[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers

Introducing Shortwave’s Newest Broadcaster: Global 24 Radio

jwpegler :The Lightweight Liar That Mocks God Claims Jesus Never Said Anyting About Homosexuals (His Pants Are on Fire)

Steyn: One Person Can Change Everything and ‘I Like Ted Cruz’

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'

Vampires of the Animal Kingdom

UN Day: Obama and UN Boss Urge Celebrations, More Power

Nebraska Dem Uses Coma Patient as Prop in Political Ad

Who’s bankrolling secretive liberal group America Votes?

AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd rocks the high-rollers

Republican Barbarians at the Gates

Ancient Roman Nanotechnology Inspires Next-Generation Holograms for Information Storage

Belarus Wants to Criminalize Unemployment

Former NSA Official: Anyone Who 'Justified' Snowden's Leaks Shouldn't Be Allowed A Gov't Job

CIA Apparently 'Impersonated' Senate Staffers To Gain Access To Documents On Shared Drives

Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades

Holder ‘Exasperated’ Over ‘Selective Leaks’ Of Wilson’s Grand Jury Case

Indiana’s Toll Road Goes Bankrupt

Love Is the Answer to Empire

THANKS, CUOMO, NOW WE HAVE EBOLA

Ebola was October’s Political Surprise…Amnesty will be November’s Reality

Debate crowd loudly laughs at “War Against Women” charge by female Dem challenger (#NY23)

Craig Spencer Tests Positive For Ebola In New York City

Things Fall Apart–America In Crisis

As America's Kids Starve On Government Lunches, Illegals Get Second Helpings And Gitmo's Finest Get Fat

Sources: NYPD Hatchet Attacker May Have Been ISIS Supporter

Retired pope says interreligious dialogue no substitute for mission

Burrito chain urged to drop 'illegal' from name

‘My house is not for sale’: Indiana residents fight city’s home-seizure plan

Where Did Ebola Come From?

Microsoft Co-Founder Paul Allen Bumps Ebola Effort to $100 Million

Does This Look Like a President That Can Save You From Ebola?

Obama claims executive privilege over 15,000 Fast and Furious docs

Oct. 24 & 25: Second Round of National Protests Against Illegal Immigration and Amnesty

Report: At least seven black witnesses have corroborated Darren Wilson’s testimony before the Ferguson grand jury

I've been informed some banned people want to post Plus I corrected the Status of Fred Mertz

Will Michelle Obama go into politics next?

Dan DiMicco's solution for what ails U.S. economy? Manufacturing

Federale In Japan: It Works—And It Could Work In The U.S. Too

850 voters in NYC are officially 164 years old

Revealed Autopsy Destroys 'Gentle Giant' Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Story

Soldier, 24, shot dead by Muslim convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau who opened fire on Canadian Parliament

INELIGIBLE DACA BENEFICIARIES DISCOVERED ON NC VOTING ROLLS

Multiple shooters reported in Canada attack By Ashley Fantz and Josh Levs, CNN

Armed Huey P. Newton Gun Activists and Black Panthers Marched Through Dallas Yesterday

So sez secular LP poster Jwpegler: "Fund[ies] who run around screaming and hollering about gays are more like Old Testament Jews than New Testament Christians"

How the Obama administration handles scandals and scares

Obama Has Cut a Deal with African Leaders to Bring Ebola Patients into US

A Cultural Marxist Tries To Deconstruct Japan. Guess What, He’s American

Ebola Czar Says Population Growth Is Top Issue Facing the World


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Sen. Jim Webb: Congress Must OK Military Intervention
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl ... -ok-military-intervention.html
Published: May 18, 2012
Author: by Sen. Jim Webb
Post Date: 2012-05-20 15:40:19 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 122

The Obama administration exploited a constitutional loophole by taking action on its own during Libya’s uprising. New legislation must end this defiance of the balance of power.

The most important constitutional challenge regarding the balance of power between the president and Congress in modern times comes down to a simple question: When should the president have the unilateral authority to decide to use military force, and what is the place of the Congress in that process?

In the decades following the height of the Vietnam War, our constitutional process fell apart. Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would be unleashed has diminished. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, especially with the advent of Special Operations forces and remote bombing capabilities, the Congress seems to have faded into operational irrelevance.

We have now reached the point that the unprecedented—and quite frankly contorted—constitutional logic used by this administration to intervene in Libya on the basis of what can most kindly be called a United Nations standard of “humanitarian intervention,” was not even subject to full debate or a vote on the Senate floor. Such an omission, and the precedent it has set, now requires us to accept one of two uncomfortable alternatives. Either Congress must reject this passivity and live up to the standards and the expectations regarding presidential power that were laid down so carefully by our Founding Fathers, or it must accept a redefinition of the very precepts upon which this government was founded.

