Diary

Obama's Unconstitutional AUMF Makes Congress Commander In Chief

constitution-fire

I am not a constitutional lawyer or former professor of constitutional law.  Barack Hussein Obama claims both titles, although his competency in either position is questionable.  Last week, fellow RedStater Streiff wrote about President Obama’s AUMF:

What Obama is doing is asking Congress to withdraw his current authority under the AUMF. This clearly covers ISIS and Obama says so in his letter:

“Although existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions,”

Why would he do this? Because he doesn’t want to fight ISIS for reasons only known to him and the mouthbreathers who are directing our national security at the moment. By framing the AUMF as a limited action he will be able to blame Congress… and the GOP… for his lack of accomplishment.

Not only is the AUMF an attempt to blame Congress when “Strategic Patience” America the Doormat national policy fails, but it’s also unconstitutional on its face.  Over at National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy is a constitutional lawyer with more actual accomplishments to his name by 1995 while Obama was smoking pot with Bill Ayers than Obama has in his whole career.  McCarthy wrote:

In our constitutional system, therefore, Congress is not permitted to command the armed forces. It has no more power to direct the president to deploy or not deploy ground forces than it does to tell the president to “take that hill” or capture this enemy combatant.

The president cannot pass his executive responsibility as Commander In Chief to Congress.  The Constitution does not permit it.  But the AUMF that Obama proposed does exactly that.  By asking for an authorization that prohibits the use of ground forces to fight a specific threat, President Obama has crossed a constitutional boundary which he has no authority to cross.  More from McCarthy:

There is more here, though, than meets the eye. The president aims to establish the precedent that Congress may curtail the commander-in-chief’s use of force. Obama is not going away when he leaves office; he will very publicly assume leadership of the transnational Left. From that perch, he will urge the exploitation of that precedent by like-minded Democrats and Republicans (from both the progressive-lite and anti-government extremist camps). Before long, Congress would not content itself with mere combat restrictions. There would be efforts to rewrite the laws of war — e.g., limiting the president to the Left’s distorted notion of proportional uses of force. There would be a push to make prosecution in the civilian justice system, rather than indefinite detention and interrogation, the standard process for captured enemy terrorists.

Congress has no authority to declare war on terrorists, only nations.  It’s the president’s job to “fight the ship of state” against our enemies.

There are only two possibilities here:  either Obama and his legal advisers are the worst constitutional lawyers in history, with less understanding of the separation of powers and executive authority than a pass-on-the-third try bar candidate; or, they perfectly well know what they are doing.

They know perfectly well what they are doing.  And they could care less if they dismantle America in the process.  To the progressive left, the law is a human institution, and it’s totally subservient to their own goals.

Congress should not take this poison bait.  Some of our representatives and senators get it.  Let’s make sure they all do.