Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Waging Another Unconstitutional War by Ralph Nader

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:02 PM
Original message
Waging Another Unconstitutional War by Ralph Nader
Attention Moderators:
The following statement by Ralph Nader is not copyrighted material and therefore can be posted on DU in its entirety. You will not find any copyright notice regarding this statement at the Nader.org website. Thank you for your attention. BBI




Waging Another Unconstitutional War
By Ralph Nader
June 17, 2011

The meticulous Harvard Law Review editors should be rolling over in their footnotes. The recidivist violations of constitutional and statutory requirements by their celebrated predecessor at that journal - Barack Obama has reached Orwellian dimensions in the war against Libya.

You see, the widespread daily bombing of Libya, the strict naval blockade of Muammar Gadhafi-controlled Libya, the destruction of Gadhafi's family compound and tent encampment in the desert--killing his son and three grandchildren--and the deployment of special forces inside Libya is not a "War." It is in the Obama White House's evasive nomenclature just a "time-limited, scope-limited military action" Can you find that phrase in the Constitution?

If Obama used the word "War," he would have a more difficult time explaining to Congress and the American people (three out of four oppose this war) why he did not (1) seek a declaration of war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, or (2) seek Congressional authorization for appropriated funds to further the war with our NATO co-warriors, or (3) comply with the deadlines of the War Powers Resolution. He threw all three lawful restraints on his Presidential unilateralism overboard.

So, in the invidious tradition of George W. Bush and his indentured confessor, Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, now comfortably ensconced on the law faculty of the University of California Berkeley, Mr. Obama is blithely claiming as authority for taking our country into another war "the inherent powers of the President under Article II of the Constitution." This wouldn't pass the laugh test by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin Mason or even Hamilton. James Madison believed placing the war-declaring power in the exclusive hands of Congress was the most significant achievement during the convention in Philadelphia that summer of 1787. No more King George substitutes for America's future, they demanded.

Note that Libya did not attack the U.S. or its appendages, and did not attack a member of NATO. Obama admits these points. Libya's trusting government sovereign fund even left $37 billion in the U.S. which Obama promptly froze. Lacking even the prevaricatory pretenses for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, Obama and Hillary Clinton now say the U.S. is militarily involved "to protect our interests and advance our values" in the region and, of course, to protect the "universal rights" of the Libyan people. (Opportunities abound for this Obama doctrine around the world from the Congo to Syria, to Burma, to occupied Palestine and many other areas.)

Desperately seeking legitimacy, Mr. Obama cites the UN resolution, NATO, and the Arab League instead of seeking it from Congress. For all treaties with foreign countries, including the UN Charter, are trumped by the U.S. Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)). As a former teacher of constitutional law, the President knows this basic principle but then, as Lord Acton declared: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Congress, rendered a rubber stamp by President George W. Bush, is bestirring itself. On June 3, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. Res 292 declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. On this matter, Obama pleads state secrets.

On June 16, 2011, ten members of the House - five conservative Republicans (including Walter B. Jones (Rep. N.C.) and Ron Paul (Rep. Texas) and five Democrats (including Dennis Kucinich (Dem. Ohio) and John Conyers (Dem. Mich.) filed suit against President Obama in federal district court for an order declaring the U.S. war in Libya "without a declaration of Congress with the use of funds never approved for such a war" to be unconstitutional. Given past judicial decisions declaring members of Congress to have "no standing to sue" on what they call "political matters," this suit is facing an uphill barrier.

Congress has appropriated no money for this war, already costing nearly a billion dollars, nor has the lawless Obama asked for it because he knows there will be strong bi-partisan resistance.

So where is the Congress to go but to the courts to decide this internal, domestic issue affecting the separation of powers provoked by a clearly lawless President? The degraded, politicized, formerly professional, Office of Legal Counsel is a sleazy apologist for presidential overreaching for over two decades.

The expanding immunities of the Executive branch, now increasingly embracing the military contractors of the corporate state, is destroying the remaining pretensions that we are a nation under law. When he was inaugurated as President in January 2009, President Obama said he wanted his Administration to be known as one of "transparency and the rule of law." You'll recall during his 2008 campaign he trumpeted that he would obey the Constitution, inferring the the Republican regime was trampling the Rule of Law.

Indeed in 2007, then Senator Barack Obama stated that "the president does not have any 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." Vice President Biden was even more vehement on this issue. And Secretary of Defense Robert Gates originally opposed the attack on Libya before falling in line.

Gadhafi's dictatorship is a brutal one. Civil wars are brutal. People are dying and suffering. The country is being torn apart. Obama and NATO are not adequately testing offers for a truce and supervised elections. Top level officials are defecting from Gadhafi and hoping to help lead any successor government.

Regimes brutalize their people whether as dictatorships, authoritarian rulers, connected with dominant oligarchies, or through racial, religious or other sectarian repressions. Is the U.S., mired in deep recession, debt and its own kleptocracy, going to continue to police the world with bases, interventions, subversions or occupation?

The cause of human rights everywhere, needs a permanent, well-quipped professional United Nations peace-keeping force and effective international courts to prevent mass massacres and mass brutalities. That time is not near but it should be at the top of the agenda of civilized nations.

The U.S., as the number one military superpower, provoking antagonisms by its penchant for control throughout the world, should not imperially advance the empire. It is that belief which is bringing Right and Left together, not just in Congress, but around the country.

