President 'becoming an absolute monarch' on war powers, Dem says

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

A House Democrat warned Friday that the U.S. president is becoming an "absolute monarch" on matters related to the authority to start a war.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Congress must act to limit funding for military operations in Libya in order to correct that trend.

"We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch," Nadler said on the floor. "And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don't want to become an empire instead of a republic."

Nadler stressed that he is not talking exclusively about "this president," meaning President Obama. But he said nonetheless that Congress needs to reassert its authority to declare war, and said this should be done even over concerns that it would damage U.S. credibility with its NATO allies.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/168315-house-dem-says-president-becoming-an-absolute-monarch-on-war-powers

[elleng]

1. Damn, with 'friends' like this, who needs rethugs?

[MineralMan]

3. You will probably find many DUers who agree with

Nadler and the Republicans on this one.

[elleng]

12. Guess so but here's Sen. Kerry's speech on the matter.

I do hope DUers listen.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=600145131

[No Elephants]

53. Yep. Please see the "House defeats Libya authorization measure" thread, especially the posts of

Purity of Essence. And see also the war power clause of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.


Yep, some DUers and some Democrats in Congress--not only Nadler--do value the rule of law more than they value partisanship.

For the sake of our country, let's hope more join them.

[SusanaMontana41]

86. Yep. I do. n/t

[Xithras]

4. You'll note that he's talking about every war back to Vietnam.

He's not attacking Obama (though he's certainly suggesting that he's a continuing part of the problem), but is correctly pointing out a longer trend stretching back decades. Congress was granted the power to declare war by the Constitution. They've allowed presidents to usurp that power for more than a half century. It would be a welcome change for them to take that power back, and strip Presidents of the ability to wage war.

[jezebel]

5. And he got a nice above the fold headline on Drudge: "Dem Rep, Obama an absolute monarch" nt

[frylock]

7. who needs republicans when you have war mongering dems?

[panzerfaust]

83. Who needs Bush, when you have Obama

Sorry.

It is just that it could have been SO different: A step back from the growing Police States of Amerika.

But it was not to be.

[Unvanguard]

8. Jerrold Nadler is absolutely right. And partisanship sh ouldn't blind us to that. n/t

[gkhouston]

20. +1. n/t

[24601]

45. He may be right, but not necessarily. When a law is passed, it's

not at all uncommon for the legislative and executive branches to interpret it differently. The branches are co-equal, so until the courts break the tie, both views have a legitimate claim. If the courts decline, congress can cut off the funds or even remove a president from office.

It's the worst system of government, except for all the others.

I don't recall that the War powers act has been either upheld or overturned by the USSC. Until they decide, it's constitutionality is purely a matter of opinion.

[No Elephants]

52. Not that many ways to interpret the war power clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, though.

The War Powers resolution theoretically gave the President some relief from the absolute wording of the Constitution.

However, many Constitutional scholars argue that Congress alone could not grant him or her that relief: Deviating from the absolute language of Article I would take a Constitutional amendment. And therefore the President is still bound by the absolute language of the war power clause of Article I. I tend to agree with that group of scholars.

Anyway, if and when the unitary executive advocates who argue that the War Powers resolution is unconstitutional win, they will still have to deal with the more absolute war power clause of Article I.

[24601]

78. The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare

war - the legal/political declaration that a state of war existed between the US and . A declaration of war is just a statement and does nothing to resource or pursue a war.

Likewise Article II says nothing about limiting a President's Commander in Chief powers absent a declaration from Congress. The War Powers Act was crafted to fill that gap and limit the president's war-waging powers, not to provide the President relief from onerous Declaration of War hurdle. If it was "president-friendly" then it would not have had to be passed by over-riding the President's veto.

So Congress thinks it's valid and every President has seen it as an unconstitutional infringement on the President's Article II powers. The courts haven't broken the tie to determine who's right. Until that happens, neither view prevails over the other.

[dana_b]

9. exactly. When is the President going to be a friend

to his party?

[demosincebirth]

11. Exactly

[JDPriestly]

22. Let's get this corrected and conform to the Constitution on this

issue while we have a Democratic president. This is the time to set this precedent.

The Europeans are in Libya and can handle the situation. Why do we have to be the international humanitarian rescue team in every situation?

And, if we are intervening in Libya, why aren't we intervening in numerous other countries around the world.

Why does North Korea continue to threaten us without much check? North Korea really is a threat to our country.

