Osama bin Laden is dead

[Lord J]

I don't think the death of bin Laden will be enough to ensure Barack's victory in 2012, the Right is doing everything they can to discredit him, and the Tea Party is gaining power. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tea Party actually split the Republican party and give Barack the majority he needs. The problem remains that the Right has great propaganda, and the Left... not so much. Sure, we have MSNBC and (hopefully) NPR, and Stewart/Colbert are worth mentioning, but most of what these media do is respond to the Right, not develop their own points of view. The Libya conflict, the national debt, and the perceived shortage of jobs are all weighing against him, though there is the tendency to reelect incumbents, and he may retain the Hispanic vote, both of which are positives. I suspect it's going to be close, like the Bush/Gore race, though, again, if the Tea Party splits the Republicans (which I could see happening if Romney wins the caucus), then it could be a clearer victory.

EDIT: Also, WTF Ath? This is not your personal blog. Andrew EDIT: ath post removed

[ErasOmnius]

I have a hard time with people on the Left [what is developing into The Moral Left in America (actually The West)], not calling Obama into account on The War in Libya. I feel that The Moral Left will do anything to get the President re-elected, even swallow their principles on this key issue. Because if the US can park a Fleet in the Gulf of Tripoli, and start firing away w/o Congressional approval, then we have lost a great deal of the separation of powers.

The Moral Left may regret this one day when a Republican sits in the White House.

[Anathema]

Chomsky should stick with linguistics.[/c]

I have a hard time with people on the Left [what is developing into The Moral Left in America (actually The West)], not calling Obama into account on The War in Libya. I feel that The Moral Left will do anything to get the President re-elected, even swallow their principles on this key issue. Because if the US can park a Fleet in the Gulf of Tripoli, and start firing away w/o Congressional approval, then we have lost a great deal of the separation of powers.

The Moral Left may regret this one day when a Republican sits in the White House.

Here's a novel idea: use your own right to vote.

This isn't exactly the first time a US president has taken military action without congressional approval, though.

[Wolf]

It isn't the first time that a U.S. president has taken military action without congressional approval, and that isn't necessarily wrong. The War Powers Clause reads: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ..." There are two questions here: whether this means that Congress has the exclusive power to authorize military action (I don't think it does), and whether military action can be taken in the absence of a declaration of war (I think it can). Let me deal with the latter first.

Letters of "marque and reprisal" refer to the concept of authorizing private vessels to attack and capture the vessels of other nations--or, in other words, privateering. It is included in the list of general Congressional war powers as if it were a separate, but comparable power to a declaration of war. In other words, Congress might authorize privateering, an essentially military action, in the absence of declared war. Ergo, not all military actions must be declared wars. One down. (Note for the politicos out there: remember when Bush promulgated rules on the treatment of detainees? That actually violated Congressional power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and the Bush rules had to be replaced by Congressional ones--which wasn't a problem since the GOP controlled Congress back in those heady days of 2002.)

So, you don't have to declare war to undertake military action. What is the difference, then? To my mind, a declaration of war authorizes the government to utilize emergency powers (which would be otherwise unconstitutional), and effects the treatment of detainees. Any other substantive differences? None, and this is somewhat problematic.

What about the President? "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ..." There's precious little here, and one wonders whether being C-in-C also authorizes the President to undertake limited military action. The modern view is generally that, yes, it does. However, that was not always the case, and strict Federalists felt that the Presidency "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" (Hamilton) because "it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it" (Story). The text of the Constitutoin certainly has room for either interpretation. The President ia a civilian by necessity, so it seems odd to me that the Constitution would essentially make him "First General" and "First Admiral" when, by definition, he has no military authority. My suspicion that Hamilton and Justice Story were wrong is bolstered by the realization that several acts of Congress authorize, implicitly or otherwise, the President to employ military force in the execution of laws. The drug war? The President can send in marines if he wants to enforce U.S. drug laws. Anti-terror laws? The President can employ the vast military resources of the United States to hunt down and capture or destroy suspected terrorists. Civil rights laws? The President can send in an airborne infantry division to secure a school for desegregation. Note that, in all of these cases, Congress took action first. The President's ability to fight limited wars, then, does not arise from his position as Commander in Chief, but from his role as executor of Congressional authority. Here, Congress really has delegated some of its war powers to the President, and the only question is whether that delegation is appropriate. I think it is, since Congress has not surrendered the power to "declare" war, or, in other words, to decide where a war is being fought or that it will be fought, in the abstract. By authorizing the President to use military authority, generally, to enforce general Congressional legislation, Congress has theoretically retained its decision-making power with respect to military action. Whether this is true in practice, however (highly doubtful, the President wields far more influence in this regard than is appropriate, I think), is a matter of debate.

