by Michael Boldin
With military action taking place in Libya right now, the essential question must be asked: Is it even Constitutional? For those of you who don’t want to read more than a sentence or two, here’s the short answer. Absolutely not.
DELEGATED POWERS
The ninth and tenth amendments, while they didn’t add anything new, defined the Constitution. In short, they tell us that the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. Everything else is either prohibited or retained by the states or people themselves.
What does this have to do with Libya? Well, whenever the federal government does anything, the first question should always be, “where in the Constitution is the authority to do this?†What follows here is an answer regarding American bombs being dropped on Libya.
WHO DECIDES?
Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution has been regularly cited as justification for the President to act with a seemingly free reign in the realm of foreign policy – including the initiation of foreign wars. But, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the power to declare war, and this power is placed solely in the hands of Congress.
Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.†What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.
Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized.â€
Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.â€
In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President’s authority:
“would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.â€
James Madison warned us that the power of declaring war must be kept away from the executive branch when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.â€
WORDS HAVE MEANING
If, like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today just what they meant the moment it was signed, we must first look for the 18th Century meaning of the words used. Here’s a few common 18th-century definitions of the important words:
War: The exercise of violence against withstanders under a foreign command.
Declare: Expressing something before it is promised, decreed, or acted upon.
Invade: To attack a country; to make a hostile entrance
What does this all mean? Unless the country is being invaded, if congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so. Pre-emptive strikes and undeclared offensive military expeditions are not powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and are, therefore, unlawful.
HOW IT APPLIES TODAY
Here’s the quick overview of how this all plays out:
- In Constitutional terms, the United States is currently at war with Libya.
- Libya is not invading the United States, nor has it threatened to do so.
- Congress has not declared war. Barack Obama did.
Get the New Book Today!
Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?â€
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation. More on that in a future article, of course.
James Madison had something to say about such a plan when he wrote:
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.†[emphasis added]
War Powers resolution or no war powers resolution – without a Congressional declaration, the president is not authorized to start an offensive military campaign. Period.
The bottom line? By using US Military to begin hostilities with a foreign nation without a Congressional declaration of war, Barack Obama has committed a serious violation of the Constitution. While he certainly is not the first to do so in regards to war powers, it’s high time that he becomes the last.
It may be "high time that he is the last" but will anyone actually DO a dang thing about it? Sadly, I think not. Maybe if enough Americans really cared to take the time to call and write their elected officials and scream their displeasure to the rooftops…..just maybe something would happen. This is only one of a long list of un Constitutional actions he has taken, not the least of which is blatantly ignoring several judges' orders or mandates. Why is he allowed to do so? Because no action is taken against him for any of these violations. I saw him take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, from where I sit that no longer has much meaning.
I do not know exactly how long, but the President has the power to station troops without permission from Congress. Like i said i do not know how long the troops can stay there, i think 60 days, but what America is doing right now i think is the right thing. If we were in that situation i would hope that another country would come to our aid and not sit there and discuss wheather they have the power to or not. Now I'm not saying that we should be the spear head in this conflict but to give a little support and supplies should be enough.
Ryan – you are referring to the War Powers resolution of 1973, which is addressed near the bottom of the article. A congressionally-passed law cannot override the constitution. That is what that resolution did….and on its own, is unconstitutional as well.
There is nothing, whatsoever, in the constitution authorizing what you propose, or what that 1973 resolution has done.
If these actions are that important to our national security, since it is not defensive, get Congress involved and get their approval.
Maybe you should give YOUR rights away two at a time. If it's such a great idea, I'm sure the rest of our 'RULERS' would support it.
Then where do we stop? Where do other countries who might interfere with us stop? It is not up to USA to interfere in someone else's civil war. And it certainly isn't up to us to agree with the United Nations no matter what they want to do. That means we DO NOTHING. We WAIT and SEE. We remain NEUTRAL. We try diplomacy. ….. ah, but that means a return to former times when we had any respect as a nation, doesn't it?
T he War Powers Act gives the President 90 days before he has to go to congress.
As stated in the article, that act – a resolution actually – is unconstitutional itself. Why? because it amended the constitution without amendment.
hmmm….like health care mandates, or federal gun laws, or requiring you to have a certain size toilet…
Not our fight, theirs. What would your reaction have been in the 1860's had Germany, France, Britian, Italy came to America or the CSA?
By what power and whose authority did we the United States of America become the world police and savior of the world?
Think about that.
Under international law this is not a war. Had we invaded or implementd a no fly zone unilaterally then you would be correct. That would have been an act of war. The author plays around with deffinitions as a distraction. This was duly authorized by the security council of the United Nations, under article 6 of the Charter. That makes this peace keeping. Think about it like this, a blockaid is an act of war. We blockaided cuba during the cuban missile crisis, but it was authorized by an unanimous vote of the OAS. So not an act of war. International law is extraordinarily interesting. Use your legal mind. We use technicalities to make important distinctions all the time. A cop goes through your house and looked in all your drawers, illegal search. Cop gets a judge to tell him he can and gives him a warrant, not illegal.
about a minute ago · Like
Joe, You obviously have failed to read the entire U.N. Resolution yourself. The resolution is explicitly clear that this is a no fly zone and also prohibits the leader of the nation against which it is imposed, from defending himself in any way. Additionally, the resolution, U.N. 1973, allows "whatever methods and techniques deemed necessary in order to assure success of the mission and compliance with the resolution. Ironically, the actual heading of the U.N. Resolution is ""Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary
Measures’ to Protect Civilians.""
This post is about Constitutional law, not international law. On the latter, you might be right – but that is not the issue in my article.
The current predominant notion is that international law take precedence over our U.S. Constitution. Thus, an international coalition is able to empower our President with unlimited authority to wage war, to enforce peace, and to define human rights. This is not true. International law does not supersede our U.S. Constitution. http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/…
Thank you!
@ Jackman….I believe you are right and I agree 100%. The Constitution of The United States of America is the law of our land. It is the only basis on which our Country stands. Our Nation is not subject to any other laws from any other Nation, or Groups of Nations(i.e. The United Nations or the World Court). If WE allow those entities to supersede we become pupets and not masters of our own destinies, which was the reason our forefathers sought out a Country, and laid the foundations of the United States of America. I truely believe it is time for the United Nations to Leave our Country, and for the U.S. to drop our Membership and our support of this organization.
Clarification of your point is appropriate. The US Constitution declares that Treaties, as in the case of the UN, are the supreme law of the land. However, according to the United States Supreme Court, no treaty may abrogate the powers set forth in the Constitution. The issue with the Executive Branch's action to order military actions into a sovereign country without Congressional approval is whether or not President Obama is a dictator beholding to no one but himself. Clearly, President Obama engaged US Forces in military action in violation of his Constitutional powers. Impeachment is warranted for the United States is not lead by a Dictator, or is it?
R.C. Jackman is 100% correct., and this should be patently obvious to the most ardent Obama or Statist adherent. This is why the Senate is required to approve International agreements/ treaties before they have the force of law in the US, failing which they are null and void. The Constitution ALWAYS trumps the UN. ALWAYS.
If International law takes precedence over our U.S. Constitution then it is possible that international law could override the Second Amemendment and the International community could force us to take all weapons away from our citizens. Not a good situation especially with more and more violence in the world. I will stand by our Constitution.
I guess you're saying our Constitution is now subject to UN aproval. WE really need more 'free thinking' people like you. What's next, the POLICE STATE???
Here's my question ? Do you think those in the middle east really give a crap about our constitutional law ? Are we just head hunting here ? When the U.N. says use any means necessary , does that mean let congress debate the issue for a year before we decide what we're going to do ?
If you want to be governed by the United Nations, maybe you should rent an office in the UN building in New York. I would prefer that the Constitution be followed…
We are already signed on to the U.N. so, no, we are their wards now.
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES: http://www.oas.org/en/member_states/default.asp
What we are signed on to: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_t…
Just who is being represented, and by whom: http://www.oas.org/en/member_states/authorities.a…
MDGs: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/plrmo/2010/147211.htm http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/08/02/mdgs-us-st… http://www.un.org/partnerships/Docs/BCLC_Agenda.p… http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc… http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/03/158642.h… http://www.state.gov/statecraft/index.htm https://www.aft.org/newspubs/news/2010/042010glob…
Where it comes from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787, a draft of the proposed constitution contained a provision granting Congress the power “to make war.” A separate proposal to vest this power in the president was debated and rejected. It was asserted that the president should not have the power to initiate war because he could not be trusted with such a power. In addition, a proposal to substitute the word “declare” for “make” was agreed to unanimously. Thus, the constitutional power to initiate or declare war was vested solely in the Congress.