[still_one]

34. Is the War Powers Act Constitutional? How come Congress, is really NOT stopping the funding?

No one wants to test its Constitutionality I suspect. All Congress would need to do is exercise it, and I don't see them doing it

[No Elephants]

61. The war power clause of Article I of the Constitution of the U.S. is definitely Constitutional.

[still_one]

71. and you know I am not referring to that /nt

[The Big Vetolski]

75. Well, the Supreme Court said the War Powers Act was...

constitutional back in the day after it was passed over Richard Nixon's veto and then Nixon tried to claim it was unconstitutional. Whether or not our current Supreme Court would agree is very questionable. Guess it would depend on which way corporations could make more profit at the time.

[The Big Vetolski]

74. Dude! North Korea has no oil. Therefore, we don't care about them.

[JackRiddler]

42. Excuse me? Nadler is much more my "friend" than Obama, and THAT is based...

on what they do. Not who I would like them to be, or where they sit, or what nice guys they may be in person.

What they do.

[WatsonT]

51. Party over principle, eh?

[alarimer]

88. He's right.

Obama is dead wrong on this and is in fact acting like a dictator and outright LYING about Libya. I believe he should be impeached over this.

[Xithras]

2. Agreed.

Repeal the WPA. Pass a new act declaring that all non-defensive military actions, interventions, or support must have Congressional approval beforehand. No war without open debate on its merits.

[Iliyah]

14. That will never

happen. The WPA is the gopers baby. They want to keep it intact so when they get back the WH they will use it with full force and believe me it won't be anything close to what Prez O has done.

[backtomn]

15. I believe this was always a Dem deal.....

it was passed in 1973, probably in response to Vietnam, introduced by a Democrat....with a majority Dem Congress. The problem is that Obama is ignoring it. I think that the lawsuit from Kucinich is the right response. Is it OK for the Pres to ignore this or not?? We will see.

[sofa king]

44. Heh. Those are bygone days.

The Resolution was introduced by Clement Zablocki, a "defense Dem" who actually predated and was closely aligned with fellow Democrat "Scoop" Jackson.

Scoop, you will recall, is listed prominently in the "turn-ons" section on the back of the Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, and Richard Perle centerfolds. He was an anti-Communist neoconservative when the actual neoconservatives were still Trotskyite Communists.

Of course, once they made some money and were bought by The Man, the neoconservatives dropped the "of the proletariat" part of their planned dictatorship and assumed the positions people like Clement Zablocki first outlined.

[No Elephants]

55. IIRC. it was a response to Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia.

ETA: But don't rely on a poster who, 9 times out of 10, hits the period key when she means to hit the comma key.

[atreides1]

16. Sorry

The 93rd US Congress: Both chambers had a Democratic majority, from January 3, 1973 to January 3, 1975.

The WPA was vetoed by President Richard M. Nixon on Oct 4, 1973.

Both Houses of the US Congress overturned the Presidential Veto on Nov 7, 1973.

So, this can't be blamed on the Republicans alone!!!

[Iliyah]

18. The gopers will keep this

intact. They love it, and I don't care who suggested or passed it first. I'm just sick and tired of gopers being hypocrits and getting away with it.

[No Elephants]

57. Got facts? Got rule of law? Got Article I of the Constitution of the U.S.?

[grahamhgreen]

17. just like it says in the constitution.

[No Elephants]

54. That was done in 1789. See the War Power clause of Article I of the Constitution of the United

States.

[Xithras]

77. Sadly, people like to twist the definition of "war"

"It's not war! Our allies are dropping the bombs. We're just telling them what to target!"

Unfortunately, we need a new War Act to define, once and for all, what is and is not war. Offering logistical support? Drone bombings? One or two "strategic" missile strikes? Are these things war? I'd say yes, but a disappointingly large percentage of people here on DU would say no, as would an even larger percentage of our general population, the entire Pentagon, and most of Capitol Hill.

The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, but we all need to get on the same page as to what war really is.

IMHO, a single bullet fired from an American rifle landing on foreign soil is war. A single enemy soldier killed by an American order is war.

[John Paul Jones]

6. Nadler is 100% correct. Obama is the CIC, not The King.

Congress does need to reassert its authority to declare war. If they did what we pay them to do, there would be no more wars of "choice."