(EDIT: Let's use Eras' point about Libya as an illustration of all the varied ways in which Presidential war powers may derive. We are engaged in Libya due to our treaty obligations with other states. The treaty power, as you may well know, is reserved to the President, but treaties must be ratified by the Senate. In so doing, does Congress authorize the President to undertake military action? Strictly, no; generally, yes. On the one hand, the Senate is not the whole Congress, on the other, the Senate is the upper house and is granted additional powers separate from the House for a reason. If you're not satisfied that this counts as Congressional approval, then consider whether the treaty power itself confers some degree of limited military authority on the President: surely the founders understood that treaties would enompass a wide range of military matters, ranging from an obligation to commit to a military action under certain conditions to limitations on arms. If the founders granted the treaty power to the President in the abstract, requiring only approval by the Senate, then they must have implicitly granted the authority to the President to carry out these obligations in the absence of strict, bicameral Congressional authorization.)

[ErasOmnius]

When the delegates to the Philadelphia Conventions were gathering in the late 1700s, the model of the United Kingdom was that King George III was the commander-in-chief of the forces of the realm. Specifically, when the Constitution was written, according to testimony given to a Democratic controlled US House sub-committee by Constitutional Scholar, Louis Fisher, this concept was rejected by all but one delegate.

But the world has gotten smaller since then, and we are not surrounded by two giant and near-insurmountable oceans any longer. So, The War Powers Resolution of 1973, attempted to de-clutter a great many of the questions regarding the role of the Commander-in-Chief. Congress passed the law, it was vetoed by Nixon [typical], and he was overriden. It gives the Commander-in-Chief 60 days to get it over and done with, and get out. It's been almost that 60 day limit since the conflict began in Libya. Let's see if left-wing Nancy Pelosi is so over-concerned about the conflict in Libya, as she was in Iraq, and asks for an up-and-down vote on the War.

[Wolf]

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional: the Congress cannot limit the Constitutional powers of the Presidency, even those conferred on it by implication, by resolution. Only a Constitutional amendment could have accomplished what the War Powers Resolution sought to do. No presidency (of either party) has ever recognized the constitutionality of the WPR, and Congress has refused to seek its enforcement (as awkward as that would be). In other words, the WPR has been "constructively" repealed. For good reason: putting a Congressionally-mandated time limit on all military actions should strike anyone as absurd.

As for the Philadelphia Convention point... I don't see why it's relevant. Would you care to try explaining the point you were attempting to make with it?

[ErasOmnius]

Never been said to be unconstitutional. One of the only rulings - the Dellums Case in the first Gulf War inferred that the opposite may be true. King George pushed us into that conflict without asking anyone. We've never really had such breaches of the public trust from a Democrat President before, since Dems have been much more restrained in the area of the Military-Industrial Complex that Repubs. Prince George asked for approval for Gulf War Part 2, and got it. That's what doomed Kerry in 2004 -- that he voted for it. But since McCain gave his blessing for the Libya Conflict and being a war-monger himself, he had this to say about Libya and any kind of vote, now that Barry wants to play king-maker.

[Wolf]

No, it's been said to be unconstitutional by a wide consensus in the field. There are probably many political reasons why no one has gone to court and fought it out to get the official result, but I also think there's the practical reason that no one feels it's necessary and no one wants to go through the trouble. What did you think I meant by "constructive repeal"?

[Anathema]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/prayer-request-for-osama-bin-laden-ruffles-feathers-in-florida-church-50306/

A catholic guy asks that his congregation pray for OBL's soul, since that's the christian thing to do. According to him and the pastor, anyway.

