From a constitutional point of view, every single war waged by the United States after World War Two was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. None of them had a proper declaration of war, passed by congress.
The federal government has given itself some cover by issuing various declarations and authorizations that fall short of an actual declaration of war. Additionally the War Powers Act, also unconstitutional, gave the President the authority to wage war without congressional approval if the war was under sixty days in duration.
None of these legalistic covers actually follow the constitution, but at least they have provided a method by which elected officials can assure the public that everything is being done properly.
Even when President Bush lied the country into war with Iraq, he used an Authorization for the Use of Force as his authority to send troops in. But that principle has escaped President Obama.
Obama has added a war with Libya to the long list of wars the United States is involved in. He claimed authority under the unconstitutional War Powers Act to initiate hostilities. And then the sixty day limitation passed, and the war did not end. President Obama still does not seek congressional approval.
And what was the reaction of congress? The House of Representatives passed a resolution rebuking the President, but it failed to halt funding for the Libya War. The one meaningful power the congress retained for itself - funding - is the one power that congress lacks the will to use.
The only thing left is for President Obama to appoint a horse to the Senate. "Hail Caesar" was the cry that brought down the Roman Republic. Will we hear a similar cry with regards to Obama?
1 comment:
These politicians would be acting in the wide view long range best interest of everyone only if they moved on articles of impeachment of Barack Obama. But then the vast majority of politicians - including Obama - are only interested in gaining, maintaining (and growing, if possible) their own power and that of their friends. So I expect that they'll continue to play a game of "slap his hand" and then continue on as usual.
But there is something vital to keep in mind. The government decrees/regulations/mandates/laws passed by legislators and "executed" by executives/bureaucrats are nothing but words - written or spoken - without those willing to initiate physical force, the ENFORCERS, and they are key! The politicians (including the President), their high-level appointees and their behind the scene moneyed promoters (?major banking families) do not get out among the people and do the enforcing; few have even been in the military and if so, never got their hands dirty. No it is their henchmen, the enforcement agents, including the military, who make those words real via clubs, tasers, bullets, bombs, and every other weapon devised.
Therefore I first recommend by those who find government enforcement "work" abhorrent and/or long range counterproductive to a voluntary society, to attempt to persuade by way of reasoned logic those enforcers they actually know in some manner to get truly productive jobs. For those who instead continue on as enforcers, the logical step is to withdraw all voluntary association with them - no sales, service or camaraderie - no anything!
I've pointed out many places on the Internet that shunning, with a long history of use as a method of social persuasion, has not been given its due in mainstream media. It is included by Gene Sharp in his 198 Methods of NonViolent Action - part of Ostracism of Persons under THE METHODS OF SOCIAL NONCOOPERATION - http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html
Also: http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html and a more technical explanation - http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
Post a Comment