Since a president acts merely as the highest-ranking admiral or general, he lacks the constitutional authority to determine the nation that war can be waged against. Only Congress can make that determination. This is the purpose of a formal declaration of war. It specifically designates the nation or nations that can be attacked. Once this is done, the president then receives the power to act offensively and prosecute the war to its conclusion.
The action taken by President Roosevelt and Congress the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 demonstrates how this constitutional process is suppose to take place. On December 8, Roosevelt appeared before a Joint Session of Congress and requested that body formally declare war on Japan. The Congressional Declaration of War adopted pursuant to his request stated, in part:
"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
Once war was formally declared, President Roosevelt, as stated in the Declaration, received the authority, from Congress, to take control of the military forces of the United States and prosecute the war against Japan to its conclusion.
When Germany declared war on the United States three days later, Roosevelt again appeared before a Joint Session of Congress. Congress responded by formally declaring war on Germany. This Declaration gave Roosevelt separate authorization and control over the military forces of the United States. Each Declaration was distinct from the other.
If the president, as commander in chief, had the constitutional authority to initiate war, as some now claim, then there would have been no need for President Roosevelt to have appeared before a Joint Session of Congress on two separate occasions in 1941. He could have simply by-passed Congress by invoking his authority as commander in chief. In addition, if a president has unlimited control over the military forces of the United States, then why did it take two separate declarations of war in 1941 to authorize and direct President Roosevelt to employ the military forces of the United States against Japan and Germany? If the office of the president had independent power over the military, through the commander in chief provision, then President Roosevelt could have authorized and directed himself to employ United States forces against these nations.
Great feedback, Bob – thanks for posting!
The President CAN go through with foreign policy actions before Congress is fully informed about it. Congress then has to decide weather to support the action or not. If Congress chooses to stop the action, the President has 60 day to begin withdraw from the foreign country (allowing 30 days for complete removal.) All of this is allowed under the War Powers Resolution, which has not been deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. Overriding all of this is the fact that everything is being done under U.N authorization. The U.N has made it clear their goal is to protect Libyan civilians; If that requires taking out weapons that are harming civilians then any force aiding U.N efforts has the ability to do so.
No. The decisions of the UN are not legally binding on the US, even if Congress passes a “law” to that effect. Congress cannot constitutionally hand over its warmaking or other powers to the President, the Supreme Court, the UN, or Oprah Winfrey.
A law “repugnant to the Constitution” does not have to be ruled illegal by the Court to BE illegal. This is a crucial point, because it stresses the common-law origin of the powers DELEGATED to the government by individuals. That is the only place the US government derives its authority from – us.
Likewise, the Constitution cannot be legally suspended. There is no authority to do so, any more than any man, or congress of men, can legally suspend the right of freedom of speech, or assembly, or so forth.
The question is: are we ruled by laws or by men? Take a hard look at Gadaffi, because that is the end of the road for rule by strongmen.
No. The decisions of the UN are not legally binding on the US, even if Congress passes a "law" to that effect. Congress cannot constitutionally hand over its warmaking or other powers to the President, the Supreme Court, the UN, or Oprah Winfrey.
A law "repugnant to the Constitution" does not have to be ruled illegal by the Court to BE illegal. This is a crucial point, because it stresses the common-law origin of the powers DELEGATED to the government by individuals. That is the only place the US government derives its authority from – us.
Likewise, the Constitution cannot be legally suspended. There is no authority to do so, any more than any man, or congress of men, can legally suspend the right of freedom of speech, or assembly, or so forth.
The question is: are we ruled by laws or by men? Take a hard look at Gadaffi, because that is the end of the road for rule by strongmen.