Some were unhappy about this.

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf, I think you're right. I think that the mentality is nowadays that the President can pretty much send troops wherever he wants, as the Commander-in-Chief. Not sure where or how this separates us from some tin-pot dictator in a 3rd world country, and maybe it doesn't. But it seems that the War Powers Resolution is a moot point, even if the opposition party controls one of the chambers of Congress. So you're right.

[Wolf]

It's not an issue of "mentality", it's an issue of law. Does the President actually have this power? The text may be unclear, but, for a lot of reasons, it makes sense to give it to him. Even if it doesn't make sense to give it to him, the power, if it exists, arises from the Constitution, and can only be clarified by amendment. Congress never did that; the WPR doesn't, and never could, count. Those facts will never change regardless of the "mentality" of the common folk. I'll actually grant that most people don't think the President should have discretionary war powers, but aren't informed enough on the issue to have an opinion that they feel strongly about. I'll grant further that a lot of those feelings are irrational: Congress can't move fast enough to respond to military situations, which, by their inherent nature, evolve quickly; the President has other emergency powers, why make an arbitary distinction regarding military powers when he is the Commander-in-Chief; some laws require the intervention of the armed services for their execution, in these situations, how can the President execute the law under other clauses of the Constitution, etc.

[Edric O]

Congress can't move fast enough to respond to military situations, which, by their inherent nature, evolve quickly;

Really? I can't think of a single situation in which the United States had to defend itself and events moved too quickly for Congress to be able to respond. The large size of the US, and its supremely secure strategic position between two oceans, make it ridiculously unlikely that any external threat could be so immediate as to leave no time for Congress to act. And in fact, the discretionary war powers of the President have only ever been used to start wars of imperial aggression.

The concentration of powers in the executive branch is the mark of empire. Just ask Octavian Augustus.

[Wolf]

I think that might have been a fair argument before 1945. I think situations like Libya (is that what started this conversation?) are pretty much case-in-point. (My point being that U.S. international obligations do not allow us to take a "we only get involved if we are directly threatened" approach). Oh, not to mention bin Laden. I mean, if you want to tell a New Yorker that bin Laden did not represent a real threat to American security or interests, go ahead.

Still, I'll acknowledge that the "administrative turgidity of Congress" has always been more of a theroetical argument. The others are much better.

[TheCurtOne]

Look, Pelosi and Reid treated Bush like a pile of garbage, and he asked for permission before going into Iraq. Wolf, r u saying Bush 43 didn't have to ask for a head count in Congress before using force ten years ago. That's seems pretty far fatched to me. I know Bush's daddy didn't ask for anyone's opinion before Gulf One in 1991, but he still went ahead. It seems like if someone is commanding the men and women of the USA military, there should be a timeline for participation. Especially something as sketchy as Libya.

[Wolf]

I'm not sure I entirely understand the relevance of "Pelosi and Read treated Bush like ... garbage"--care to elaborate?

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "head count," but I think the crux of the argument is that the President has some authority to send troops abroad to engage in combat operations without Congressional approval.

[TheCurtOne]

Hey, you say some authority. Would you say, maybe, anything less than feet on the ground [troops engaging the enemy], the POTUS can do what he wants with the department of defense? I just don't see the fine line that you want to draw. If Bush had to go a beggin' back in '02 to send troops to Iraq, what's up with Obama just goin' on tv for a few minutes in March to say we're start bombing Qaddafi in Libya?

[Wolf]

Uh... I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Are you saying anything less than actual deployment of troops is the extent of Presidential war powers? If that is what you're saying, then I don't see the problem with Bush "[having] to go begging" in 2002 versus Obama utilizing air power alone in 2011, because your second sentence (it's actually a fragment) already draws a factual distinction between precisely those two things.

[Allocer]

His death means nothing. While he was an aspiring figure head, killing didn't stop Al Qaeda. Its all about their ideology.

[Wolf]

But, while that is true, it doesn't seem that bin Laden has been made that much of a martyr outside of al Qaeda proper. Or at all. I think their ideology was a lot more limited in scope than we thought it was.