[hugo_from_TN]

10. Congress can defund the Libya action anytime they want.

[John Paul Jones]

19. Yeah, but then we couldn't test our Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1.2 million a shot.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The over reaching of the executive is the unspoken major

problem of our era. If the man can order war, then don't come whining that he can't do other things without the Congress. No more cake and eat it too for the various ambition machines who take that office. Limit the Oval to the Constitution, again and at long last.

[No Elephants]

56. I remember being so proud when Obama made a flow chart for U.S. government

with the Constitution of the United States at the very top of the chart, with the three branches of government directly under it, all on the same line.

Good times.

[No Elephants]

58. Unspoken? I recall many complaints. mostly by Dems and Libertarians, about the unitary executive

during the reign of George the Fifth.

Some Dems, however, seem to have changed their tune since 2008, though. I hope they're all okay with having their arguments turned back against them the next time we have a king of the U.S. who is not a Democrat.

[Volaris]

68. I agree, but that would require a Congress responsible enough

to actually engage in the action of checks and balances of the other branches of Govt., regardless of whether or not its YOUR guy in the White House. Lately, it seems that only happens when the OTHER party's guy gets to have that job.

But I agree, again, with your position that an unchecked Executive is a HUGE problem, and in some sense, has been since Pres. Jackson.
Its a problem that exists mostly because Congress (as an institution) has become spineless for the sake of political expediency (by which I mean they like to get re-elected.) That job shouldn't pay any more than the highest paid law-enforcement officer in the state or district you represent.

[christx30]

85. I'd be happy with

everyone in washington, from the president to congress getting minimum wage.
Honestly, I think if political life was a miserable expiriance, the country would be better off. You'd get people that are actually in it to serve the people, and not themselves. There would ne less power hungry jerks, and more politicians in it to help people, with less vote buying.

[JDPriestly]

21. Reminiscent of the Roman Empire.

The Caesars are taking over.

[RKP5637]

36. You know, I was just thinking that earlier, are we trying to be a carbon copy

all the way. There is now this prevalent mindset IMO that might is right even in the face of logic, as the MIC grows and grows, no longer about defense IMO. And many Caesars working to take over. It's a tad bit bizarre anymore.

[The Big Vetolski]

76. Yes, and look what happened to the Roman Empire. Massive

military funding, huge taxes on the poor but not on the rich, the destruction of their version of the middle classes. It got so bad that when the barbarians came most Roman citizens didn't even bother to fight them.

[JoePhilly]

23. Who?

[Hissyspit]

65. From Wikipedia:

In Congress, Nadler is a member of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary and Transportation and Infrastructure committees. He is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.<6> Despite earlier efforts to bring impeachment charges against George W. Bush,<7> and more recent requests from fellow representatives, he did not schedule hearings on impeachments for Bush or Dick Cheney, saying in 2007 that doing so would be pointless and would distract from the presidential election.<8> In a July 15, 2008, Washington Journal interview, Nadler reiterated the timing defense <9> while stating that Bush had committed impeachable offenses, but that nothing could be done because the system is "overly political". Ten days later, following upon submission of Articles of Impeachment by Representative Dennis Kucinich, the full House Judiciary Committee held hearings covered solely by C-SPAN <10> regarding the process. A top Ronald Reagan Justice Department official, Bruce Fein, was among those testifying for impeachment.

Nadler said in an a December 2008 interview that he was interested in the Senate seat that Hillary Clinton was planning to resign to become Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. He cited his opposition to the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 as among his principal qualifications.<11>

Nadler has also vowed to re-introduce the Freedom of Choice Act during the Obama administration.<12>

[smuglysmiling]

24. Then impeach him and shut up...or

repeal the war powers act and place the control back with congress as the Constitution states.

[still_one]

37. The problem is before the War Powers Act, the Executive Branch could always engage troops without

Congressional approval, though Congress always controlled the purse strings, and could stop it that way if they wanted to

This is all drama.

Neither side wants to invoke the War Powers Act, otherwise they would have

[No Elephants]

59. No, before the War Powers Resolution, there was the war power clause of Article I of the

Constitution of the United States, which is more absolute and restrictive of the President than is the War Powers Resolution.

So, the President has never been able to engage in war without Congressional approval--not legally anyway.

[Volaris]

69. It depends on the troops. As long as Congress funds a Federal Army

the Pres. is pretty much empowered to do whatever the hell he wants with them, but had no authority whatsoever over the State's Guard forces. I say, repeal the War Powers Act, and let the Pres. have control over FEDERAL forces that Congress raises, but make that force small, and offer financial help to the States to raise whatever other actual forces you think you might need, so that if , lets say, the Pres. (any Pres.) feels like intervention in somewhere (like Libya as an example, since its relevant) he has the power to do so, but it would make engagements like the the long-term occupation of say, Baghdad or Afghanistan IMPOSSIBLE without a Congressional Declaration of War. That way the Executive Office is empowered to do what it thinks is necessary to actually defend Democracy around the globe, without the temptation or possibility of going out and "spreading Freedom". (As an aside, I think the Air Force should fall under the same rules as the Army, but since Congress is Constitutionally REQUIRED to maintain a federal-level Navy, the Pres. can pretty much bomb the hell out of anyone he thinks needs it for as long as he wants, as long as Congress is willing to pay for the specific building of Air Carrier Groups.
This is MY solution to this problem, I would love to hear the ideas of others.

Peace

[still_one]

72. You are exactly right, and Congress always had control of the purse strings. If they wanted us out

of anywhere all they have to do is stop funding it

Surprise, they really don't

[Volaris]

81. this might also interest you...

an idea on making that future Army much more productive AFTER its been determined that its use is actually necessary.

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

As an aside, I love listening to the lectures of the Genius Convention, I think THESE people should get funding equal to the Wall Street bailouts lol....

[Volaris]

82. this might also interest you...

an idea on making that future Army much more productive AFTER its been determined that its use is actually necessary.

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

As an aside, I love listening to the lectures of the Genius Convention, I think THESE people should get funding equal to the Wall Street bailouts lol....

[rhett o rick]

48. You act like we can do either of those things. We cant but WE FUCKING WONT SHUT UP.

Do you get it. Dont tell me to shut up.

[No Elephants]

60. No, please don't shut up, but

I think the poster was addressing Nadler and is on the same side of this issue as you are. At least I assume so, given the reference to putting the power back with Congress, per the Constitution.

[rhett o rick]

66. I still dont understand. Seems like this poster is attacking Nadler. Am I reading Nadler

wrong? Isnt he saying the right stuff if one wants to reduce the amount of control that Congress has turned over to the president? Over the last few decades, the Executive Branch has acquired (or been given) more and more power. The Judicial Branch has also become more powerful, leaving the Legislative Branch, in my opinion the most important branch of government in a democracy, with less and less power. Seems Nadler is on the right track. Please straighten me out if I am wrong here.

And I wont shut up, even though there are times I should.

Thanks for the response.

[polichick]

25. Good for him for speaking out - our presidents have become CEOs of USWAR, INC.

[avebury]

29. I agree.

[RKP5637]

38. Exactly! And that's becoming our chief export, war, death and destruction. n/t

[INdemo]

26. When a President begins to lose support or flat loses support

from those within his own party,then he has some serious problems...

[still_one]

31. It should come as no surprise that even though most republicans in the house are talking against the

Libyan operation, they are not going to cut off funding

So no matter what "theater" we see presented before us, funding will not be stopped, and the implementation of the War Powers Act will not be exercised in this operation

I guess what I am saying, it is all talk and no action

Whether the President loses support, and the election because of this will in actually be a moot issue, since the majority in both parties, no matter what they say, are NOT going to stop funding it

Watch what happens, not what they say

[No Elephants]

64. A vote against going into a war and a vote to cut off funding for a war we have already begun

are two very different things.

Even Congressional Rep Honest Abe Lincoln refused to vote to cut off funding after he had voted against going to war. And I am sure he did not see any inconsistency or flip flopping between those two votes.

[markpkessinger]

43. Didn't you get the memo?

You see, it's not the President's fault, it's the fault of those "f****** retards" of the "professional left." Just ask Robert Gibbs or Rahm Emmanuel.

[No Elephants]

62. It didn't catch up with Dummya until near the end of his second term.

IMO, President Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party--Kennedy v. Carter still being a cautionary tale for the Party honchos. So, our President come January 2013 will defintiely be either Obama or a Republican (and my gut says Obama).

Tidings of comfort and joy.

[trud]

27. Nadler is absolutely right

I hated it when Rethug Presidents did this, I hate it when Obama does it.

[avebury]

28. Someone posted something indicating that we might look

to arming the Phillipines against Chinese threat. If that is true it seems like all we want to do is either start a war or arm a war.

[still_one]

30. For some there is a question if the War Powers Act is Constitutional /nt

[Hubert Flottz]

32. Our NATO allies don't pay America's bills, anymore than the top

1% at the top of America's economic food chain pays the bills.