The conflict in the balance of power between the president and the Congress has always been an intrinsic part of our constitutional makeup. Article One, Section 8, of the Constitution provides that the Congress alone has the power to declare war. Article Two, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the president shall serve as commander in chief. In the early days of our republic, these distinctions were clear. We retained no large standing army during peace time. Article One, Section 8, also gives the Congress the power to “raise and support armies.” This phrase expressed the clear intent of the framers that large ground forces were not to be kept during peacetime but instead were to be raised at the direction of Congress during a time of war.

Only after World War II did this change. Our rather reluctant position as the world’s greatest guarantor of international stability required that we maintain a large standing military force, much of it in Europe and in Asia, ready to respond to crises whose immediacy could not otherwise allow us to go through the lengthy process of mobilization in order to raise an army. That reality made the time-honored process of asking the Congress for a declaration of war in most cases obsolete.

123554686WM013_OBAMA_ADDRES

U.S. President Barack Obama, flanked by Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) addresses a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol September 8, 2011 in Washington, DC. Obama addressed both houses of the U.S. legislature to highlight his plan to create jobs for millions of out of work Americans. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images)

But any logical proposition can be carried to a ridiculous extreme. The fact that some military situations have required our presidents to act immediately, before reporting to the Congress, does not give a president blanket authority to use military force whenever and wherever he decides. This is not a political issue. We would be facing the exact same constitutional challenges no matter the party of the president. In fact, unless we resolve this matter, there is no doubt that we someday will.

This administration's argument that it has the authority to decide when and where to use military force without the consent of the Congress, using the fragile logic of “humanitarian intervention” to ostensibly redress domestic tensions inside countries where American interests are not directly threatened, is gravely dangerous. It does not fit our history.

I cannot conclusively define the boundaries of a “humanitarian intervention” and neither can anybody else. Where should it apply? Where should it not? Rwanda? Libya? Syria? Venezuela?

The historically acceptable conditions under which a president can unilaterally order the military into action are clear. If our country or our military forces are attacked; if an attack, including one by international terrorists, is imminent and must be preempted; if treaty commitments specifically compel us to respond to attacks on our allies; if American citizens are detained or threatened; if our sea lanes are interrupted, then—and only then—should the president order the use of military force without first gaining the approval of the Congress.

The recent actions by this administration, beginning with the months-long intervention in Libya, should give us all grounds for alarm about the potential harm to our constitutional system itself. We are in no sense compelled—or justified—in taking action based on a vote in the United Nations, or as the result of a decision made by a collective security agreement such as NATO when none of its members have been attacked.

I cannot conclusively define the boundaries of a “humanitarian intervention” and neither can anybody else. Where should it apply? Where should it not? Rwanda? Libya? Syria? Venezuela? Some of these endeavors may be justified, some may not. But the most important point to be made is that in our system, no single person should have the power to inject the United States military, and the prestige of our nation, into such circumstances.

I make this point from the perspective of someone who grew up in the military, and whose family has participated as citizen soldiers in most of our country’s wars, beginning with the American Revolution. I was proud to serve as a Marine in Vietnam. I am equally proud of my son’s service as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. I am also grateful for having had the opportunity to serve five years in the Pentagon, one as a Marine, and four as assistant secretary of defense and as secretary of the Navy. I am one of the strongest proponents of the refocusing of our national involvement in East Asia, and sponsored a Senate resolution condemning China’s use of force with respect to sovereignty issues in the South China Sea. I am not advocating a retreat from anywhere.

Modern circumstances require an adroit approach to the manner in which our foreign policy is being implemented. Legislation I introduced this week requires that the president obtain formal approval by the Congress through an expedited process before introducing military force for “humanitarian interventions,” where the historically acceptable conditions for unilateral action are absent.

Despite repeated calls from other senators and myself, the Congress—both Democrat and Republican—could not bring itself to have a formal debate on whether the use of military force was appropriate in Libya. Meanwhile, the administration conducted month after month of combat operations in Libya, with no American interests directly threatened and no clear treaty provisions in play. The administration—which spent well over $1 billion of taxpayer funds, dropped thousands of bombs on the country, and operated our military offshore for months—claimed that “combat” was not occurring, and rejected the notion that the War Powers Act applied to the situation.

My legislation addresses this loophole in the interpretation of our Constitution. It will serve as a necessary safety net to protect the integrity and the intent of the Constitution itself. It will ensure that Congress lives up not only to its prerogatives, which were so carefully laid out by our Founding Fathers, but also to its responsibilities.

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com