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

Democrats far better than Republicans at grammar

Here’s How 72% of Fortune 500 Companies Use Congress to Avoid Paying Taxes, Sticking You With the Bill

Deadbeat Fiorina’s Shameless Self-Promotion

Yes, Obama does want to take your guns

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain

'We will cut your filthy head': Child ISIS jihadi taunts 'Dog of Rome' Obama to submit to the 'Caliphate' or die in direct video threat

EXCLUSIVE: 'My story about the collision is getting better all the time. Now I've got a Jew and a n****r...' How John F. Kennedy revealed his father exploited the PT 109 incident to make his son a hero and pave the road to the White House

Desperate Fox Punditry, and Establishment GOPe Advocates, Jump Shark on Trump

The Gog Of Turkey “Erdogan” Threatens The Crusader Of Russia “Putin” (The Tension Between Russia And Turkey Is Escalating)

Denmark moves toward nationalism in face of migrant crisis [Danish Nazi rampage]

Hmmm… some people seem pretty upset that The Donald isn’t spending all his money

Connecticut firm backed up Clinton’s server, might still have personal emails

Matt Drudge Visits the Alex Jones Show: Full Interview

‘Neutralizing’ John Lennon: One Man Against the ‘Monster’

Dashcam Refutes Cop’s Story of “Fearing for His Life,” Shows Him Taser Man for Parking Ticket

Woman Called 9-1-1 to Report Stolen Wallet, Crazed Cop Showed Up and Beat Her Unconscious

U Penn Professor Calls Ben Carson ‘Coon of the Year’ on Twitter


The Great Replacement: The 1965 Immigration Act And The Think Tanks

Thanks, Ted–Pre-1965 America Really NEEDED That

Clinton Calls for “Open Borders to All”–Bill Clinton’s September 10, 2001 Australia Speech

Asylees in Germany Expected to Bring in 4 to 8 Family Members

America’s Senator Jeff Sessions Says Stop to Mega Immigration-Population Growth

Bernie Sanders Explains Social Security

Trump campaign trolls Rubio with bottled water delivery

Minnesota Tries Expensive Social Programs to Cool Jihad Ardor among Somali Immigrants

Marijuana is Bringing in Record Tax Cash for Colorado

"We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer" And?

Conservative Values

Five things to know about House speaker hopeful Jason Chaffetz

Lawsuit: Pork roll company fired employee for farting


No votes cast in small-town Iowa school board race

The Shocking Reality: This Chart Shows Just How Bad Unemployment Is Today Compared to The Great Depression

Instead of “What would Jesus do?” how about

Valencia Woman Files Suit Alleging She Was Punched By Police In Front Of Her Kids


War Party Targets Putin and Assad

Putin has sent the feared Spetsnaz special forces into Syria to bail out Assad

Boy, 11, Reportedly Shoots Dead 8-Year-Old Neighbor After She Said He Couldn't See Her Puppy

Gay Priest Tries to Bully Church into Approving Homosexual Relations

Number One with a Bullet

McCarthy v. Chaffetz on Immigration

Dunkin’ Donuts employee writes ‘#blacklivesmatter’ on Providence police officer’s cup

White Americans are the biggest terror threat in the United States

Letter: Put all gun owners in a well-regulated militia

Rise of the ROBOSEXUALS: Humans will have virtual reality sex by 2030

Woman who sat in McDonald’s for 24 hours was actually dead

Anybody watch the Mrs Bubba Show on NBC this morning?

25 Things Generation Xers (and Baby Boomers) Did as Kids that Could Get Today’s Kids Arrested

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: 203

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.


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