Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya - By Ron Paul

[Kuya]

Well, the War Powers act says he can't do what he's doing in Libya without congress's express permission (no 60-90 day stuff even), since this has nothing to do with "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

And like you've said, presidents have made a point of at times of completely disregarding this law. Whether it's stonewalling Congress or Congress delegating authority to the executive, anybody who isn't a fool can see the presidency has been ascendant.

[aurik]

The president can't pass laws, declare war, or a heap of other things reserved for the other two branches of government. So hardly ascendant.

One of the things the constitution delegates to the executive branch is exclusive control over the military.

[Plow]

What can he do?

[aurik]

Enforce the laws.
Run the military.
Veto laws where congress doesn't have an overriding majority.
Engage in foreign diplomacy.
Pardon and/or commute criminals.
Appoint federal judges (congress gets to confirm/deny)

I think that's about all of them.

[Plow]

I meant in terms of military action, sorry there got to be a bunch of replies in between there.

[Demosthenes11]

I meant in terms of military action, sorry there got to be a bunch of replies in between there.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right. Are you saying the president should have the authority to do whatever he wants with the military without the check of congress?

[aurik]

Congress has the ability to cut off funding or impeach him. And every 4 years there is the opportunity to turf out the current president. By design, they don't have very many other levers to use.

[Plow]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right. Are you saying the president should have the authority to do whatever he wants with the military without the check of congress?

Congress being unwilling to use their check is quite different from not having one.

[aurik]

When you think about it, in what universe is giving Congress the ability to control the agenda of the military anything but a terrible idea?

[Plow]

To put it in really simple terms:

Congress has the ability to say no you can't do that and actively prevent an inappropriate military action. Allowing it is different than giving permission, even expressly stated as so in the resolution we're discussing.

Vetoing is essentially meaningless in comparison (in terms of power of a branch), if congress says no you can't have the money to do that, it's not like the president can say "whatever I veto that, I'm 8 years old I do what I want."

[Plow]

When you think about it, in what universe is giving Congress the ability to control the agenda of the military anything but a terrible idea?

The one where people don't realize that Halliburton isn't getting paid by the president.

[Kuya]

The president can't pass laws, declare war, or a heap of other things reserved for the other two branches of government. So hardly ascendant.

One of the things the constitution delegates to the executive branch is exclusive control over the military.

Congress is supposed to be the strongest branch by design, but the executive has gone a long way in gaining powers.

1. Independent regulatory agencies are not supposed to be under complete control of the presidency even though they are part of the executive branch (for obvious reasons), but by executive order Ronald Reagan declared that regulations created by other federal agencies could only go into effect after they had been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the executive office of the president himself. Clinton also increased this power by using "regulaory prompts" to induce independent regulatory agencies to adopt new regulations at the direction of the president himself.

2. The signing statement, another Reagan creation, allows the president a sign a bill, but to pick and choose how he will execute a law, including how he will interpret it. The Constitution commands the president to make sure the laws are faithfully executed, but he commands plenty of discretion in deciding on what the law is and he can even keep this interpretation a secret, thereby allowing him to legislate virtually. Bush did this in 2004 when Congress attached a provision to an appropriations bill for the justice department that required him to notify Congress of the non-enforcement of laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, the president's office basically claimed that they could keep secret what laws they enforce based upon the idea that such information could impair foreign relations, national security or the deliberative process of the executive. This was done on a signing statement.

3. During the Nixon affair, the courts said that in some circumstances, the claims of executive priviledge might be valid, a claim that Dick Cheney invoked on his consultations with rerpesentatives of the energy industry claiming that executive priviledge even includes the office of the vice president.

4. The fouth circuit court of appeals held in its opinion that the president in fact have the power to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant and therefore possess the ability to cancel all rights afforded to such a person. In 2004 the supreme court affirmed such a statement by saying that the president does in fact possess the authority to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant.

5. You might have noticed that on some of these examples it looks like the courts are granting the executive power, which shouldn't really be surprising because structurally, the courts depend far more on the president than they do on the legislative branch, given that it is the president who chooses the judges.

6. Next you have executive orders which essentially allow the president to legislate and even in some instances keep his executive orders a secret. Bush showed how strong such an order can be when in 2001 he issued his first National Security Directive which declared that national security is to include the defense of the nation's economic prosperity, the result of this was that Bush, via executive order, then reduced regulatory restrictions on energy companies adn prohibited federal agencie from requiring union work crews on government-financed projects.

7. Even the supposedly constitutional prerogative of the Senate to ratify treaties has been subverted by "executive agreements" which allow the president to in effect make treaties with other countries without the involvement of the Senate. Bush did as much when he declared that the US was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which the Senate ratified in 1972, thus he did so unilaterally. He even agreed with Putin to reduce their respective nuclear arsenals with no involvement of the senate whatsoever.

So fogive me, but the presidency has in fact gained a lot of power.

I already got into the war making argument with you, complete control over the military is not something the president has. Congress can regulate the armed forces, and they can declare war, unfortunately, even though Congress hasn't declared war since 1941, the US has had several.

[Plow]

A hardcore neocon might suggest that the only power granted congress is that of the decision to enter "total war" whereby the entire country's objective is shifted.


A sensible person would only have to point out though that everything you're claiming as executive power is entirely controlled by congress's funding, or lack thereof.

[Rhinox]

Obama supporters are trying so hard now.

[Plow]

and/or willingness to do shit about it, I should add I suppose

[Kuya]

A hardcore neocon might suggest that the only power granted congress is that of the decision to enter "total war" whereby the entire country's objective is shifted.


A sensible person would only have to point out though that everything you're claiming as executive power is entirely controlled by congress's funding, or lack thereof.

According to Robert Turner, congress's authority to decalre war is vestigial, since according to him, war in this case means total war which is illegal to declare.

Your second sentence made no sense, since my post is not saying that Congressional acquiesence has nothing to do with an increase in power for the presidency. It is simply saying that the presidency's power has increased.

[Kaslo]

Basically Kuya is arguing from the position that

1) the involvement in Libya is definitely subject to the War Powers Act and
2) the War Powers Act is a binding, constitutional law

Since both of those are debatable points, any conclusion he comes to is inherently also debatable. Can't build a solid argument on a shaky foundation.

SHIT IS SITUATIONAL!

[Kaslo]

I just don't think that's true Kuya.

No president has challenged it in court, yes, but they haven't had to either since many have ignored the fuck out of it without repercussion.

This is why it hasn't been "challenged": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

[Plow]

Your second sentence made no sense, since my post is not saying that Congressional acquiesence has nothing to do with an increase in power for the presidency. It is simply saying that the presidency's power has increased.

It's not an increase in constitutional power to have congress agree with you, even if they try to do it on the dl.

[Kuya]

It's not an increase in constitutional power to have congress agree with you, even if they try to do it on the dl.