Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Obama’s Explanation of Why He Did Not Need Congressional Authorization

    Obama’s Explanation of Why He Did Not Need Congressional Authorization

    …. for the attacks on Libya sounds an awful lot like his explanation of why the health care mandate is constitutional.

    Just as the Obama administration tied the decision of an individual not to purchase health care insurance, through a series of connections and chains of causation, to the health care costs and availability of insurance of the entire nation thereby warranting regulation under the Commerce Clause mandating the individual purchase of insurance …

    … so too Obama in a letter to Congress has sought to justify the failure to obtain prior Congressional authorization by tying what happens in the civil war in Libya, through a series of connections and chains of causation, to an exigent national security threat to the United States (emphasis mine):

    Qadhafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.

    There are, of course, other possible explanations as to why congressional authorization was not needed, such as that a limited attack does not constitute the level of hostilities necessary to trigger congressional approval, but this Butterfly effect argument of exigent circumstances seems quite weak.

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    He is poking congress in the eye. Odds are that he would've received congressional approval. He is making a statement by cutting congress out of "the loop", which might be the ultimate point of this exercise, in his mind.

    so in other words, like the mandate, the argument is for what could potentially happen, and not what is laid out in the constitution.

    In Hawaiian pidgin English, I'd say, Mr. President …

    "What? Trying, Brah?"

    Loosely translated as, "Phony, as evidenced by trying too hard,"(in this case, to make a connection).

    You gotta speak Barry's childhood language.

    In particular, it seems to me that the statement you highlighted above, as it was contained in the Obama letter argument to Congress, is not just weak.

    It is pure conjecture:

    "Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States."

    There is no way to prove it, or disprove it.

    Note that he did not state that his actions were taken in the national security interests of the United States.

    He stated that, if the unfolding situation in Libya had been left unaddressed by him and by the "Coalition," dangerous consequences for the national security interests of the United States could possibly ensue.

    And, he said so, without identifying any or all of the specific national security interests of ours which, in his mind, could be affected.

    In a strange way, this is the "action-filled" version of voting present. He seems to feel caught in a huge conflict . . . an aversion to being "identifiably wrong" in the long run, coupled with an absolute need to act now.

    And he has temporarily "resolved" that conflict by advancing an unacceptably vague justification for dropping bombs!

    He isn't, despite his pretensions, our KING, nor is he the entire judicial branch rolled into one unlovely package!


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend