On the one hand, it would hardly be any surprise, because he doesn't let any law stand in the way of his preferred policy objective. On the other hand, the War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional, so the very question is self-nullifying from a logic standpoint. But the question has been raised, so we'll knock it around, just for giggles:
Officials said Obama plans to proceed with both the broader airstrikes in Iraq and the strikes in Syria without seeking new authorization from Congress. Instead, he is to act under a use-of-force authorization Congress passed in the days after 9/11 to give President George W. Bush the ability to go after those who perpetrated the terror attacks. Obama has previously called for that authorization to be repealed, but he has also used it as support for strikes against terror targets in Yemen and Somalia.
Obama said his approach in Syria is modeled after those long-running U.S. counter-terrorism campaigns. But it is different in important ways, starting with the fact that it marks the first time since 9/11 that a U.S. president has authorized the bombing of terror targets in another nation without seeking permission or at least notifying it in advance.
First of all, those airstrikes will almost certainly never take place. It's just public relations bluster on which O is highly unlikely ever to follow through. But let's say that he does. Guess what, folks? He's got the constitutional authority to do so. Remember, the President has the authority to wage war, but it's Congress that decides whether or not said war will be funded. The One can wage war in Syria if it's war he wants to wage, but he doesn't have a blank check with which to do so.
Or at least, that's the way it's supposed to work. With King Hussein, he'd just reallocate whatever funds Congress cut off from other accounts, the law be damned. But that's been political reality for almost six years, and will remain so for years to come.
The reasoning behind seeking congressional approval for military action, via whatever nomenclature one wishes to use to describe it - declaration of war, authorization for the use of force, etc. - is political, not constitutional. It's a recognition of Congress's constitutionally-established fiscal authority (i.e. locking in the desired war funding) and a robust public relations CYA against the proposed military action going awry or otherwise turning unpopular. Which goes a long way toward explaining why President Relentless Pursuit isn't asking for a fresh congressional authorization, because (1) he doesn't recognize congressional authority, (2) he doesn't give a rat's ass what We, The People think about anything, and (3) it's all a Capricorn One-esque fraud in any case.
I'm far more concerned with the insane particulars (i.e. steps he may actually take) of what passes for O's "strategy," like arming "Syrian rebels" to serve as our "ground forces" that are, in reality, simply jihadist rivals of ISIS, and with which the latter has reportedly reached what might be called a "pre-emptive" non-aggression pact. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario, ladies and gentlemen?
Did I mention that also amongst the latest reports is that Congress looks to be ready to warily go along with the Regime's "plan," most likely due entirely to the same election-year public demands to "do something!" about ISIS that are prompting it in the first place and which the Regime is using as a cover to finally attain the goal - handing Syria over to the Muslim Brotherhood - that they lacked the cover to pull off with Operation "Don't Mock Me" a year ago?
Trust me, friends, the War Powers Act is the least of our problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment