffectively treating the chronic symptoms, why not drastic and decisive surgery?
I am not saying that we are righteous in everything we do. Certainly not. I can see that our government is–and too many of our fellow citizens are–fucked up in all manner of ways, and I have commented in these pages to that effect on many occasions. Here at home we are far from the communist utopia that I describe above.
All that said, when it comes to a fight between us and them, a fight which is already underway; fucked up as we are, I want us to win. Partly out of self-preservation, and partly because I think that, again, as fucked up as we are, our way of life in the west is objectively better than that in Islam.
(Just quickly double-checking my “eggs” quote, I guess that wasn’t Mao. A quick search lists it as a traditional English proverb. Mao did say some noteworthy things, though: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mao_zedong.html)
To aaronwilliams135:
It appears you are ignoring fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Judaism.
Why?
You are correct that we are hardly righteous: http://tinyurl.com/brsk8bk
9/11 was catalyzed by, according to OBL: 1) Our siding with Israel against the Palestinians 2) our military troops in the Islam’s holy land, Saudi Arabia and 3) our killing of some million Muslims in Iraq between 1991 and the ensuing “economic” sanctions. That is: OUR hammering on Muslims with, among other things, our own version of morally obscene chemical weapons – white phosphorous, depleted uranium – and who knows what else.
For the last 30 years we’ve financed and supported a dictatorship in Egypt. After 9/11 we invades Afghanistan, then Iraq (again) and diddle in Pakistan the only Muslim republic with nuclear weapons.
With Obama it was Libya and now Syria with Iran the ultimate goal (#2 in global natural gas reserves and #4 in oil reserves.)
And YOU are tired?!?
We wiil never realized YOUR alleged desire for the world if you, and the West, continue with your totally fallacious claim that “our way of life in the west is objectively better than that in Islam.” No utopia was ever attempted, much less realized, even fleetingly, on such intolerance.
Ted,
I don’t think Obama has made any mistakes. I think his approach toward the presidency has always been summed up as follows: “These not-quite-real people need someone to be their Daddy. That will be me. I will do things that I think are best for them because, quite simply, I’m smarter than they are. And as proof of that attitude, I will give them plenty of opportunities to see me for what I am, and they will STILL love me and allow me to run.”
Were we truly, as a collective society, “awake,” we would have impeached Obama years ago. War? I can solve that problem with one extra choice box question on the tax forms:
“Should the U.S. choose to wage war, for whatever reason, by checking the ‘yes’ box, you agree to an increase in your taxes to pay for it. Although you may change a ‘no’ decision to a ‘yes’ decision at any point in the tax year, you may not change a ‘yes’ decision on this form to a ‘no’ decision. Also, once a war is begun, you are not only responsible for your contribution for each tax year until the war is officially declared concluded and the LAST AMERICAN SOLDIER OR REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY KIND remains in the foreign nation, you are also not allowed to alter a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’.”
The truth is that we come back to what a friend of mine once described as the “child/adult” problem (which I’ve mentioned before). A child doesn’t clean up after himself unless forced to. An adult does clean up after himself without being told to. A lot of children who are over 18 stand there screaming about how the nanny state takes care of freeloaders. The flaws in the argument are left as an exercise for the student. The adult realizes that the point of society is the pooling of resources and understands that sometimes that means you pay more in taxes, or you pay for things you’ll never use.
There are far fewer adults than children. This wouldn’t be a problem except that the children are allowed to vote as well.
@Falco.
I don’t want to dominate the discussion here, but since you’ve asked me some questions, I’ll answer them.
I am not overlooking fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism. If you’ll look I did say, “among other things”, that we need to worry about fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism are among those other things; as well as all of the many governmental/social problems that we have in the west. I wish I had the time and discipline to write the book-length response that these issues demand, but I don’t. I’m just a guy that likes to arm-chair philosophize a bit.
Sam Harris, on the other hand, has written on the subject. I highly recommend his book, “The End of Faith”. If you haven’t read it, you really should. I contend that it is an historic achievement in human thought.
Sam gave an outstanding lecture to the New York Society for Ethical Culture wherein he discussed the ideas in his book. You can watch the entire lecture here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCS1twX2i6s&list=PL7D72EB58EAB31C7A