(See: ComeHomeAmerica.us, edited by George D. O'Neill, Jr. Paul Buhle; Bill Kauffman and Kevin Zeese, Titan Publishing Company <2010>)

http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/2285-Waging-Another-Unconstitutional-War.html#extended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GSLevel9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. So who's going to disagree with a single fact written here? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harmony Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I can't disagree
with any of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nader is right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yes, but cant we blame everything that has gone wrong in the last 12 years
on him? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Damnit Ralph. Havent you figured out that WE CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. So just stop. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Whatever you're into Sid. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. with YOUR penis?
just askin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. +1
I refuse to even read his drivel. He's dead to me. Fuck Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. Hero worship is a terrible thing
Obama tramples the Constitution, and it's criminal to you to even mention it.

There will be lots of death and privation from this little fiasco, and the precedent for an imperial presidency will be reinforced yet more, but seemingly that's fine...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. You should have put another name just to see how many
here disagree with Nader on principle. I'm betting there will be a lot of "Fuck-Nader" posters showing up here in a few minutes to completely dismiss his arguments even though he is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. That is always the first line of attack, no matter who the critic is.
Try to dismiss the issues and points by attacking the author. Nader is a stronger lightening rod, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. If Bush wrote the above, plenty of people would ignore the content and insult the author.
Edited on Sat Jun-18-11 02:32 PM by BzaDem
Not sure why you expect it to be very different with Bush's enabler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. But I thought we were supposed to support him and help get him reelected?
Oh, you mean the other enabler. Not the one that won't investigate war crimes or torture.
Nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. Land Harper instead of Ralph Nader
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. Meh, Nader. That should be "nuff said" right there.
An irrelevent perpetual candidate arguing Constitutionality with a Constitutional Scholar is laughable. But let me point out a few things:

1. We didn't invade like we did in Iraq. This was a Revolution that was started by the Libyan people against an oppresive regime.
2. We were ASKED to help.
3. We are acting in a support capacity to NATO.
4. The only time we had "boots on the ground" was a search and rescue mission.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Well, THATS the Government Cover Story anyway.
...but THIS time, the government is telling the truth!!!
:rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. K and R plus at least one new addition to the Ignore list
Sigh.

Scapegoating is a wonderful way to avoid facing problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kucinich: The war in Libya 'is not a war'. Really?
The war in Libya 'is not a war'. Really?

Nato has extended combat operations in Libya, yet the president has dodged granting Congress its constitutional right to decide

It is time, in the name of the people of the United States, that Congress insist that the president obey the Constitution and the statutes concerning war powers.

...

Article 1, section 8 (of the US Constitution) provides only Congress with the ability to declare war or authorise the use of military force. The War Powers Act allows a narrow exemption from the constitutional requirement by allowing the president to take the US to war without congressional approval in the face of an "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". We have now been involved in a war on Libya for over 72 days (this article is more than two weeks old) with no constitutionally required authorisation for the use of military force or declaration of war.

From the Guardian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. John Conyers joins group questioning U.S. military in Libya
John Conyers joins group questioning U.S. military in Libya

WASHINGTON – Detroit Congressman John Conyers joined a group of 10 members of the House taking President Barack Obama to court over the U.S. military commitment in Libya.

Filing the suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the 10 are asking for an injunction to stop Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates from continuing what they call a policy that commits the U.S. to military action without authorization from Congress.

"It’s the law," said Conyers, a Democrat. "The President cannot unilaterally take the country to war. The American people have grown weary of open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm’s way and add billions to our national debt."

Detroit Free Press
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. Obama Overrides Lawyers Who Warned War on Libya Amounted to "Hostilities"
Obama Overrides Lawyers Who Warned War on Libya Amounted to "Hostilities"
by Agence France-Presse
June 18, 2011

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama overruled two senior government lawyers in deciding that he had the authority to continue US military operations in Libya without Congressional approval, The New York Times reported.

In reaching his conclusion Obama rejected the opinions of Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, The Times reported, citing unnamed officials familiar with the deliberations.

Johnson and Krass both told the White House they believed that US military activity in the NATO-led air war over Libya amounted to "hostilities."

Obama however agreed with two other top government lawyers -- White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold Koh -- who said the US military action in Libya did not amount to "hostilities" because it was in a support role.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/18-2

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beardown Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. We need a new message-bot.
Edited on Sat Jun-18-11 02:53 PM by beardown
Anytime someone posts something about or from Nader, the message-bot would automatically plug the F you message into position one.

That would save the trouble for the folks that seem to stalk Nader posts the trouble of posting it into every Nader subject which is probably
a huge chore for them given they can' find the intellectual prowess to post anything worth while anyway. They are the current generation of
the same types that are still trying to get over the South losing the Civil War.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, a big part of the reason that we are where we are now is that far too many Americans think that
the Constitution and international law is only for the other party's folks and it's just fine for our guy to do ignore it. The Constitution should
be more important than political loyalty.

Now back to the Nader bashing to take our minds off yet another un-Constitutional action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
19. @#$% Ralph Nader.
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brianboru Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
20. TWO wars. Don't forget Yemen. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. TWO WARS....that we know about.
nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. And counting ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
27. K and R
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
28. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
29. Ralphie is right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
30. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC