Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

[JoeTheJuggler]

I read the quote from Obama above and that was an answer to a question about a specific action so I'm not sure whether that can be extended to cover all military action. I would have thought that it would revolve on what the legal interpretation would be of the action in Libya and whether that falls outside his powers.

I don't buy that a bit.

While the question was asked wrt a specific application of military force, Obama's answer was going from the law--and stated in a general sense. He definitely spoke in terms of the legal principles in general rather than in any particular instance (my bolding and underlining):

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a [that's the indefinite article and cannot grammatically be parsed to be referring only to a specific instance] situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

ETA: In fact, he seemed to be going out of his way to avoid damning Bush for this action as a casuist thing, but sought to make the point that Bush was wrong because of a very general principle.

ETA: The only out I see for Obama not directly contradicting himself is the ruse that this is not a "unilateral" decision, and that the U.S.'s role is merely support for a decision made by European and Arabian countries.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In my opinion, the reason Obama didn't go to Congress was to manage the PR differently than Bush did. He wanted to avoid a public debate on the question of whether or not the president has this authority or whether or not military involvement is justified until after the fact. Sort of the old better to ask forgiveness than permission approach.

 

[TraneWreck]

In this specific instance, I think Obama can argue that he was acting in accordance with a UN resolution. Since we've signed and ratified that charter, Congressional approval may not be necessary, or the ratification by Congress was approval of all uses of force voted by the Security Council.

I really don't know if that would suffice in a legal sense, it's the sort of thing that a court would have to rule on and will never get a chance to do so, but that will be Obama's way around the hypocricy charge most likely.

 

[rwguinn]

I read the quote from Obama above and that was an answer to a question about a specific action so I'm not sure whether that can be extended to cover all military action. I would have thought that it would revolve on what the legal interpretation would be of the action in Libya and whether that falls outside his powers.

You can do some serious damage to your back, bending over that far...
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Seems rather general to me...

 

[DavidJames]

It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress

The bold word above along with this

In this specific instance, I think Obama can argue that he was acting in accordance with a UN resolution.

But Republicans, please, impeach. It's consistent with your other flashy, doomed to fail and ultimately useless actions to move this country forward.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The bold word above along with this

Read the quote again. The "always preferable" part is even when there is an actual and imminent threat making it a matter of self-defense. According to Obama, in other cases (where there is not an actual and imminent threat making it a case of self-defense), the president doesn't have authority to do this without Congress.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In this specific instance, I think Obama can argue that he was acting in accordance with a UN resolution.

Which of course would totally undermine his criticism of Bush who also claimed to have been acting in accordance with a UN resolution.

Anyway, I think the "unilaterally" in the Obama quote was about the president acting alone without Congressional authority and not about the U.S. acting with or without the involvement of other nations.

ETA: Reading the quote, I think it's clear that Obama saw the only case where the president can authorize military force without Congressional authorization is when there is actual and imminent threat to the U.S.

 

[TraneWreck]

Which of course would totally undermine his criticism of Bush who also claimed to have been acting in accordance with a UN resolution.

Not to get overly technical, but there was no UN vote to use force with Iraq.

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Here they very clearly approved military strikes:

The U.N. Security Council last week passed Resolution 1973, which gives the international community a mandate to use all necessary means to protect the civilian Libyan population from forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...-resolution/UPI-70531300818681/#ixzz1HMQpHZ3S

I agree with you in spirit, Obama is clearly behaving hypocritically, but from the legal question of impeachment (which matters less than how pissy a particular Congress decides to get), I think he has defenses.

Integrity generally isn't saved by technicalities.

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree with you in spirit, Obama is clearly behaving hypocritically, but from the legal question of impeachment (which matters less than how pissy a particular Congress decides to get), I think he has defenses.

Why would UN authorization have any relevance to the constitutional question of separation of powers? I don't see how UN approval can give the president any power that he didn't have absent UN approval.

 

[TraneWreck]

Why would UN authorization have any relevance to the constitutional question of separation of powers? I don't see how UN approval can give the president any power that he didn't have absent UN approval.

Because the United States Congress approved the UN charter, making it the law of the land. That could be viewed as a ratification of any action taken by the Security Council.

As I said, I don't know if this is the way it actually works, I'd have to dig into the Charter and look at the specifics. I really don't care enough about the issue to do the work, but legally speaking, that may be an end-around specific Congressional approval.

THe other option is that Obama just ignored the War Powers provision like every president since WWII.

 

[Chaos]

Which of course would totally undermine his criticism of Bush who also claimed to have been acting in accordance with a UN resolution.

It would also undermine the criticism of him by those who claimed Bush was right to do what he did.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the United States Congress approved the UN charter, making it the law of the land.

I don't think that argument will work. The UN charter lets the UNSC authorize military action. I'm not sure if the UNSC is even able to require military action (I doubt it), but they certainly didn't this time. They arguably allowed and even encouraged it, but that's not the same. So if the president is required to get Congressional authorization without the UN (and maybe he isn't, given the War Powers Act), then he would still need Congressional authorization even with UN approval. I don't see how the UN's approval can possibly substitute for Congressional authorization.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that this was unconstitutional. The War Powers Act may have given him sufficient leeway. But that's got nothing to do with the UN, as far as I can see.

 

[rwguinn]

I don't think that argument will work. The UN charter lets the UNSC authorize military action. I'm not sure if the UNSC is even able to require military action (I doubt it), but they certainly didn't this time. They arguably allowed and even encouraged it, but that's not the same. So if the president is required to get Congressional authorization without the UN (and maybe he isn't, given the War Powers Act), then he would still need Congressional authorization even with UN approval. I don't see how the UN's approval can possibly substitute for Congressional authorization.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that this was unconstitutional. The War Powers Act may have given him sufficient leeway. But that's got nothing to do with the UN, as far as I can see.

^^This.
The UN Charter does not override the Constitution of the United States...

 

[fuelair]

Ron Paul brings the rolling papers.

And Ralph Nadir lies there breathing in their second hand farts. What a crew of idiots.

 

[BeAChooser]

One thing that's interesting in Obama's case is not that he has done what many presidents before him have done, but that he has done what he himself recently proclaimed that presidents should not do.

It's just one more instance of Obama lying to us.

At least Kucinich has been consistent.

Whereas neither Obama or many of his supporters (even here at JREF) can claim that now.

 

[BeAChooser]

The issue is fairly easily handled by Congress, they control the funding for this little excursion.

And Kucinich has put forth legislation to defund it.

 

[BeAChooser]

IIf Obama actually believed it needed to be done quick for the best effect, than it makes more sense, but still if it were that important why not do it a week ago?

Yeah, when getting rid of Qaddafi would have been much easier. When rebel forces stood a good chance of defeating Qaddafi without more than a no-fly zone. That is now the current goal, isn't it, according to Obama? Not just protecting civilians but getting rid of Qaddafi? But now the balance of forces have shifted. Anyone here think the rebels can topple Qaddafi with just a no-fly zone? Obama's dithering may now make ground troops to end this necessary. Like I noted originally,

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oL11Cn2oZ.../eRcwzCqxk_Y/s1600/deer-in-the-headlights.jpg

 

[BeAChooser]

In this specific instance, I think Obama can argue that he was acting in accordance with a UN resolution. Since we've signed and ratified that charter, Congressional approval may not be necessary, or the ratification by Congress was approval of all uses of force voted by the Security Council.

Ahhhhh. So we are going to be governed by the UN.

Now isn't that what the right has been expressing fear about where Obama and the democrats are concerned?

Perhaps that is the REAL Obama *doctrine*?

 

[Darat]

I don't buy that a bit.

While the question was asked wrt a specific application of military force, Obama's answer was going from the law--and stated in a general sense. He definitely spoke in terms of the legal principles in general rather than in any particular instance (my bolding and underlining):

And I think you demonstrate why trying to extend what his answer to a specific question means is prone to all the usual bias we all bring to our interpretations. For example you could also argue that "It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action." implies that there are times when he didn't think it was required.

For me Obama is just another right-wing USA politician who has become a president so I have nothing invested in him being seen to be right or wrong that's why I said that whether what he has done is impeachable (presumably on the grounds that he committed a form of treason?) will depend on how the USA courts define different kinds of military action?

 

[Darat]

What are the steps that would have to be taken to impeach him for his acts? And on what grounds would such an impeachment be made?