Community | March 22, 2011 | 126 comments

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

Image
maasanova
As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Obama,  War,  Iraq,  Iran,  7 more
  3.     
    |

126 comments // Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

  • PoliticalAmazon
    • -1
      PoliticalAmazon  

    • http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

      The Afghanistan War has been far more deadly with Obama as Commander in Chief:

      And it is getting more deadly by the month.

      As of 8/17/2010, after Obama had been in office 19 months, the number of US deaths in Afghanistan under President Obama became greater than the total US deaths in Afghanistan under GWBush.

      Bush/Afghanistan: 88 months.
      #US deaths: 575

      Obama/Afghanistan: 19 months
      #US deaths: 577

      -----------------------

      Obama/Afghanistan: From 2/1/2009 through 3/22/2011 (24 months, 22 days)
      #US Deaths: 1303

      ----------------

      The # of deaths more than doubled from 8/17/2010 through 3/22/2011 (6 months, 5 days) compared to 1/20/2009 through 8/17/2010 (19 months)

      ------------

      The state with the greatest number of wounded in Afghanistan:
      California (827)

      The state with the greatest number of deaths in Afghanistan:
      California (143)

    • 1 year ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +1
      PoliticalAmazon  

    • To correct the misconception that Obama has only sent 30,000 troops/soldiers to Afghanistan...

      As of 11/30/2009, there were 71,000 soldiers/troops in Afghanistan.

      There were 34,000 troops/soldiers in Afghanistan when Obama was inaugurated.

      That means, as of 11/30/2009, Obama had already sent an addition 37,000 to Afghanistan. He had more than DOUBLED the number of troops/soldiers in Afghanistan by the time he'd been in office 11 months.

      On 12/1/2009, Obama announced he was sending an ADDITIONAL 30,000 soldiers/troops to Afghanistan, which was done

      That makes 67,000 troops sent/committed to Afghanistan by Obama, as of 12/1/2009.

      On a 5/30/2010 interview with Jake Tapper on "This Week," Colin Powell said that Obama had sent 68,000 troops/soldiers to Afghanistan. That 1,000 discrepancy could be accounted by the very small numbers of additional troops sent by NATO since Obama was inaugurated.

    • 1 year ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  

    • This is just another flip-flop from our Bait-and-Switch scam-artist president.

      With what he's done to Afghanistan, he is the LAST person who should be even thinking about authorizing an Act of War against ANY nation.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • Nephwrack
  • Tuppy54
    • +1
      Tuppy54  
    • Nephwrack:

      What? I prefer to believe the Constitutional law professor's own legal opinion on his future action then yours. As president he needs authority from the U.S. constitution.

      And as Harvard law professor, he gave his professional opinion that the constitution does not give the power to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack. I tend to believe him on that over people on the internet.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
  • samthesixth
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • Nephwrack
  • rickm8
    • +1
      rickm8  

    • "unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States."
      He's a hypocrite, what don't people get? He also promised to bring the troops back from the middle east when he was on the campaign trail in 2007. He sent 30,000 more over.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
    • 0
      SFirman  
    • rickm8:

      On the campaign he promised to bring troops home from Iraq in 16 Month, not Afghanistan. 100,000 are home from Iraq, 50,000 to go. 30,000 went to Afghanistan, as requested by the generals.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
    • -1
      samthesixth  
    • SFirman:

      He has failed to keep his campaign promise on Iraq as your numbers point out. The generals in Afghanistan requested more than 30K, but the administration was only willing to send the 30K.

    • 1 year ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • SFirman:

      Obama also promised to make the economy and unemployment his first priority, above and before all others, if we made him president with our votes.

      Instead, before he was even inaugurated, he had planned to send 30,000 to Afghanistan. He started sending the first 13,000 THREE WEEKS after he was inaugurated.

      It costs $1million/year to maintain each service person in Afghanistan. That doesn't include drones, missiles, tanks, body-bags or coffins--or medical and psychiatric care after they come home.

      That's $90million/year that IS NOT going towards unemployment and fixing our economy.

      In fact, because of Obama's Operation Quagmire in Afghanistan, and breaking his promise by making that his FIRST priority, above all else, we simply do not have the funding--or the ability to borrow more funding--to provide the kind of job-retraining necessary to produce sustainable decrease in unemployment. Without a sustainable decrease in unemployment, we will not have sustainable improvement in our economy.

      There was no damned reason to send more troops to Afghanistan, prioritizing it before unemployment and the economy.

      Except Obama needed to build his foreign policy/national security credibility, and he has pretty much ensured there will be no recovery for decades--if ever.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
    • +1
      SFirman  
    • samthesixth:

      It is difficult to do everything in months,but the 100,000 were done in 16 mo. The other 50,000 left to train Iraq troops. Be home by end of year. Yes, these generals always want more.I think 30,000 is more then i would have given them. A worthless war Bush got us into.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
    • +1
      SFirman  
    • PoliticalAmazon:

      You will have to tell me where you got 90,000. Not true.He didn't announce he was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan till Feb. of 2009., not 3 months after he took office. research!

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • renaissanceknight
    • +4
      renaissanceknight  

    • Why is everyone debating over war when the Republican Controled Congress is trying to steal rights that we have worked to get for over 75 yrs. They are trying to stop the working poor from having the right to bargin for simple rights.
      Like a fair wage for an honest days work!!! Most hard working Americans have to work 2 or more jobs to pay the rent or mortgage! In a traditional 2 parent family both of them have to work 1 or more jobs and the kids are left alone @ home or taken care of by strangers! I have worked in Day Care and this is no place to send a kid to after a full day of school!!!
      If Education, Medicade, Medicare, Health Care, The Arts, are not funded it will end up costing America TRILLIONS of $s more!!!!!!!!
      To not help is Anti~Christian!!!!!!!!
      Read the bible!

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • samthesixth
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • SFirman
  • renaissanceknight
    • +1
      renaissanceknight  

    • You do not understand! He was legal because, he acted with the UN asking the United States to join in the No Fly Zone! He acted 101% legally under the UN Security Council Resolution! You just do not understand the truth!!!!!!!!
      He did not do what Bush did by going against the UN and Congress to start 2 wars over OIL!!!!! Do the research or do not comment~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • samthesixth
  • Nephwrack
    • -1
      Nephwrack  
    • renaissanceknight:

      none of these limp wristed ultra libs will listen. i'm sick of onlookers who wouldnt give two drops of piss to put out a monk burning in the street if it involved knocking out a nazi in the process. they might cry about the nazi's rights or sovereignty. dont get me wrong, i'm a liberal (no longer a democrat) but singing kum by yah wont help anyone being oppressed by a dictator.

    • 1 year ago
  • asocial
    • +2
      asocial  

    • UN Security Council resolution 1973 directly violates the UN Charter by interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Thus, military action is illegal under international law. Action by the US is in violation of the War Powers Act because there is no imminent threat to the US; furthermore, it violates the constitution because only Congress has the power to declare war. Thus, military action is illegal under domestic law.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
    • -4
      SFirman  
    • asocial:

      In 1973 congress passed the war Powers Act. The president has 90 days after troops are sent to battle. After 90 days if he wants a formal declartion he must go through congress. I hope he doesn't do this. It does not violate the conconstition for 90 days.

    • 1 year ago
  • asocial
    • +2
      asocial  
    • SFirman:

      For the most part, what you say is true; however, the War Powers Act requires either that the US be attacked or be in imminent danger of attack, neither of which is applicable to Libya. These are prerequisites to the 90 day grace period.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • asocial
  • NickerBocker09
    • +3
      NickerBocker09  

    • Im sorry but republicans STFU. You have no room to speak after Bush. What he did is incomparable to this. 1) the UN has sanctioned this 2) we let the people seek democracy not us forcing it on them

      Also if Congress really doesnt want this they can withhold funding.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • Nephwrack
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
    • +2
      BrushwithDeathToothpaste  

    • U.N. Charter - Chapter VII, Article 43. The President does have authorization. Congress can decide not to fund it. So write to your congressional representative if you want to stop it. It is not indefinite and the amount of military resources that can be used is limited but please stop the bullshit over whether or not this is legal. Have the debate as to whether or not it is necessary.

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
  • Dagum
    • +2
      Dagum  
    • BrushwithDeathToothpaste:

      The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land . The U.N. is a foreign entity and as such citing it as an authority for the President's action is equivalent to citing the constitution of Russia as authorization for the U.S. Presidents actions.

      Under Art. 1 section 8 of the Constitution and even under the unconstitutional war powers resolution used to circumvent the Constitution, he does not have the authority.

