From The Nation
The grotesque extremes to which Muammar Qaddafi
has gone to threaten the people of Libya -- and to act on those
threats -- have left the self-proclaimed "king of kings" with few defenders
in northern Africa, the Middle East or the international community.
Even among frequent critics of US interventions abroad, there is
disgust with Qaddafi, and with the palpable disdain he has expressed for
the legitimate aspirations of his own people.
So it is that the advocacy for military intervention has spread far beyond the usual circle of neoconservative hawks.
The circumstance is made easier by the fact that the bombing of Libya
by US and allied planes is being carried out under the auspices of the
United Nations. And with his words and his initial reluctance with
regard to taking military action, President Obama has seemed to avoid
many of the excesses of his predecessors.
Yet, now the headline on CNN reads "Libya War."
And anyone who takes the Constitution seriously should have a problem
with the fact that, once again, the United States is involved in a war
that has neither been debated nor declared by the Congress of the United
States.
The penchant of presidents of embark upon military adventures without
consulting Congress is now so pronounced that it is barely noted
anymore that the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to"declare War."
Click Here to Read Whole Article
Unless the United States is immediately threatened, presidents aren't supposed to declare wars or launch them on their own.
Of all the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution, none is more significant than the power to declare war.
Yet, since World War II, presidents have launched attacks,
interventions and wars without declarations. And now that has happened
again.
There are plenty of explanations for why this happens. Treaties that require to bind the United States to the United Nations. The War Powers Act. The general sense that members of Congress would prefer to let presidents call the shots.
But the Constitution does not establish any exit strategies for
members of the Congress. They are supposed to provide advice and
consent -- or to deny it.
Unfortunately, that just does not happen anymore.
When the United States ratified the United Nations treaty after World
War II, Henrik Shipstead and William Langer were the only senators to
cast "no" votes on the UN Charter. Other senators, California's Hiram
Johnson and Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette Jr., expressed
reservations.
What was their fear? The senators worried that, under the agreement
with the United Nations, presidents would involve US troops in wars
launched by the United Nations -- without ever consulting Congress.
Next Page 1 | 2
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written the Online Beat since 1999. His posts have been circulated internationally, quoted in numerous books and mentioned in debates on the floor of Congress.
Nichols writes about (more...)
