« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Today Barack Obama Meets His Inner Richard Nixon in Libya

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 20th, 2011 at 05:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I half expect Benjamin Netanyahu to come to the United States today and demand the U.S. cede all territory gained from the 1848 Mexican cession back to Mexico. It, like Obama’s Middle East speech of yesterday, would be a key distraction from a date and duty Barack Obama has had 60 days to get ready for.

Under the War Powers Act, today is the day Barack Obama must either get congressional support for the Libyan operation or begin a full withdrawal from Libya.

The media will probably not get the significance of the day. Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act, but Congress overrode his veto. For years the left has hailed the War Powers Act as a restraint against Presidents and the military.

As John Yoo and Robert Delahunty observe in today’s Wall Street Journal, Obama originally said he was acting in Libya “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution.

While many on the right believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. It is hard to find a liberal who agrees. The law the left championed against both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush may very well fly apart at the hands of Barack Obama. “If American forces over Libya do not stand down today, the administration would be directly violating the Constitution as understood by Mr. Obama.”

Of course we can guarantee one thing — on this historic day, Barack Obama can be expected to do nothing so much as vote present on what happens.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • davesinsanantonio

    nt

  • glockg22shoots40s

    …it’d be FUNNY….

  • dajeeps

    Laws do not enforce themselves. Where are Boehner and Cantor? I haven’t heard a peep out of them regarding this matter.

  • sandbun

    “Barack Obama can be expected to do nothing so much as vote present on what happens.”

    I expect nothing more from him at this point. It sucks, and he should be called out on it, but at least if not more disturbing is how Congress is also going to sit back and vote present. Presidential power has continued to grow and long since exceed Constitutional limits. The cowards in both party in Congress just don’t want to take a hard vote that could be used against them (if they support war the anti-war and fiscal conservatives will rail against them, if they don’t and horrible images pop up from the war those can be used against them), so they’re just letting it happen. Pitiful.

  • dajeeps

    Those of us who understand the “why” of the War Powers Act, or at least see it in a cynical light, understand that it was to prevent the sucess of a Republican president in a war where a Democrat had failed miserably. Instead of supporting our President, our military and sucess of America, they stripped Nixon of the means by which to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat, denigrated our servicemen, and foisted their faliure into the mood of the nation all – to preseve their own grip on power.

    Now, we are watching the Democrats demagog Republicans on the issue of the budget, and on Medicare, showing Republicans wheeling granny over a cliff; when we know exactly where this country is headed if we do not reform. We have the same old problem of Democrats concering themselves with power at the cost of all else and we know exactly where that road leads; or at least we have a pretty good idea that it will not be good because we’ve been down that road before.

    We cannot afford Obama’s seemingly purposeless foray into warmongering, and he should, at the very least, be forced to explain it to our satisfaction. If we do not force the issue, the rule of law will undoubtedly suffer and that is not without consequence. And I think his willingness to toss Israel under the bus should give us a clue that Libya is not just an isolated, “kinetic military action”.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …with a happy smile. It’s nice of the Democrats to finally destroy the WPA for us.

  • paramedichess

    Assuming that the President ignores the law (again!) today, Monday morning should open with a special session of the House to provide some checks and balances on this out of control administration. If the administration does break down and finally come to Congress for approval, it should be denied, as this kinetic military action has proven itself to be a complete waste of time, money and civilian lives. Should the administration continue to act outside the law, continued willful disregard for the law is absolutely grounds for impeachment.

  • Charles Cianfrocca

    It’s STILL funny. You can just hear the soft, muffled ‘phoop’… of liberal peacenik heads exploding.

  • mspector

    As for the title, I believe Obama met his inner Nixon the moment he walked through the White House door. He is imperial, imperious, secretive, thin-skinned, cabalistic. Who else does he possibly remind anyone of?

    As for the War Powers Act, it was violated ab initio by Obama’s unilateral decision to commit American troops to “hostilities” (the term used in the Act) without Congressional approval in a situation that did not arise to any of the three exceptions provided in the Act. Congress could and should simply have refused to authorize the action and denied funding for the missiles and airplanes. But of course, Congress has no spine.

    Now we are at the 60-day mark, but everyone knows the boat has sailed and Congress will once again do nothing.

    The War Powers Act is not unconstitutional. Those who say that it is argue that it impedes the “war making powers of the President.” Under the Constitution the President has no such powers; only Congress does. Legislation intended to assure that Congress retains those powers can hardly be said to be unconstitutional.

    So what if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was there? Would it make a noise? What if Congress passed a statute and nobody obeyed it. Would anybody dare to care?

  • edintexas

    Once more it is time for this Administration (not unlike others, but perhaps more frequently) to ignore the law. And once more it likely will be time for Congress to abdicate the responsibility to be the enforcer of the law. I have never understood why some who call themselves “conservative” have claimed this law is “unconstitutional”. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President the power to carry out the wish of Congress in the matter of war. The President, with obvious reason, has the power to defend the country until Congress can act. IF the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, perhaps it would be because it allows the President 60 days in an emergency situation, where the country is under attack. This could be far too long when the Congress for the past century has been capable of gathering in far less time, or too short in the nuclear age. I do not expect either the Republicans, or (particularly, and hypocritically) the Democrats to make an issue of the expiration of the 60 days – just as they didn’t make an issue of using our forces in and around Libya when there was no emergency and no threat to our country.

  • kevin78

    We definitely are a nation of laws. I just wish some of them woul be enforced.