You make some good arguments but missed my intention.I am not saying that UN decisions are legally binding. When a majority in the UN votes on a resolution to a foreign problem it becomes a peace keeping effort and not a war with hostile intentions. So in that sense, Obama's decision to evolve the United States is in the hopes of defending human rights, social progress and creating peace within Libya. In regard the the constitution, article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to declare war. In no way has Obama broken this declaration because he has not declared war on Libya. Simply put, He is aiding the international community's efforts to protect innocent citizens. If congress disagrees with his actions they will not grant approval and U.S forces will be withdrawn in > 90 days. It's really not a big deal.
Of course it's a big deal. Where in the Constitution does it give the authority to the President to conduct humanitarian crusades, fastidious police actions, witch hunts, snipe hunts, or bullriding exhibitions overseas in concert with other gangs – er, governments – using American blood and treasure, without authorization and funding from Congress? For five minutes, let alone 90 days?
Mike's points are that it is no big deal to bomb another country because the UN says it's a peace keeping mission and because our purpose is to defend human rights. He doesnt have much regard for Constitutional limitations on presidential power and he defers to the UN. Mike is comfortable in saying that bombing is peace keeping and that the UN trumps our own Constitutional government.
I guess when China decides that our treatment of minorities is as much a human rights violation as anything in Libya, and bombs our major cities until we stop mistreating minorities, that is okay because it is essentially a peace keeping mission.
You're a scary guy, Mike.
http://www.williamlafferty.com
Mike's points are that it is no big deal to bomb another country because the UN says it's a peace keeping mission and because our purpose is to defend human rights. He doesnt have much regard for Constitutional limitations on presidential power and he defers to the UN. Mike is comfortable in saying that bombing is peace keeping and that the UN trumps our own Constitutional government.
I guess when China decides that our treatment of minorities is as much a human rights violation as anything in Libya, and bombs our major cities until we stop mistreating minorities, that is okay because it is essentially a peace keeping mission.
You're a scary guy, Mike.
http://www.williamlafferty.com
It is 'war' if we attack Libya but it is a 'peace keeping effort' with the UN blessing??? Abacadabra I can't believe you seriously posted that. And that Obama can bomb the crap out of Libya isn't war because Congress has not declared it so. Jeez.
And to say that Obama has the authority to introduce military force into Libya under the War Powers Act is also in error. I am not supporting the Act (I don't) here but it states that the Constitution limits the President from introducing our armed forces into hostilities to: (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. None of these conditions were met. I strongly disagree with your point that it is "… not a big deal."
Imposing a no-fly zone IS an act of war. Period. Fullstop.
You know this was addressed in the article, right? Or maybe you skipped that part?
Since when did the UN trump our Constitution? And just because the SC declares a law Constitutional does not make it so…the Stated have final say on the matter…or at least that's how our country was meant to be by our Founders…
You are full of $hit. He is the president(an illegal one at that) , not an emperor or a king.
It seems quite obvious, having read the comments submitted that the issue before us is : do we exist as a UN nation or an American Republic? Have we given up our sovereignty to the point that our leaders SWEAR AN OATH, prior to accepting their position in government, to UPHOLD THE U.S. Constitution and then accept whatever the U.N. says as orders or justification for our actions. The uprising in Libya is a civil war. Our involvement is unlawfully taking sides in a sovereign country's civil war. Ask yourself why so many countries hate us. Then, look at the record of voting IN the UN to see that 75% or more of the world's nations vote AGAINST the U.S. every time. Yet we grant them foreign aid and bail them out when in traouble. Who is left to bail US, the U.S. out now that we have bankrupted ourselves ? That whole area of northern Africa would not be free were it not for U.S. involvement and sacrifice in WW II. Think about General Patton and Montgomery vs Gen Rommel …
I am in not say Obama's decision was wise in a political sense but as of right now it is allowed under the precedents and laws of the United States. Congress obviously doesn't have a problem with the pattern of President's using military force prior their approval because they have yet to impeach anyone for doing so and continue to fund and maintain an army. If the people of the United States fell this is illegal then they should start acting in proper ways to prevent it in the feature.
The Constitution is the law of the land regardless of precedents or illegal laws enacted "under the color of law". Of course the people of the US should act, but the average person has such a confused idea of law that they believe that whatever the President does is legal "because he's the President". They also think that passing a law or a "resolution" makes it legal, but that is not the case either. Nor does the upholding of a law by the Supreme Court mean that it is legal.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate reviewer of laws to see if they are congruent with the Constitution, but the Constitution occupies what might be called a different plane of the law. The common-law rights of man that Jefferson so nobly cites in the Declaration of Independence are the source of Constitutional legality, not the acts of the courts or legislators. The Constitution can be changed by the specific process enumerated in it. It cannot be changed by any other means.
I like and agree with most of your post.
However, I strongly disagree with your statement that the Supreme Court "is the ultimate reviewer of laws to see if they are congruent with the Constitution…"
The People are.
Had to change my handle, there is apparently another "Austin" who sees things a little differently than I do.
Anyway, Patrick is correct, the final arbiters are the people of the several states. It is the fiduciary responsibility of each branch of the Federal Government and the several states to adhere to the Constitution. The Supreme Court decreed it their responsibility to be the final arbiter of the Constitution in Marbury vs. Madison. No where in the Constitution is this authority granted. A branch of the Federal Government decided the limits of its power…that's not how it works.
To quote Raoul Berger, "It is never too late to challenge the usurpation of power; one gains no title by prescription against the government, still less against the sovereign people. Power reserved to the people by the Tenth Amendment cannot be taken over by “squatter sovereignty.”
You are right – I was wrong.
Nice to see someone commenting here who knows what they are talking about regarding the difference between color of law and common law. Color of law is a method commonly used by the federal government and private corporations like the IRS to usurp 'power' and overstep it's bounds/jurisdiction over the American people. What is not clear to me is WHO is responsible for stopping the President or out of control executive branch of government from exercising these so called 'powers' through color of law and WHY aren't they doing anything????
It's always Congress's responsibility to slap the President's hand when he overreaches, or even chop off the hand if need be. In our case Congress has been too eager to relinquish power, passively by default, to the President. They know that in hard times many run to Daddy to take care of things, and they can't afford to wrest power back without confronting the President's constituency. They have their hands full with the issues the public cares about the most.
and WHY aren't they doing anything???? (to stop an out of control Federal Government (in this case, the President) – - – - – - – - -____Until we pick up our pitch forks and start the trials to end this madness, it will continue. Who will stop the slaughter of American civilians once King Barry sees WE THE PEOPLE are going to end this once and for all? The UNITED NATIONS, of course!
Why doesn't congress arrest him or why doesn't someones arrest congress and Obama.They arrest us for wrong-doing. Their matters are much more serious,
I think Congress kind of likes being like the little kid in the back seat with the toy steering wheel.
I love this commentary. It is sobering, thoughtful and gives me hope that a growing number of Americans sufficiently understand the Constitution that a return to constitutional order may yet be possible. If only our "representatives" were as learned and faithful to the Constitution.
The founding father did not include any penalties for the violation of the Constitution, Why so? I would like to see a discussion on the use of penalties when the Constitution is wrongfully abused.
Their Oaths to the Constitution require 100% of Congress vote for immediate impeachment of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama our fraudulent based psuedo-President sailing under his false flag fraudulent "birth" certificate, with admitted British "alien" father from Kenya!! Congress should stop all of the present "fake" wars based on our own government's 9/11 False Flag operation in N.Y> white washed by the instigators!! Is Congress brain DEAD??? Treason carries the death penalty, see Constitution of the U.S.A. It is Treason by Congress to stand by and allow an Imposter-President to declare War, even a LAWFUL President violates the Constitution when he exceeds his granted Powers.
do not acy suprised, Lincoln violated the Constitution when he did not pull the troops out of a fort sumpter whidh was in a foreign country the southern confederate states. he knew that president buchanan signed the agreements of which forts and islands and borderlines were either north or south. sumpter was the souths property as by agreement. Lincoln wanted war with the south.and would not remove the troops from sumpter.. that was an act of war by Lincoln. the south was acting properly. when did congress authorize a declaration of war? the constitution is and has been constiantly violated with impunity.
To hell with international laws ! I`m sick & tired of our military doing the fighting & dying for the ideas of the United Nations, many of which are not in our country`s best interest. We should ONLY be obeying & following OUR nations constitution. Stop paying 85% of the U.N`s bills so they can tell us what we can or cannot do as a soverign country. What happend to minding our own business & letting other countries mind theirs, unless attack us ? Was Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Libya trying to land troops on our shores ? George Washington was right about staying out of foreign entanglements, look at what its gotten us so far.
WHY ARE WE THE TEAPARTIES WORKING SO HARD.TO GET PEOPLE ELECTED ..THEY HAVE NO POWER.WITH THE UN ORDERING OUR SON AND DAUGHTERS TO KILL AND TAKE OVER THE MIDDLE EAST FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT..BRING THEM ALL HOME//////////
If he had enough time to talk to the UN about this issue, he definitely had enough time to talk to our congress about it. Quite obviously now, is the fact that our country is no longer finding it necessary or desirable to be a separate soverign country. The very fact that Obama could never prove his birth place to satisfy everyone, and the republicans let him get away with it, and now he leaves the country declaring a war in another country without the consent of our congress proves beyond a doubt we are heading toward one government rule over the globe. I read recently that we are headed toward dumping our constituion in favor or a world govt, with appointed rulers from several countries and the law of the world will be INTERNATIONAL LAW based on the approval of a tribunal of sorts. Its coming, and there is not a damn thing you or I could do about it. The rest is just commentary. By the way, I think its a mistake….remember the tower of babel……..it fell…..
Pertaining to international law vs constitutional law, lets get one thing streight. The president of the u.S.A takes an oath, with his hand on the bible, so declaring God as his witness, that he will protect and defend the constitution of the u.S.A.. Period. International law does NOT superseed the constitution in any way. The Constitution is a contract which basically tells the govt. what its limitations are. The presidency is the weakest link in the balance of power and NOT the strongest. This protects us from dictatorship. The president quotes from, not the constitution, but from international law when he claims the right to send troops hither tither throughout the world at his whim. He has broken his oath to God and lost the trust of the American people. He is just one in a long line of presidents that have not kept their oaths. It is up to us to vote people of strong character into congress and a constitutional President. Otherwise it may soon be too late.
ALL true Americans must come to this realization QUICKLY: Mr. Obama has it set in his own mind that HE will be KING of the United States of America!
If you cannot believe that, and WILL not attack his agenda from that perspective, then ALL of your rantings and plans will be worth NOTHING!
WE MUST ATTACK HIS SENSE OF LORDSHIP!!
Of all the founding fathers country, I think Thomas Jefferson was the wisest of them all. He said,
Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” To me, that means that the president does not have the power to act aggressively toward another country but only has the power to aggreesive defend ours. Since Mr. Obama acted aggressively without the sanction of Congress, it appears that even though he may have done the right thing, he was wrong in his action. It is all about the oil anyway. His comment about not standing idle while Libya kills its own people was merely a smoke screen. It's all about the oil.
Neither is the President authorized by U.N. direction, as some would acclaim in accordance with U.S. Constitution Article VI. Treaties or other international agreements do not supersede our Constitution. http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/…
The Constitution is the supreme law of our nation. No treaty with any assembly of nations, or an individual nation, can superceed our Constitution. Any person in any branch of the Federal Government, nor any sitting judge whether Federal, State, or local, elected, or appointed, has the right to violate the Constitution. Any resolution granting powers forbidden by the Constitution is null and void, period. We The People need to educate ourselves and our children by studying the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers and discover what our Founding Fathers said regarding the Constitution. They explain it all. They wrote our governing document, therefore they should know best how to interpret what they meant. Corrupt politicians will but a spin on the words of any article or clause to justify grabbing more power, or pushing through legislation that is unconstitutional. Stand by our Constitution and demand your elected and appointed officials follow every jot and tittle. If they do not then vote them out as if your life depended on it.
Since Congress has abdicated all authority to presidents since Truman and Korea, and no one has done anything about it, presidents just go ahead and do what they please when it comes to going to war. The general public just looks on with our hands tied since our so called "representatives" seem more than willing to let the executive branch do what it will in these cases. Or worse still, we follow like sheep to the slaughter. It's pathetic.