I think our "disposable" national tax income, should fund some good things for a "CHANGE"...stop rebuilding countries we bomb flat and start rebuilding the country we should and could have. A place where there's hope for all, instead of fear and peace, instead of constant conflict. America is falling apart. Do you think our NATO allies are going to rescue us?

[placton]

33. Obama: loves wars

loves the banksters
does zippo for his base

[INdemo]

67. Could it be the American Oil companies want the oil

contracts from Libya?
This President is not a Democrat..we were fooled by all this "change we can believe in" bullshit.Why would corporations and GOP voters waste their time and money in nominating a Republican challenger when Obama is th best candidate that could ever hope for.

[awoke_in_2003]

35. I agree that Congress...

needs to grab back the power, but to call the president a monarch is a bit much.

[hyphenate]

39. Gee, at least Obama

isn't a "monarch" like Bush was. Nadler just jumped the shark--I proclaim him a DINO.

[Vidar]

40. Bravo Rep. Nadler!

[sofa king]

41. Heh. Just wait until the government shuts down in the middle of three wars.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sofa%20king/100

So this time, the President gets to activate FEMA, suspend habeas corpus, use the Army as police on home soil, detain an unlimited amount of people for an indefinite time, form labor battlalions and (in theory) compel people to join them, remove anyone he wants from their homes, set wage rates, and see to all distribution of essential goods and services like food, water, gasoline, and electricity. You know, innocuous stuff like that which the Republicans were happy to entrust to President Obama's predecessor.

[harun]

46. Its Congress fault. They don't have the guts to vote on this stuff so they give the Pres a pass.

All unconstitutional.

[rhett o rick]

49. I agree. nm

[Posteritatis]

47. Where the hell was this rhetoric ten years ago? (nt)

[Volaris]

70. Mitch McConnell answered that question for you the other day, Rachel (awesome as always)

has the tape. If you missed it, its here.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#43504028

And that, I think, is the difference between us and them. Their instinct is to say "If our guy breaks the law, Party Loyalty says we shouldn't say anything." As a general rule, I don't think we think that way.

[unkachuck]

50. "...Congress needs to reassert its authority to declare war,..."

....is there any way to run this over to the Supreme Court and create a Constitutional crisis?

....I'd like to see if the Constitution is actually worth the paper it's written on.

[boppers]

63. If you don't know what a monarch is, any arguments based on the word are bound to fail.

What house of royalty is Obama from?

[panzerfaust]

84. Danaus plexippus?

Monarch Butterfly: From what Royal House comes thee?

There is no requirement of descent from a Royal House to become a monarch. Billy-the-Bastard (truly, his nick-name prior to 14 October 1066) proved that at Hastings - after which he became Guillaume-le-Conquérant (William-the-Conqueror) and King of England.

The middle ages had such great nicknames for their monarchs: Such as the Danish King Blue-Tooth, father of Fork-beard - who then took England from the English King Æthelred-the-Unready. Oft too I have wondered at the source of the appellation of Ivar-the-Boneless - he who, during his career as a Berserker gave us St Edmund the Martyr.

In any event, I suspect that Monarchs have more often arrived by the sword than by the bassinet.

Bush 1, 2, and possibly 3 do, however, have more claim to such a title than Obama - though the intent of the article is to point out how far from the constraints of the Constitution are the current powers of the presidency (no matter who is in office).

[cottonseed]

73. I love DU. Celebrate a headline hinting at Obama=Monarch. Ignore message that Congress

has been absolutely nuttless for 30 years when it comes to asserting it's responsibilities towards War. I realize "real progressives" should hate Obama around here, but Jesus, try to at least acknowledge what the guy is saying.

This is the kind of thing that leads to guys like Kucinich and Weiner being idolized around here. Lot's of "speaking truth to power", but not really doing shit about it.

[LetTimmySmoke]

79. News flash: We already are an empire.

[TexDevilDog]

80. I don't understand why we can't just follow the constitution.

The president can't go to war without the congress first declaring there is a war. If people realized that the constitution is a document that has concrete meanings, we would not be in this situation. If you want to change the constitution there is a method built in to the document to do that.

[Nihil]

87. Because nobody in the beltway has bothered to look at that old document in decades ...

"Constitution? WTF is that then guys?"

[Bo]

89. GREAT JOB KILLING CIVILIANS IN LIBYA IDIOT

NICE JOB...YOU LEARN THAT FROM OL BUSHY BOY