« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

McCain and Graham Claim to Speak for Conservatives on Libya

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  June 20th, 2011 at 08:36 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Whenever we attempt to evince bold distinctions between ourselves and the Democrats, Lindsey Graham and John McCain can always be counted upon to muddle those distinctions.  Foreign policy, in particular, is a subject in which voters struggle to perceive clear differences between the parties.  Consequently, we must repel the rapturous support for the so-called Arab Spring emanating from Obama’s tag team of favorite Republicans.

Back in the 70s, our most consequential and enduring mistake was supporting the Iranian revolution against the Shah.  Jimmy Carter and his allies failed to comprehend that the problem with the Middle East was not autocracy per se; it was Islamofascism.  Tragically, the Obama administration, along with the Bill Kristol/John McCain Republicans, is helping to consummate the state-level Islamofascist takeover of the entire region.  We have ostensibly handed Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood/Iran and are on the cusp of delivering Yemen to Al-Qaeda.  Our encouragement of the Arab Spring is also emboldening the Palestinian majority in Jordan to overthrow our strongest Arab ally, King Abdullah.  We are doing nothing to prevent Bahrain from transforming into an Iranian proxy, instead of a vital ally.  Meanwhile, Bashar Assad, a dictator who truly deserves a timely demise, is still enjoying diplomatic relations with the U.S., even as he murders his own people in cold blood.

In light of all the upheaval in the Middle East, where was Obama’s hill to die on in the Middle East?  Libya.  Yes, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil man; nonetheless, he is an evil man who has fought against Al-Qaeda.  Should we remove every brutal tyrant in the world?  Robert Mugabe is the ruthless leader of Zimbabwe, and has not been fighting Al-Qaeda, yet we are not prosecuting an aimless, impotent war against his regime.  But somehow John McCain and Lindsey Graham believe that the Al-Qaeda-backed Libyan rebels are sacrosanct, the city of Benghazi stands on hallowed ground, and that anyone who believes their plight runs counter to our national security interests ought to shut up.

This is what Lindsey Graham had to say on Meet the Press:

“Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi.” [...]

“I would take the course that conservatives have been taking for the last 30 years — The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, not worth the paper its written on, it’s an infringement on the power of the commander in chief.”…

“The president’s done a lousy job of communicating and managing our involvement in Libya – but I will be no part of an effort to defund Libya or cut off our effort to bring Qadhafi down.”

No, Senator Graham.  Muammar Gaddafi and his rag-tag army pose no threat to us; Al-Qaeda and Iran are the most consequential threats in the region.  Your support of the Arab Spring is empowering Al-Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad.

Also, while most conservatives regard the War Powers Act as being dubiously constitutional, it doesn’t mean that Congress, which has unrivaled control over war appropriations, should ‘shut up’ and let Obama continue a war which satisfies nobody but Al-Qaeda.  What’s the next step for Lindsey Grahamnesty?  It wouldn’t surprise me if he advocates for amnesty and political asylum for these venerable George Washingtons.

McCain made his rounds on the Sunday shows with this broadside against the Republican presidential field in an interview with This Week:

“Well, I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said. This is isolationism. There’s always been an … isolation strain on the Republican Party — that Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak. … If we had not intervened, Gadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That’s a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?”

So let’s get this straight.  If we fail to intervene for those who fought against us in Iraq, it is tantamount to isolationism.  Is there any foreign engagement that we can sit out and not be labeled isolationist?  John McCain is once again indolently offering a false choice of foreign policies – between Pat Buchanan and …Barack Obama!  That is some distinction for us to present voters with in 2012.

Besides, who are these isolationists anyway?  According to the latest Rasmussen poll, just 26% of Americans support the Libyan kinetic operation.  That is quite a dismal showing considering the degree of sympathy from the media for the Libyan rebels.  It looks like Senator McCain is the one who is isolated.  He ought to remember that he is Senator of Arizona, not Mayor of Benghazi.

In defense of his position on Libya, McCain scandalously invoked the name of Reagan:

“That’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st Century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world, whether it be in Grenada — that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about — or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.”

The good Senator from Arizona has his history backwards.  Reagan was fighting the proxies of the most severe threat to freedom of his time; the Soviet Union.  Supporters of the Arab Spring are actually empowering and emboldening radical Islam, the ultimate threat of our time.

It’s also ironic that the two Republicans who are undermining our effectiveness in the two main wars by opposing enhanced interrogations, are exhibiting so much alacrity to open a third front.  In fact, their position on enhanced interrogations only serves to validate Eric Holder’s pernicious contention that lawyers are America’s “most effective terror-fighting weapon.”  After all, if we ever capture Gaddafi, won’t we need permission from lawyers in order to interrogate him?  Who needs another war when people like Graham and McCain will get us into legal trouble anyway?

For those of us who were unimpressed with the 2012 GOP field, these comments by McCain should serve as a much-needed reminder that we are indeed blessed with a more tenacious field than last time – one that lacks a John McCain.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham have spent their entire careers sullying the distinctions between Republicans and far-left Democrats.  Let’s face it; the only policy we can remember McCain advocating in 2008 was his promise to buy up everyone’s failed mortgages.  Our eventual nominee will invariably receive a plethora of unsolicited advice from big name Republicans.  I think we can all agree that McCain is the last person who should give strategic advice to the presidential candidates.

As for Lindsey Graham, 2014 cannot come soon enough.  There is no reason we should be saddled with him until he reaches McCain’s age.  Can’t we do better than that in the state of Jim DeMint and Nikki Haley?

It’s time for an American Spring – a time of spring cleaning, when we pledge to repeal and replace every liberal Republican, especially those who purport to speak for conservatives.  Let’s tell Lindsey Graham to shut up.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    The problem nowadays is that these guys don’t even know what they are talking about…if they ever did.

    McCain, on This Week, was calling Republicans isolationist. Not one of the candidates, outside of Ron Paul, is isolationist. They are calling for a rational rethinking of the Afghan war…but apparently, rational thinking is outside of this pairs purview.

    McCain went on to compare them to Reagan. Well, I actually think many of the candidates, including Romney, are much closer to Reagan’s view of foreign intervention than McCain is.

    McCain and Graham have lost most, if not all, of their credibility.

    • davesinsanantonio

      start calling them Dems in RINO clothing. What idiots. They do more damage to the Republican Party than the Dems could ever dream of.

  • kinghenry

    Egypt we should’ve probably left our ally in power. Gaddafi on the other hand, well its ashame Reagan didnt’ succeed in Killing him when he tried and is not an issue for Republicans to be fundamentally against, in the Pacificst, Isolationist since. The Jihadist threat is a serious one, its bad enough the left politicize it when they are out of power.

    As for the WPA, it is Unconstitutional and the Executive has the Article II powers to launch missions such as Lybia’s. Congress approves the mission when they FUND IT, if Congress wants to end the mission they can DEFUND the mission.

    The United States has gone abroad in military engagements over 300 times in its history, on 5 times did a formal, old, declaration of war from congress come from it.

    Mark Levin has talked about this issue and explained how the Executive is not violating the Constitution, as Originally intended, earlier. Hopefully he’ll speak up today on the matter

    • gpclaw

      “the Executive has the Article II powers to launch missions such as Lybia?s”

      And congress has the Article 1 power to regulate the Commander in Chief power and the armed forces.

      Military action is subject to the legal authority of congress. As Commander in Chief, the President is the highest ranking member of the armed forces, and commands the armed forces, but still requires the legal authority from congress to issue those orders.

      To imply that the only control over the use of the armed forces, is through the “power of the purse”, is to completely ignore the rest of Article 1 section 8

      Even under your argument – “Congress approves the mission when they FUND IT, if Congress wants to end the mission they can DEFUND the mission.” – Congress never approved funding for missions in Libya, so the action is still illegal.

      • glaucon

        Dropping bombs is an act of war. It’s simple. According to the Constitution, Congress must declare war. Obama’s wars without Congressional approval are unconstitutional.

        Second, we have the War Powers Act, which is unconstitutional because you can’t modify the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment. But if we assume that the WPA is a valid law, it gives the President the right to engage in emergency actions, with the restriction that approval must be sought from Congress after a specific time-frame. Obama has not done that. Thus he is also in violation of the WPA.

        Either way, Obama is in violation of the law.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          WPA is unconstitutional and is not a valid law.

          • glaucon

            Either way it’s illegal.

            If the WPA is not valid, then he didn’t get a Declaration of War (pre-approval) from Congress. He is in violation of the Constitution. An unconstitutional WPA does not void the Constitution itself.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • edintexas

            It remains an enforceable statute unless, and until, the Federal Courts, and ultimately the SCOTUS, find it unconstitutional. Whether we like it, or not, that is the way the system has worked for quite some time now. I know you know this, so please excuse my belaboring the obvious.

          • kinghenry

            Watch the linked Kucinich vs. Robert Turner debate on War powers below in thread. He cites Madison and constitutional law on the subject, the President follows the Constitution first, not invalid laws.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            SCOTUS says it is. Got a cite for us?

      • streiff

        The Congress has no authority over the President other than by impeachment. He heads one of our three equal branches of government. As commander in chief, a clearly enumerated Article II power of the president, he has a lot of leeway on what he can do with the armed forces. If Congress doesn’t like it they can cut off funding, which is how Vietnam eventually ended.

        There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 that means even vaguely what you say it does. The Congressional authority to govern and regulate the armed forces is manifested in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Title X USC.

        • gpclaw

          then you have to use a broad interpretation for Article 1, also.

          No one has yet to provide an argument as to why the “Necessary and Proper” clause doesn’t apply to the CinC power. This clause grants congress the authority to create law pertaining to the execution of all powers granted to the government by the Constitution, The CinC power is granted by the Constitution, to the President, meaning that this clause applies.

          It doesn’t even require linguistic gymnastics to make this point. The words are as clear as day. The wording literally states the point I am trying to make.

          • streiff

            the title of Article I refers to the powers of the legislature, leading those of us who only speak English rather than conducting seances with the Founding Fathers to infer that the stuff under Article I applies to “the legislature” and maybe not “the executive.”

            Your argument only makes sense if you believe, contra the Constitution, that Congress can tell the other two branches what to do when they are acting within their enumerated powers.

          • gpclaw

            The last enumerated power under Article 1, section 8 grants congress the power:

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            Notice the part that states “and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States”

            Unless you are suggesting that the President is a member of the government?

        • brojohn2

          Article 2 says only that the President is the commander in chief of the military, it gives no other power. Article 1 Section 8 specifically states that (sub para 11, 12, 13, 14) :To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that use shall be for a longer Term than two years; To provide and maintain a Navy;
          To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land a Naval forces.”
          I see no amendment to the constitution that says the President as Commander in chief has the right to go to war with any nation, without the specific approval of congress.
          The WPA may or may not be unconstitutional, but the Constitution is already sufficiently clear. The President cannot commit our men and women without the consent of Congress.

    • aesthete

      but it sure as heck was dumb. Tell me, how does our involvement in Libya in any way advance our interests, reduce the influence of radical Islam, or in any way benefit us? Answer: it doesn’t, nor was it intended to. Our intervention in Libya was the result of a) the Euros (especially the frogs and the Italians) not wanting more brown people on their shores, and b) the idiotic romanticism of “humanitarian war” that has infected the left (and apparently some conservatives) since time immemorial.

      We had our hands tied in the case of Egypt — short of invading with Marines and forcing the Egyptians to retain Mubarak (essentially, what the Saudis did in Bahrain), there was no way that he was going to stay in power with the kind of opposition that he faced.

      • aesthete

        if only to reassert its role in the decision-making process. There are virtually no US interests or personnel that would be put in harms’ way as a result of this assertion: quite the contrary, considering that the greatest export of the breakaway region that we’re fighting for is radical Islamic terrorists who go on to fight in other countries against Westerners and reformists.

      • glaucon

        The following are powers granted to the Legislative Branch, this includes initiating war.

        Article 1 (Congressional Article):

        Section. 8.
        …
        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
        …

      • glaucon

        Once war is declared by the Congress, a Commander in Chief is required. That role is delegated to the President. It does not say the President can declare war. That is specifically granted to Congress.

        Article. II. (Executive Article)

        Section. 2.

        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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

        He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

        • gpclaw

          Just like every other area of the federal government, congress makes the law, and the President executes the law. This relationship is no different when it comes to waging war.

          Congress can declare war, but they can’t command the military. The President can command the military, but can’t declare war. Additionally, congress can pass law outlining how the President must execute his Commander in Chief power, via the “Necessary and Proper” clause.

          “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

          • aesthete

            This was by design. From the Madison debates:

            ” ‘To make war’

            Mr. PINKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in [FN25] Senate, so as to give no advantage to [FN25] large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace[...]”

            The entire section past the “FN24″ postscript is worth reading for context. There were two sides in the debate: one preferred the use of the phrase “make war”, to give Congress the final say over any and all hostilities. The other preferred that Congress be given the power to “declare war”, i.e. to “. It is very true that what Obama and other Presidents have done with this grant of executive power runs very much counter to what the Founders intended; as you’ll note, both sides were wary of the executive and made that grant of power only to allow the executive to respond to invasions and other pressing situations. Nonetheless, the grant of power is there (though we should either use it more prudently, or limit it through amendments, IMO).

          • streiff

            but their mechanism of enforcing those laws in respect to the presidency is limited. The courts will not touch it because it is a “political question.” If the president refuses to go along under a separation of powers argument, Congress can either control the funding or they can impeach. Period.

          • gpclaw

            Your absolutely correct about the options congress has at their disposal. But this is separate from the intent of founders, and the language in the Constitution.

            The trouble with the argument being made to support the President’s authority to make the decision to use force unilaterally, with out legislation granting him that authority, is that this argument requires a broad interpretation of the President’s CinC power, while only applying a narrow interpretation to the multiple powers of congress that apply.

          • streiff

            The plain language of the Constitution does not say what you say it does and few, if any, of the Founders interpreted it in the way you do. The easiest proof of this that both Washington and Adams engaged in wars that were carried out by their unilateral authority without a declaration of war. In fact, under Washington’s presidency the US Army suffered the largest single day loss of life until First Manassas.

          • glaucon

            “The easiest proof of this that both Washington and Adams engaged in wars that were carried out by their unilateral authority without a declaration of war.”

            streiff, which wars are you referring to?

            Which war under Washington?

            The Quasi-war (naval) with France under Adams was authorized by the Congress.

            * The Quasi-war is an interesting case in itself. Did our refusal to repay loans to the French justify their seizures of our merchant ships? Is failure to repay loans an act of war? This could become very relevant…China anyone? The French actions on the high-seas amounted to an act of war against the US. Our Congressionally authorized response was a reaction to their attacks.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It is folly to try to use the unconstitutional War Powers Act for partisan political gain.

    Let it die.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      agreed there. Conservatives should not set themselves up for future charges of hypocrisy, especially over something that we don’t believe in. To that end, I admit that the war is legal. Nonetheless, it is imprudent and not in our best interests. And Congress does have the power of the purse. It is not unreasonable for Congress to demand that Obama show them some direction and purpose in this war before they agree to appropriate funds. They should not be told to shut up.

      • gpclaw

        Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush all complied with the WPA. When Reagan ordered the Libya bombing, he didn’t need congressional approval under the WPA, because the act grants the President the authority to act unilaterally when there is an attack on US armed forces.

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

          are absolutely correct that Republican presidents, unlike Obama, actually went to congress. Nonetheless, you never know when we will need to use military force in a situation where congress would oppose the use of force. The bottom line is that we should argue against the Libya war not from the WPR perspective, but from Congress’s power of the purse.

          • gpclaw

            There are many more Constitutional arguments to be made, other than the power of the purse. If you read Article 1 section 8, the powers of congress related to the armed forces, is quite impressive.

            The “Necessary and Proper” clause provides the congress a massive amount of authority in this matter, because they can create laws outlining how any power granted by the Constitution, is executed.

            The President should not have the power to use military force in situations where congress would oppose it, unless he is depressing invasion, or the action is in retaliation to an attack on the armed forces – as was the case when Reagan bombed Libya, and HW Bush’s invasion of Panama.

            The Constitution demands congressional authority, beyond the power of the purse. If not, then why wasn’t the President given the power to declare war, instead of congress? Why is it that congress has the authority to “Make rules for the government, and regulation of the land and naval forces”? If the President were intended to have unilateral control over the military, there would have been no reason to include these powers under Article 1 section 8.

            Since the WPA was enacted, only two Presidents have defied it – Clinton in Kosovo, and now Obama. This should make it obvious which party has respect for congress;s power to wage war.

          • Adjoran

            If you think you are right, sue in federal court.

            The Constitution doesn’t “demand” any such thing. Congress has the power “To declare war.” There is nothing further on the subject – not that it must take this or that form, not that Presidents cannot act before it, not a word.

            Just because you imagine something to be in the Constitution doesn’t mean it is there.

            Say, you didn’t drink after Ron Paul, did you? Some of that delusional thinking may be contagious . . .

          • gpclaw

            Of course there isn’t, just like the Constitution doesn’t offer specifics on how any power granted to government is to be executed. There is no need, because it was left up to congress to determine these things, by enacting law.

            As far as the rest of your comment. Are you suggesting that the following is a figment of my imagination? Article 1 Section 8 clearly gives congress the power:

            To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

            To provide and maintain a Navy;

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            So, none of these powers grant congress authority over the military? As I stated before, if the President could go to war, with out the consent of congress, than what was the purpose of including the above powers in the Constitution in the first place?

          • edintexas

            He doesn’t have standing.

  • funwithknives

    Not so long ago, I recall OL’ LINDSE commenting that Libertarian ideas were not welcomed or needed by The GOP. This stated closed-mindedness, and his seeming favor with our Sainted Media, should be warning signals to any objective-thinking American Patriot. Does This Guy speak for you, or yours? Only if “Stone Stupid” is in your resume. McCain’s continual wanderings all over the Political Landscape, might play well at Brookings or The Weekly Standard, but what of support for his views, throughout the Conservative Spectrum? It WAS Called McCain-Finegold, after all. I cannot ignore McCain’s Military Service and That of his ForeFathers, but it’s not enough, given his Political History. Time for Them Both to pull over ,or be pulled over, and get ‘EM out of the fast lane. 55 in a 70 Zone just ain’t makin’ it. Everyone, FLASH YOUR BRIGHTS!

  • caboose

    stay with an issue to it’s conclusion. McCain and Graham need to be sent e-mails faxes and letters, condemning them for their sell out. While I’m at it, George Will and Krauthammer needs to be condemned for their sell out. Expunge them from the conservative movement.

    • Adjoran

      What will you be wearing to Obama’s 2nd Inaugural Ball after you’ve finished your purge?

  • Adjoran

    Just because WPA is unconstitutional doesn’t mean the President has unlimited power to make war whenever he chooses, and it certainly doesn’t mean his actions and policies should not be closely examined and questioned, especially by Presidential candidates. That’s what campaigns are for, to differentiate between the candidates’ stands and ideals and characters.

    Congress does have plenty of power to restrain the Executive already, including the power of the purse and impeachment, not to mention dozens of less drastic ways to get their message across to the President. Just because there is no consensus to use that power in this case (at least not yet) doesn’t mean it isn’t there or isn’t sufficient.

    McCain’s biggest mistake is inviting his old valet, Lindsey Graham, to come carry his truss again. When you’re on thin ice to begin with, the last thing you want is Graham’s fat butt out there with you.

  • kinghenry

    The Executive branch does have the Constitutional powers to launch missions like Lybia, regardless of the political b.s. the ideological pacificst have told you.

    I’m stating the traditional Conservative position on Article II going all the way back to George Washington himself. As I’ve said, Mark Levin even recently covered some of this in depth.

    Originalist Robert Turner on related subject at Federalist Society:

    http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-war-powers-resolution-an-unnecessary-unconstitutional-source-of-friendly-fire-in-the-war-against-international-terrorism

    The “Declare Clause” in Article III, WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN USED 5 Times out of over 300 Conflicts!!!!!, was 18th Century Diplomatic Protocol among First world nations our country had Diplomatic Relations with and was also for cases of All out war with those nations. WW2, WW1, War of 1812, Mexican American War, Spanish-American War…are the 5 times.

    The other 300 or so engagements, such as Lybia no formal Declaration was every issued because as is Long Standing tradition, going back to G.W., Adams, Jefferson, etc….Congress never declared war. They only funded the hostilities.

    • gpclaw

      I guess that makes Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn and John Cornyn Paultards.

      Six Republican Senators will sign a letter this afternoon asking President Obama if he intends to comply with War Powers Act regarding Libya. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, all signed the letter which identifies this Friday, May 20th, as ?the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution.?

      The major flaw with the opinion piece you provide, is that it makes no mention of the necessary and proper clause in the Constitution, which grants congress the power -

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      The CinC power is subject to the above grant of power to congress. If that weren’t the case, then this clause would end after the words “foregoing powers”. There is no reasonable argument that can be made otherwise.

      • kinghenry

        please read Article II of the Constitution and the actions of the early Commander in Cheifs and early Congress. The “Necessary and Proper” argument on this issue is not Constitutional Originalism in the least.

        Technically, Obama is probably violating the law, or rather the Unconstitutional War Powers Act which was passed by an Very Liberal Congress in 1973 against Nixon Veto. He’s not violating the Constitution and if anti-war Senators want to do something of value to their ideology they would be Defunding the mission, Congress actual power here.

        btw, Kucinich and Proferssor and Originalist Robert Turner debated the War Powers Resolution last week:

        http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kucnich-and-Turner-Debate-by-Mac-McKinney-110616-115.html

        Go ahead and defend Dennis Kucinich against Originalist Robert Turner though.

  • snowshooze

    Where is Congress???
    Where is the challenge?
    Are they going to let this slide??

  • kinghenry

    and a Constitutional Originalist, not a Constitutional crank like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich

  • capeconservative

    speak for me!!!! And they are NOT conservatives!!!! John McCain talks tougher against fellow Republicans than he does to any Democrat, especially his opponent in the last election.

    Hopefully South Carolina voters will find a good candidate in 2014 who will let Graham learn that Americans are fed up with wishy-washy politicians!

    Last, but not least, John McCain begat Megan McCain – two BIGTIME LOSERS!

  • brojohn2

    McCain and Graham cracker neither of them speak for me, they are both Rino’s and should just go ahead and switch parties. Then they can run as what they really are next time and be defeated as the deserve to be.
    Please, save us from Democrats in Republican clothes!!!!!

  • lightfootletters

    Libya: A Case Study in why Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, the foreign policy should be, we only use our military when our national security is at risk.

  • BA Cyclone

    It is stupid, pointless, and possibly unConstitutional. Maybe likely.

    Congress always has oversight over the President on these matters via its powers over the purse. If Congress doesn’t want a President to do action X, they can enact legislation to remove funding.

    Until that time, however the WPA is codified law. Having the President thumbing his nose at it does not change that.

    However I am not sure any of this changes anything in the structural debate. We do, or do not have vital interests in actions in Libya. Congress should assert its Constitutional oversight authorities if they do not believe the President is utilizing his CinC powers in the best interests of our country.

    The President should be responsible for making the case to Congress and the People exactly what vital interests are being served by whatever actions are being taken.