Because past presidents and past congresses have acted in direct violation of the Constitution (i.e. without Constitutional authority), in no way does this authorize Mr. Obama or future presidents to continue such violations. Only Congress has the power to declare war (Article 1, Section 8). The 1973 War Powers Act was an attempt to AMEND the power to declare war and transfer it over to the executive branch. If Congress wishes to amend the Constitution, a specific means of Amendment is authorized by the Constitution itself. A Constitutional Amendment requires a vote by 2/3 of the Congress followed by ratification of 3/4 of the states. Either the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" or we exist at the whim of executive decree, judicial fiat, and legislative over-reach. Return to constitutional governerance. It is the only chance we have to remain free.
Part 1
I found James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention very enlightening concerning "To make war" in Article 1, Section 8. The following comes from those notes as recorded by the future President (spelling differences included):
"To make war.
Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to insert "declare," striking out "make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. Sherman thought it stood very well. The Executive sh[ould] be able to repel andnot commence war. "Make" better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.
Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.
Mr. Ellsworth. There is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It sh[ould] be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration, peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.
Part 2
Mr. Mason was ag[ainst] giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."
On the motion to insert "declare" – in place of "make," it was agreed to.
N.H. no, Mas. abst., Cont. no *, Pa. ay, Del. ay, Md. ay, Va. ay, N.C. ay, S.C. ay, Geo. ay.
* Mr. King remarked that "make" war might be understood to "conduct" it which was an Executive function, Mr. Elseworth gave up his objection, and the vote fo Cont. was changed to ay."
The bottom line is the drafters of the Constitution thought of all this stuff, debated it, and came to a common understanding. They eventually agreed that the Executive could not "make" or "declare" war, but could "repel" sudden attacks. There have been no amendments since 1789 changing this seperation of powers.
You need to go back and read the whole debate and final vote carefully, they did NOT want Congress to debate when and where to use the military and vested that power in the executive and commander in chief, declaring was is an international legal thing. Jefferson dispatched the fleet to fight the barbary war a month before he informed Congress and congress never declared war; it lasted 4 years.
Sorry but the position you are arguing LOST in the 1787 Convention Congress can choose to vote down the war and defund the war.
um right….to a point. They did NOT want congress to direct the war….just to start it. The executive directs it.
The point of putting big government hamilton in there is pretty straight forward – even HE, wanted a far more limited power on the executive than you and Obama want.
Please provide the evidence of your position. I see nothing in Madison's work to support it. I did not make up any of the info presented. It is clear that the intent was for Congress to declare war and the Executive to conduct the war (see * remark by Mr. King). Declaration of war and conduct or execution of war are two distinctly separate powers. The founders deliberately sought to vest the power to declare or make war in a separate body than that would prosecute war, as was the condition under Great Britain. The Executive was designed to, among other duties, carryout into effect the constitutional will of the Legislature. One of those powers given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 is the power to declare war.
Again, please provide evidence of how my position lost in 1787. I'd be happy to change my mind if you were correct. Citing Jefferson's actions do nothing to prove your point. I am not an expert on the Barbary Wars. They may well have been unconstitutional…I don't know right now. However, I do know usurpation is not legitimated by repetition.
Big government Alexander Hamilton's view in Federalist No. 69:
"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
Our military has become the servants of a psuedo-king and the UN+NATO+Intl. Bankers (NWO). When will we stop this crap?
Where in the Constitution do you get the idea that declaring war is not necessary??? I would argue it if it were not so absurd a statement. Ignorant, at best…intentional lie in support of the regime at worst. Which is it?
From Rob Natelson:
http://constitution.i2i.org/2011/03/24/obama&rsqu…
Another POTUS Constitutional violation .. should one of us go u[ and Read the damn thing to him????
Maybe the UN should look at the USA and put in a No-Fly zone, as the US has some of the most dangerous cities in the world. Also the Arabs wanted a No Fly zone why didn't they do it themselves.
President Obama
He taks his walk-But does not Walk his Talk-He always finds an end run around of the US Constitution
Like Senate-Congress-Courts http://www.wastewatchersinc.org
In the end , THE POWER LIES IN OUR HANDS. Who were the pilots who flew the bombing missions? It's just that simple. The president can violate the constitution all he wants but we have to go along with it.