      The Constitution is our government and the very document that gives the executive branch it's power. To suggest using a foreign entity's charter as authority for powers not given to him by our country's governing document is treasonous.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
    • +1
      SFirman  
    • Dagum:

      The war powers act was passed by congress. What he is doing is legel. Congress should do away with the law if they now, do not like it. Several presidents have not abided by this law, but of coarse the one president to blame is Obama.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  
    • SFirman:

      It's not even legal under the unconstitutional War Powers resolution. Under the war powers resolution he has to at a minimum, consult with congress before deploying military forces. He failed to even consult. He broke a resolution that was designed to get around the Constitution and that's why Dennis Kucinich is calling for his impeachment.

    • 1 year ago
  • asocial
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • Dagum
  • mitekillem
    • +1
      mitekillem  

    • I think what Obama meant to say by "military attack" was "war".
      This isn't a Military Aattack, it's a Strongly Enforced No-Fly Zone.
      Yes, maybe the blew up a few tanks, but that was to ensure that those tanks would never fly again.

    • 1 year ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • samthesixth
  • Tuppy54
    • +2
      Tuppy54  

    • Do as I say, not as I do?

      I believed him the first time he spoke as the professor and Constitutional law scholar that the constitution doesn't give him the authority. And he hasn't rescinded or modified his legal opinion so it still stands.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
  • SFirman
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • SFirman:

      Current has taken it down for review. What they are reviewing I don't know.

      Authorization is different than commit. He has authorized the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (which has land, sea, and ground troops) to be involved in the Libya operation. The 26th MEU, on its website, has pictures of their ground forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan from 2010 and 2011. They were also in Iraq at one point.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
    • -2
      BrushwithDeathToothpaste  

    • The President is authorized to execute limited military actions by way of a U.N. resolution. Otherwise the U.N. would be completely paralyzed if the participating countries had to go back and get legislative approval for every military action. I do not believe the U.N. actually sanctioned military action in Iraq. That made the decision to got to war unilateral.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
    • -1
      BrushwithDeathToothpaste  
    • samthesixth:

      Wrong. We signed onto the U.N. and one of the provisions is to provide limited military resources to enforce resolutions WITHOUT immediate consent of a legislative body. Stick your fingers in your ears all you like and yell lalala. That is the legal ground like it or not.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
  • samthesixth
    • -2
      samthesixth  
    • BrushwithDeathToothpaste:

      And in this case we are not doing that. The French acted unilaterally, after our waffling, and did not even notify NATO that their actions would begin. The Germans just pulled ot of the Nato coalition on this one citing no coordination and leadership.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • Dagum
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • samthesixth
  • SFirman
  • alexandrek
  • crimethinc
  • samthesixth
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • samthesixth
  • SFirman
  • mcjk
  • Wicks934
  • Saladin
  • postlapsaria
  • KB723
  • GENERALNATTY
    • 0
      GENERALNATTY  

    • Diplomacy is not an option for the U.S because they had already decided to politically support the rebels and the rebels were on the brink of defeat they don't want to reason with Gadhafi because that they want him out of power.

      If they wanted to stop the siege in benghazi and maintain a no fly zone as the mission describes , what are they doing bombing Gadhafi's home in tripoli ?

      Gadhafi was about a week away from taking back control of the country so the major fighting was going to stop , this isn't about civilians this is about ousting a man they have made their enemy.

      If the Gadhafi regime were to regain power i would bet money he would put libya directly in an alliance with china and russia both powerful countries that don't give a rats ass what you do within your own borders i bet that is a concern of obama and his alliance as well.

    • 1 year ago
  • JohnA
    • +4
      JohnA  
    • GENERALNATTY:

      You're talking Marshall plan, domino effect. The oldest excuse in the book. The exact same excuses to get rid of Saddam Hussein are being used here. Bush wars bad, Obama wars good. Really? Is that what you think?

    • 1 year ago
  • postlapsaria
    • +2
      postlapsaria  
    • GENERALNATTY:

      i disagree that Qaddafi being in power would be a threat to us.
      they have a shit army and no imperialist or religious motivations to try and do anything to us. at worst they become a haven for Al Qaeda-- but who can't do that these days?

      this was more of a global political move: "hey UN (and superpowers) those poor people are getting killed... huh-looooow, what are you going to do about it, did you see Qaddafi? he's crazy, go help them!"

      and they're doing it, hopefully it works out, because i don't think it was completely thought out.

    • 1 year ago
  • awizard2u
    • +2
      awizard2u  

    • I'm discounting the legitimacy of this article, The following is from the CNSNEWS owners web site (Media Matters) :

      The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

      President Obama is more than familiar with Constitutual Law, he taught it at the university level and I'm not sure but I think he does have the authority since it invoilves our prior commitment to our membership in NATO and the UN

    • 1 year ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • KB723
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • SFirman
    • +1
      SFirman  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      If your going to repent, you can't unless your facts are straight.
      George Bush is the guilty one for Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama brought 100,000 out of Iraq. The rest home by end of 2011, Yes bless President Obama.
      Oh, President Obama ordered torture stopped. Bush did the torture. Yes bless president Obama.
      President Obama issued an executive order to CLOSE Gitmo, as soon as he helps the rest of our country. Two yrs yet to go.
      Now that you know the truth you can really feel better.

      Peace from war.

      Freedom came for Slavery

      Ignorance is from weakness

    • 1 year ago
  • macchugsid
    • +4
      macchugsid  

    • In all of my 57 years I have seen a number of men become President. All have said things on the campaign trail about what and how they are going to do things. I have yet to see ANY of them do exactly as they said they would. One could just go back over the last 4 Presidencies and find plenty of examples.

      It is my sincere belief that when they get to that place they coveted so badly they find that things are not as cut and dried as one might think. Take a look at how these individuals look going in and coming out.

      I have never taken anything a candidate says at face value. I try to analyze the rhetoric and try to see it for what it truly is. My father and mother taught me to always look at things critically. There is always the checks and balance thing to consider. Even when your party is in control! This is a job that requires an immense amount of information to be digested and considered. Talk about pressure! A job wherein you will always be pissing someone off, regardless.

      This thing with Libya is not a "unilateral decision to go to war". At least we know that there are not some trumped up pieces of intel being used to justify it. Or some patriotic rhetoric about getting even for some attack on our "freedoms". We can just look at what is happening there and see that we are possibly saving some lives and leveling the playing field for the people to decide how THEY wish to proceed. It remains to be seen what happens at that point. When I start seeing calls for boots on the ground my pessimism will start to come in to play.

      I do my best to be optimistic and hope our involvement will produce something positive this time. I have to say that I never was very optimistic about either Iraq or Afghanistan. After watching what has transpired over the years in those places I believe my pessimism was well founded.

      I sometimes wonder if our country's military is being used as some sort of corporate police force to further the policies of the multi national corporations. I sincerely hope that is not the case and I remain optimistic that we can all see a better future.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • wolfess
    • -1
      wolfess  
    • macchugsid:

      I sometimes wonder if our country's military is being used as some sort of corporate police force to further the policies of the multi national corporations

      Let's talk Halliburton and Blackwater.

    • 1 year ago
  • macchugsid
  • Dan_Teaman
    • +1
      Dan_Teaman  

    • So what's your argument here, Current? I've seen many postings from Current bitching about these attacks. What is your problem with us following a UN-sanctioned military action to stop the mass murder of civilians?

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
    • +1
      maasanova  
    • Dan_Teaman:

      I'm not for a UN sanctioned military response to anything without diplomacy being the first matter of course, but I'm going to humour your notion and reply:

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the mass murder in Bahrain.

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the mass murder in Yemen.

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the beatings and torture in Egypt.

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the mass murder of Afghan citizens by US troops.

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the mass murder of Iraqi citizens by US troops.

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the mass murder of Pakistani citizens by US drones

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the 2006 mass murder of Palestinian Christians and Muslims in Lebanon by the Israelis

      There was no UN-sanctioned military action to stop the 2008-2009 mass murder of Palestinian Christians and Muslims in Gaza, or the ongoing military occupation by the Israelis

    • 1 year ago
  • postlapsaria
    • +2
      postlapsaria  
    • maasanova:

      how does your answer qualify as a response? you didn't answer the person's question at all.

      diplomacy obviously wasn't an option since Qaddafi didn't dodged any talk of a rebellion while also killing his own people.

    • 1 year ago
12
1 - 100 of 126
more from Community:
from the community

top videos