Obama Goes Shopping For Legal Advice

The NY Times reports that on the question of Libya and the War Powers Act Obama threw the normal process for gathering legal advice overboard and went shopping for opinions that met his requirements:

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

...

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

So the OLC and the Pentagon came up with the wrong answer, but Hillary delivered at State, so it was all good for Barack.

Jack Goldsmith, who headed the OLC under Bush, has more thoughts on the surprise from State at his blog:

It is interesting and unusual enough that President Obama, of all people, would take an aggressive view of his war authorities and interpret the WPR very narrowly.  But the lawyers he relied on to reach this conclusion make the situation even more interesting and unusual.  I discount the legal input of the White House Counsel; Bob Bauer is a smart man but neither he nor his office is expert in war powers or situated to offer thorough legal advice on the issue.  Legal Advisor Harold Koh, by contrast, spent his entire academic career studying andwriting about presidential war powers, including the WPR.  Based on this academic record, one would not have expected Koh to push an unusually narrow interpretation of the WPR.  Nor would one have expected him to have supported the original constitutional justification for unilateral presidential intervention in Libya.  To get a flavor of what one might have expected, consider what Koh’s former colleague Bruce Ackerman said in support of his nomination to lead State-L:

This is the real importance of the Koh nomination.  President Obama has selected one of the few lawyers who probed deeply into the constitutional implications of presidential unilateralism and how it might be controlled.  Koh would be taking his position as legal adviser at one of the rare moments when it might be politically possible to consider a National Security Charter that aims to restore an effective system of checks and balances.

This is not how things have worked out.  One wonders why.  One possibility is that Koh has a client, the Secretary of State, who is committed to the Libya intervention, and he is serving his client faithfully.  Another possibility is that Koh’s commitments to humanitarian intervention and the “responsibility to protect” outweigh his commitment to his academic vision of presidential war powers.  I certainly do not believe that Koh’s academic views should control his advice and judgment during his government service.  Nor do I think that his academic writings addressed the precise issue under the WPR that he is now advocating in the government.  But for a quarter century before heading up State-L, Koh was the leading and most vocal academic critic of presidential unilateralism in war, and a tireless advocate for institutional cooperation between the political branches in war decisions.  I am thus genuinely surprised, as many people are, by his current stance.

Well, a lot of positions advocated during the reign of BushCo have unexpectedly been put aside now that a Democrat is in the Whte House.

 

 

Comments

[Tom Veal]

Notice how the NYT slips in "Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer", as if the President's brief, undistinguished academic career gave him expertise on these issues.

Did it ever say, in stories on economic issues, "Mr. Bush, who earned an MBA from Harvard"?

[Jane]

Between this latest episode in the kingdom of the Messiah, and Eric holder's lovely ATF scandal, we are going to be very busy.

BTW my tea party co-founder addresses tea party trolls here.

[Cecil Turner]

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

Oh, that's nice. And here I was all confused thinking that when we decided as a nation to go to war, Congress was supposed to be making the decision.

Well, a lot of positions advocated during the reign of BushCo have unexpectedly been put aside now that a Democrat is in the Whte House.

As a process, this is far worse than the supposed misleading that Bush used to mind-meld senior Democrats (e.g., Hilary!) into voting for the Iraq war. Here the Executive usurped the authority completely, without even a nod to Congress. The only possible defense is that it isn't "war" . . . which is becoming an increasingly ludicrous argument. But from the vast majority of the lefty hand-wringers who saw the Iraq war vote as unmitigated evil, we hear . . . nothing. Don't know what their earlier position was based on, but it sure doesn't appear to be principle.

[Clarice]

I've been in D.C. for decades and it is my experience here that there is no whore like an academic whore.

If you want an honest person don't pick someone whose whole life was spent trying to get an "A" from his teachers.

[narciso]

Well, yes, Clarice, then again Koh was stuck on stupid, from his previous position, but these are the same people, who say with a straight face that the Iraq War is 'illegal'
while supporting a campaign, directed in parted by AQ veterans like Hasadi, and that
'innocent' shepherd, Yumu.

[centralcal]

Good morning. Glad to see you are posting under your own name, JOMer! I read the post at YouToo - glad to see your Tea Party group is staying politely on offense, rather than succumbing to being on defense - which is the position that gal wants to push you into.

[centralcal]

What about the "teachers" themselves, Clarice? Aren't they also in the "academic whore" category? From Politico today:

A handful of aides to President Barack Obama are trading their White House credentials for a life of textbooks and exams at their boss’s alma mater, Harvard Law School.

About a half-dozen staffers will begin at the premier law school this fall, bringing a rare skill set, a golden Rolodex and tales of the corridors of power to Harvard Yard. The exodus of the younger White House staffers marks the first major departure of junior aides in the Obama administration.

[Jane]

Centralcal,

You are so right. I am so much more comfortable on offense.

[Gmax]

-20 and 45 / 55 in RAS this am. I wanted to brighten DoT's day on a balmy morning here in Dallas. 103 is the forecast, but a tad cooler at the bottom of the swimming pool.

[narciso]

Ah, Ackerman, he does like the proverbial 'blind squirrel' does find the nut, (re the
Elian case) but generally speaking, he is utterly useless. So the folks who drafted
the health care law, the stimulus, and other
projects, will misinform a new generation,
I'd say 'mission accomplished'

[Ignatz]

When Barry's response first came out Hugh Hewitt was wondering on the radio why the State Department's Koh was setting forth the absurd legal arguments rather than DOJ or the WH counsel's office. He suspected, correctly it turns out, that even as partisan a group as they are would not put their names on such a bizarre claim. Takes a true believer like Koh to sign off on something as stupid as this.
What does it say about the hubris and stupidity of this idiot president that not even as mentally and ethically challenged a cretin as Holder would carry his water on this joke of a policy?
I think it's worth reiterating something else Hewitt said; Barry continually and arrogantly takes the worst possible course. He will not challenge the Constitutionality of a law he disagrees with in a principled manner but neither will he comply with the law he disagrees with. He simply announces, like Humpty Dumpty, that when he uses a law it means just what he chooses it to mean, neither more nor less.

[Danube of Thought]

Thanks Gmax--you sure did brighten it.

In L.A. overnight for a party. Here in Mandeville Canyon it's 63 at the moment.

[Gmax]

Jane

With all due respect to your co founder, he better lose that pollyanna outlook, roll up his sleeves and prepare for battle. This coming election is going to be as dirty a contest as you have ever seen, as the left's constituencies realize they are seriously in danger of losing all semblances of power. Since they must defend the indefensible, it will be all about attacking and smearing the opponent, And the Tea Party will be a whipping boy who will do just fine in a pinch.

[Ignatz]

--a rare skill set, a golden Rolodex and tales of the corridors of power to Harvard Yard--

Yeah, God knows there's a real shortage of lamebrained, former DC staffers rattling aimlessly around on their sinecures in the musty, storied halls of the Ivy League.

It's not improbable that they are the genesis of the old saw about swinging a dead cat.

[Donald Douglas]

Linked, with John Yoo's commentary on WPA, 'Presidential War Powers'.

[Cecil Turner]

I liked these responses on the "hostilities" question:

"We have got drone attacks under way, we're spending $10 million a day," Boehner told reporters. "We're part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi's compound. It doesn't pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities."

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed at the notion.

"Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me," Webb said in an interview.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., called the claims "really totally bizarre." Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said telling Congress and Americans "that this is not a war insults our intelligence. I won't stand for it and neither will my constituents."

And I still think Webb's kinda useless, but I'd have to except him from the principle observation above (at least on this issue).

[Specter]

"...but these are the same people, who say with a straight face that the Iraq War is 'illegal' while supporting a campaign..."

Unfortunately, that is the nature of politicians. Especially DemoNcrats.

BTW - good mornin' all. I've bee scarce here due to a project that takes me away for longgg hours. No end in sight. But - Next week I get to go visit my son down at Fort Campbell - he's in the middle of his 30 day leave/decompression after a rough deployment.

[narciso]

Actually, Don Surber focuses on the relevant part of Goldsmith's analysis, and no I haven't
forgotten the shiv he put to W:

The Administration argues that its operation is legitimated and limited by the U.N. Security Council Resolution. It does not really explain why it thinks this. But in any event, the “no danger to troops” theory, combined with the heavy reliance on the Security Council Resolution, suggest that the Administration is creating a principle of unilateral presidential war power for U.N.-sponsored interventions from a distance. In practice, this principle will likely favor humanitarian over national security interventions, since the U.N. is more likely to authorize a purely humanitarian intervention than one that has a more obvious U.S. national security interest. So the ambition of the Obama legal theory – or at least its effect – is to carve out a place for presidential war unilateralism for U.N.-sponsored humanitarian wars but not (for lack of a better phrase) national security wars

[Specter]

I wonder when Ears will give back his Nobel Peace Prize?

[Chubby]

((Don't know what their earlier position was based on, but it sure doesn't appear to be principle.))

To thinkers of that ilk, principle is merely a detestable and mockable value of the bourgeoisie.

Their unprincipled and totally dishonest positions during Bush's tenure, overtly confirmed since Obama has been in office, was based on the shifting sands of political expediency, which they believe is extremely clever, but will fail them in the long run.

[Chubby]

"were based"

[Clarice]

It's not WAR , it's, well, like WAR GAMES. You sit at a desk in front of computer--if the UN says you should--and drop stuff,

I got it.

[Danube of Thought]

"Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer."

He sure got to be a "constitutional lawyer" the easy way: lecturer in a couse on the Equal Protection clause. Nothing published. Never litigated a cas involving a constitutional issue (or anything else).

[anduril]

Some people--like Ted Haggerty (WTF is he? I wasn't interested enough to google him)--always want to cry 'whore!'

And speaking of law, Andy McCarthy has a pretty good article about Sharia law: Romney’s Religion Problem--Sharia is not about private faith, but public institutions. It's all about the GOPer debate, and the religion question that was addressed to Herman Cain. McCarthy rightly notes that Cain's response was "game albeit wandering," and so moves on to contrast Romney's and Gingrich's positions:

Mitt Romney is said to be the early frontrunner in the GOP presidential sweepstakes. One rival, Newt Gingrich, is perceived as floundering in a swirl of unforced errors and staff insurrection. Yet when it comes to Islam, which will continue to matter mightily in the next administration, the frontrunner could learn a thing or two from the flounderer. The issue is not religion. It is the seditious Islamist political program.

Romney, says McCarthy--correctly--"exhibited a disturbing detachment from reality on the ground":

The late-breaking news for the man who would be America’s next president is that we already have sharia law being applied in U.S. courts. ... The fact is that sharia-based claims are now routinely posed in American legal cases and, increasingly, entertained by courts.

McCarthy then goes on to offer some documentation about the extent of this problem--for problem it is for the American constitutional order. And, he helpfully presents four key points re Sharia law, which I've edited. In these points McCarthy deconstructs Romney's shallow understanding of the Islamist threat--not to say, of the American constitution that he hopes to swear to uphold:

There are four salient points about Islamist ideology, and whoever would be our next president would do well to master them. First, it is not a fringe movement. It is mainstream Islam, the Islam that is propagated in American mosques, just as it is propagated in foreign capitals from northern Africa to eastern Asia...

Second, while religion is what makes sharia binding, the substance of sharia is not primarily, or even mostly, about spiritual life. It governs matters that, in the West, are considered secular concerns: civil and criminal law, economics and finance, the use of force, privacy, sexual preferences, social interaction between men and women, etc. Consequently, when a politician insists that American principles of religious liberty forbid us from inquiring into a Muslim’s beliefs, he is not just insulating spiritual principles; he is removing from scrutiny a plethora of matters that are not controlled by religion in pluralistic societies.

Third, a defining principle of sharia to which this mainstream interpretation of Islam adheres is that there can be no separation of mosque and state — of religious doctrine and civil society...

Fourth, the divergence between sharia and American constitutional law is fundamental and unbridgeable...

This widely accepted interpretation of sharia rejects the foundational principle of American law, that we are free to govern ourselves as we choose, irrespective of any religious code. Sharia rejects freedom of conscience ... freedom of speech ... equality under the law ... Western notions of privacy ... the protection of private property ... and economic liberty ... Moreover, sharia encourages both the use of violence ... and lying...

Sadly, McCarthy lacks the courage to point out the simple and obvious solution to this threat. Sharia law follows where Islam goes--which is to say, where Muslims go. If we don't allow Muslims to immigrate to the US--and resolutely uphold the American Constitutional order--Sharia will cease to be a threat to our body politic. Simple and constitutional.

[Specter]

I agree Chubby. But the problem with all of this is that the sheep (read: voters) don't seem to remember the past - people forget what they were listening to and backing two weeks after it passes out of the MSM. Then when it comes time to vote, instead of remembering, researching issues, and all the things that need to be done, they walk in and pull the lever they always pull. Until the electorate wakes up, none of this will change.

[narciso]

Here is the post I was referring to:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/36096

But their ethics are situational, when drones were used sparingly, saying against Hamza Rabia, they called 'air raiding villages' and once in often, pulled the 'Full Dresden'

[anduril]

Ultimately, I think the American people SHOULD have something to say about this War Powers stuff. The problem with these wars of choice--whether supported by UN resolutions or not--is simply this: they tend to happen in far away places and the impact of what's going on doesn't get back to the public for years. Americans have got to used to thinking that all this is someone else's problem because our military is almighty. It's not, nor are our finances. Hopefully this attitude is changing--not fast enough for me.

[anduril]

the sheep (read: voters) don't seem to remember the past

Not necessarily so. But the issue has to be something that grabs their attention. I quoted the WSJ poll from just the other day that shows that voters still remember who got us into this economic mess: Bushie, not Obama. Doesn't mean they think Obama's competent to continue handling the economy--he's obviously not--but it's very important to remember who got you in the mess.

The problem with foreign policy is that voters don't really pay that much attention to it. They've come to assume since the Cold War that it'll all get sorted out OK and doesn't really affect them.

[Jane]

GMax,

You should say that over at You Too.

[anduril]

As for UN resolutions, Congress can easily trump them with their power over the purse strings. It just takes a bit of resolve.

[Chubby]

((Until the electorate wakes up, none of this will change.))

unfortunately true, but some at least have have woken up to the Obama as savior con.

[narciso]

So, the point is, it's not simple incompetence, although that fits in the Venn
diagram, as well, but a particular vision of American policy, the kind exhibited by Mort Halperin, all the way back, when he was offering the VietCong, coalition status, in Vietnam, while our troops bled for every advantage, Once ousted, he sought to vilify the entire intelligence and national security structure, his support of Agee's crusade, who was already suspected of being a DGI asset, fits into this notion,

[Chubby]

((So, the point is, it's not simple incompetence, ...)

exactly

[rpg]

Don't we have a perennial presence in the geography of the Gulf for security reasons?

The 22nd MEU with 2 amphibious assault ships just replaced the 26th which was there before the Libya uprising. There are 2000 marines on each ship, and that's the point; ON THE SHIP. No boots on the ground.

NATO forces are conducting the hostile acts. Yes the TOPOs are directing the drones from the ship, but out of harms way.

[narciso]

The whole Plame attack, fits the same pattern,
while ongoing operations, like rendition flights, CIA secret prisons, the entire catalog of top secret operation, were being
leaked, we were told to focus on one albeit photogenic twice burned former operative, with
connections to the previous administration, by persons who have never care a whit about
intelligence operations.

[Rick Ballard]

The President rolled the dice. Had Operation Kill Daffy worked as well as Operation Kill Binny he would be basking in a longer period of adulation. Daffy is both smarter and tougher than Binny so now the President has a tar baby that he can't quite toss away yet. He will though, and he'll give himself a B+ for the effort.

The UN is particularly interested in Libya because it offers the opportunity to establish a festering sore (vide West Bank, Gaza) which would be self funding. The UN rape and pillage brigades have never had the opportunity to plunder such a rich target and the R2P nonsense provides excellent cover.

[rpg]

The WPA was vetoed by Nixon, who was next overridden. It was drafted, primarily because of the undeclared war in VN. But another wrong-headed war, begun by Nixon has an anniversary.

Jeralyn Merritt;

"Today is the 40th anniversary of America's War on Drugs. On June 17, 1971, then-President Richard Milhouse Nixon officially declared drug abuse as the nation's Public Enemy Number One. Here's his address to the country on June 17, 1971.

America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.

I have asked the Congress to provide the legislative authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive. This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.

What an utter failure, just like Nixon."

[Ranger]

NATO forces are conducting the hostile acts. Yes the TOPOs are directing the drones from the ship, but out of harms way.

Posted by: rpg | June 18, 2011 at 10:38 AM

I'm sure the UN and the Palestinians will be happy to learn that all those long range missle attacks and F-16 bombing missions the IAF have been doing for years aren't hostile, since there is no chance the pilot will get shot down. Who knew that pilot safty was the defining factor in determining the hostility of an action?

[anduril]

For anyone who missed the now viral none-of-your-business Christie video. This is the guy I wanna vote for, and if he doesn't run but I'm left with a choice between Romney and some goofball fundamentalist, I'll write Christie in.

[Soylent Red]

NATO forces are conducting the hostile acts. Yes the TOPOs are directing the drones from the ship, but out of harms way.

I just heard on MSNBC that the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is sitting in Chesapeake Bay. They are operating unmanned drones over Washington DC and launching Kh-55s at government buildings.

But it's cool. It's not an act of hostility. No boots on the ground you see. I know that because a constitutional lawyer told me so.

==

Between this latest episode in the kingdom of the Messiah, and Eric holder's lovely ATF scandal, we are going to be very busy.

Just when I thought it would be impossible to find someone more intellectually lazy, corrupt, and foolish than Eric Holder, I found someone even worse.

Unfortunately it's Holder's boss.

[rpg]

I believe the 40 year-long WOD has troops on the ground being killed (Mexico) and is UNDECLARED.

Why isn't someone suing Congress for failing to
address this most stupid of wars.

Just as prohibition created a huge cash cow for organized crime to fund sham businesses as fronts for illegal activity, so too, the WOD has created proxy governments of crime which operate in much the same way.

[Gmax]

The UN rape and pillage brigades have never had the opportunity to plunder such a rich target

Au contraire Rick ( with whom I rarely disagree ) you have obviously forgot the Oil for Food boondoogle gravy train humanitarian mission. There having been pining away for the good ole days for surely though.

[boris]

JFK involved the US in VN. LBJ expanded it to a full size clusterfuck. Nixon actually had the damn thing won but given the opportunity to excercise their one main principle (Cecil asked about) they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. *** So that no Republican administration shall derive political benefit from any successful excercise of military force. *** Sends the wrong message don't you see and encourages war monger Republicans to seek such incidents for political advantage.

[rpg]

"Who knew that pilot safty was the defining factor in determining the hostility of an action?"

I think that's the point; legal interpretations.

I'm sure you would be more supportive of a Republican POTUS.

[Ignatz]

-- There are 2000 marines on each ship, and that's the point; ON THE SHIP. No boots on the ground.

NATO forces are conducting the hostile acts. Yes the TOPOs are directing the drones from the ship, but out of harms way.--

Excellent point, rpg. Seems to me if NATO requested we launch an unprovoked, overwhelming and successful nuclear first strike on Russia and China, despite several hundred million dead, Barry and his sycophants could persuasively and dispositively argue that because we hadn't actually placed any feet on foreign soil and hey, it was at the request of NATO after all, there really hadn't even been a war of any kind, let alone a kinetic fusion event.

[anduril]

Walter Russell Mead's latest: Can This Presidency Be Saved?

Here's kinda the gist of it:

The problem is only partly that the President’s policies don’t appear to be working. Presidents fail to be re-elected less because their policies aren’t working than because they have lost control of the narrative. FDR failed to end the Depression during two terms in office but kept the country’s confidence through it all. Richard Nixon hadn’t ended the Vietnam War in 1972 and George W. Bush hadn’t triumphed in what we still knew as the Global War on Terror in 2004. In all these cases, however, the presidents convinced voters that they understood the problem, that they were working on it, and that their opponents were clueless throwbacks who would only make things worse.

President Obama still has a shot at convincing voters that the GOP would make things worse, but his administration has not just lost control over the direction of the economy. It has lost control of the discussion about the economy.

Why did the stimulus fail? What did the President learn from this failure and what will the President try next? The White House has been so busy bobbing and weaving it has not communicated a simple, clear story about what went wrong and what happens next.

Nobody at this point really knows what the President stands for – at home or abroad. He is not George W. Bush and he is not Bill Clinton, but who is he and where is he taking us? He seems bogged down in the minutiae of policies – most of which don’t seem to be working very well.

[Soylent Red]

I believe the 40 year-long WOD has troops on the ground being killed (Mexico) and is UNDECLARED.

We have TROOPS in Mexico? On the ground? On their side of the border? Wow.

Well, I knew about Federal law enforcement in Mexico, and perhaps there is some civilian intelligence collection going on down there, but this latest from rpg is a real revelation. I wonder if Mexico knows about this.

At any rate, Barack Obama must surely know about this. Why hasn't something been done? What did he know and when did he know it? This is clearly an undeclared war. So undeclared, in fact, I didn't even know about it, had never heard of it.

You're absolutely right rpg. Congress should do something about it. Since we can't go after Nixon, who started the 40 year undeclared war in Mexico, let's write our Representatives right away and push them toward impeachment of the current criminal President who continues to wage it.

IMPEACH!11!!1!11!!!

[anduril]

Ah, I forgot to add this sentence, which captures well the essentially Bushie Redux nature of this presidency:

The economy is not getting well; geopolitically, the US keeps adding new countries to the bomb list, but the President has fallen strangely silent about the five wars he is fighting (Iraq, Afghanistan, tribal Pakistan, Libya and now Yemen).

[rpg]

Mead is a liberal, Obama a centrist.

Neither left nor right like centrists.

[boris]

"sure you would be more supportive of a Republican"

The Borland amendment was far less "constitutional" than the WPA yet Reagan was excoriated by the dimorats and left for sidestepping the letter to bypass the intent.

So okay, let's be cynical. We get to act just as outraged for Obama doing something far worse.

[Soylent Red]

so now the President has a tar baby

Racist!

[rpg]

"We have TROOPS in Mexico?"

Have you been following the Gunrunner dustup?

[Threadkiller]

--"After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision."--
Just like his "natural born citizen" decision.

I have not had a chance to read the links. Does anyone agree with Tom McClintock's claim that the 60-day clock never started? I think that is a more crucial legal question.

He is adamant:
.

”M. Speaker: Lets be clear: without prior Congressional authorization, under the War Powers Act, the President may only commit armed forces to hostilities for sixty days if there is a direct attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces.

There was none, so there is no sixty day clock and the President’s unprovoked attack on Libya – from Day One – constituted an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance.

If the President felt there was moral justification to attack Libya, he was constitutionally required to make his case to Congress and get its authorization. He did not.

More here.

Please share your thoughts. I will be back later and I am really interested in the legal opinion of JoM. Thanks!

[boris]

"Obama a centrist ..."

Who perfectly expressed the leftist princple by saying on camera he would vote against the surge again even knowing it would succeed because it was more important to thwart GWB than win in Iraq.

The principle ... *** that no Republican administration shall derive political benefit from any successful excercise of military force. ***

[Ignatz]

Mark Steyn's latest on the faux Syrian lesbian blogger.

Since "she" turned out to be a fat white western guy, would it be safe to assume our resident fat, white, western trolls are really svelte, Middle Eastern lesbians?

[peter]

You aren't even voting.

[Soylent Red]

Have you been following the Gunrunner dustup?

Sure have, slugger. All I've read about is BATF and Justice Department.

Haven't seen anything about "U.S. troops" though, or in fact anyone from DoD (the department in question when it comes to the War Powers Act) in Mexico. Could you provide the link on the please (you seem so much more informed than I am)?

[peter]

I've been in D.C. for decades and it is my experience here that there is no whore like an academic whore.

If you want an honest person don't pick someone whose whole life was spent trying to get an "A" from his teachers.

Clarice, this is why I love you.

[rpg]

Well, Red, since you want to be a smartass, let's part as friends.

GFY

[Soylent Red]

"Obama a centrist ..."

Raising the capital gains tax, even though it would reduce government tax revenue, all in the interest of proving a point on fairness?

Centrist.

[Why, it's the pineapple upside down presidency.]

The Founders were clear. The reason that they gave the Power to Declare War to the Legislature, and the Power to Make War to the Executive is that it is a Hell of a lot easier to get into a war than to get out of one.

Our Constitutional Law Professor President is getting an education. He got into this war by unilateral executive action; it now appears that we'll get out of it by unified legislative action.
==================

[bgates]

Obama a centrist

Midway between Marx and Lenin.

I love the headline "2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate". It's not that he ignored their advice, like Bush did with his generals (remember when Presidents were supposed to listen to, never mind consult with, uniformed military before embarking on kinetic unfriending?). There was apparently a debate on the merits, which Obama objectively won.

They take something which would be an endlessly repeated justification for impeachment if a Republican had done it, and turn it into an accomplishment: he went up against top lawyers and beat them at their own game. What a guy.

[MarkO]

To the same degree that Obama is a Constitutional lawyer (whatever that is), I am a concert clarinetist.

This episode lends itself to wonderful advantage, were we to have any candidates except Trump who were not afraid to appear to be combative. Something like this would please me. “Despite the killing, the bombing, and the use of drones, the President sees no war in Libya. It is exactly this lack of understanding and judgment that has worsened the economy, destroyed jobs, imposed the unworkable Obamacare and cost us nearly every advantage the USA ever had in the World."

[rpg]

According to Forbes, and its new list of the world's top ten wanted fugitives, Pablo Escobar can roll over in his grave. The DEA says He's been surpassed by El Chapo, Joaquin Guzman, as the biggest drug lord ever.

Not only that, El Chapo is Number One on the list, surpassing even al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri..

It's interesting that the U.S. considers a drug trafficker to be more dangerous than the leader of a terrorist group whose goal is to bring down America through violent means.

[Threadkiller]

McClintock speaks at the Cato Institute re Libya and the Constitution (video)

He includes a history lesson, quotes from the WPA, and takes down all of Obama's previous arguments. Good stuff but, is he right?

[narciso]

Nixon hatred, ah that's so 1972, now if you're going to point to drug prohibitionism
in practice, go back 80 some years, to Anslinger BNDD, which is the predecessor to the DEA, and third cousin to the CIA. or next year will mark the 100th year of the Harrison
Act, but that's politically inconvenient, in so far as it points to the noxious nature of progressivism,

[Soylent Red]

Well, Red, since you want to be a smartass, let's part as friends.

No, seriously. I'd love to see where you get your information. I mean you seem very passionate about what you are saying, so you must be getting the information that drives that passion from somewhere.

And that bit about the undeclared war in Mexico. F*cking brilliant angle on impeaching Obama, I have to say. Just imagine the lefties heads exploding over Obama getting impeached for prosecuting NIXON'S illegal and undeclared war. Priceless. I just need to get the dish on what's going on down there so I can write my Congressmen immediately.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll give you a couple of days head start on writing your letter, so that you and your Congressmen can take credit for coming up with it. It really is that brilliant, and I don't want to steal your thunder.

Well...this has been fun. That's why I love JOM so much. Always something to learn here and new friends to make.

Just wait until you all see me and my BFF RPG on the front page of the WaPo as the architects of the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama. We promise to remember you little people! ;)

[rpg]

"No, seriously"

GFY

[Rick Ballard]

Gmax,

I don't believe we actually disagree. I would place OFF up towards the top wrt UN Rape and Pillage actions (with Kofi Annan, backed by Maurice Strong, as exemplary brigade commanders). The President's attempt to define war as peace is entirely consistent with the UN's primary objective - the slaughter of the innocent through whatever means come to hand. The total numbers killed just through abortion and denial of DDT place the UN well up in the Mass Murderer's Sweepstakes.

[rpg]

"ou're going to point to drug prohibitionism
in practice, go back 80 some years, to Anslinger BNDD, which is the predecessor to the DEA, and third cousin to the CIA. or next year will mark the 100th year of the Harrison
Act, but that's politically inconvenient, in so far as it points to the noxious nature of progressivism,"

Oh, I'm sorry. The point was not Nixon, but the whole bag of stupid, including the stupid before he took office as well as after.

But you go ahead and nurture your defense mechanisms.

[Soylent Red]

GFY

Good for you, too! I'm so glad we could become friends, and I look forward to reading more of your comments, and possibly subscribing to your newsletter.

[narciso]

LOL, Soylent, it's not only amazing their level of ignorance, but their pride in the
'absolute certitude' of it. Now there apparently was some use in keeping Dawn Johnson out of the OLC, she was the one who compared Gonzalez and Yoo, to mob consiglieri, for daring to pick on those 'innocent shepherds'but she would have done a decent impression of Tom Hagen, You would think that anything so hare brained Holder wouldn't sign on to it, would be a 'Danger
Will Robinson' moment, but you would be wrong.

[Ignatz]

--GFY--

Uh oh. I think Soylent's been unfriended.

[Bush is Obama without curiosity]

"The total numbers killed just through abortion and denial of DDT place the UN well up in the Mass Murderer's Sweepstakes."

You reek of lefty compassion, Marmalard,

[boris]

"GFY"

Thin skinned for a troll.

Serving in the US military does seem to enhance the ability to smart ass I'd say. Soylent Red, DoT, Cecil all seem a cut above the norm in that regard. Of course PUK had it in spades but did not serve, although until corrected by him I was sure he had.

[rpg]

"it's not only amazing their level of ignorance,"

So much knowledge and info with this one, but the ability to see the big picture, but the sagacity which should attend, is absent.

An educated nothing is better than nothing at all.

[Soylent Red]

Uh oh. I think Soylent's been unfriended.

Oh, nonsense. It's just RPG's way of playful banter.

I'm already planning a JOM meetup with RPG and sylvia, just as soon as I get sylvia's address, phone number, credit card statements, etc. from her BFF, Mr. Hit and Run. In fact Jeff and I can sit across the table from RPG and sylvia, drink a few beers and really get an education on how the whole world works. Should be fun.

I shouldn't even have to ask, but I will because I don't want to damage our new friendship: Are you in RPG?

[jimmyk]

He sure got to be a "constitutional lawyer" the easy way: lecturer in a course on the Equal Protection clause.

There is nothing lower in the academic totem pole than non-tenure-track faculty. They are almost never hired on the basis of scholarship. The idea of calling this clown who never published an article, never really practiced law, a constitutional lawyer, is preposterous.

[Why, it's the spongecake presidency.]

It was in his genes, boris.

WigWag's comment #2 at Anduril's Mead link is worth a read, as well as the link itself.
=============

[windansea]

It's interesting that the U.S. considers a drug trafficker to be more dangerous than the leader of a terrorist group whose goal is to bring down America through violent means.

considering that drug overdoses have killed more people than terrorists have, maybe it does make sense.

[Soylent Red]

Why, it's the spongecakeBob presidency.

FIFY

[rpg]

"drink a few beers and really get an education on how the whole world works. Should be fun."

It's gonna take more than a few beers. I suggest, for you, three to four fresh mescal buttons. That should soften up the petrified worldview.

[Clarice]

Thanks, peter. I love you, too.

[hit and run]

I can sit across the table from RPG and sylvia, drink a few beers and really get an education on how the whole world works. Should be fun

Believe it or not - a visit is already in the works (sans my dear friend sylvia to my great and abiding disappointment) . . . if rpg ever makes that cross country trip.

I do hope it happens.

[jimmyk]

considering that drug overdoses have killed more people than terrorists have, maybe it does make sense.

It would if the traffickers were forcibly injecting the drugs into random civilians.

[rpg]

"I do hope it happens."

Are you drunk, yet?

[boris]

"three to four fresh mescal buttons. That should soften up the petrified worldview"

Yet another blind squirrel who's never seen the elephant saying everybody with a different perception needs 'shrooms.

[Rick Ballard]

jimmyk,

If we're going to call war peace, I don't see any drawback to calling the inane jackass a constitutional lawyer or the Queen of Hearts for that matter.

I just keep hoping that the kinetic unfriending gets Daffy. He really deserves to be transferred to another plane of existence. It's just a shame that so many innocent Libyans have found themselves unable to bear the burden of so much kinetic humanitarian aid delivered over such a large area.

[Soylent Red]

Nah I'm going to stick with the beers. As much as I would love to take mescaline with you and solve the problems of the world, alas, I am afraid of being a casualty of the Undeclared Boots on the Ground War on Drugs in Mexico (That Brought the Obama Administration Down).

That's going to be the name of the best selling expose I'm going to start writing as soon as you send me the links you promised me. Don't worry, I'll cut you in your 33-1/3 percent (after expenses).

By the way, let me know when you want to meet up and I'll set the wheels in motion to get us all together.

[Bombs Away, Buttons.]

Turn on, tune in, drop bombs out.
==============

[boris]

"It would if the traffickers were forcibly injecting the drugs into random civilians"

False logic. Danger is less dependent on intent than effect. The intent logic is where treating terrorism as a legal matter comes from IMO.

[Clarice]

Interestingly, without unfriending Assad, he might make it to the other plane of existence before Daffy does. (I assume under all that fancy costumi, that is Daffy we are seeing and not Priscilla of the Dessert._

[Thomas Collins]

Mel, the new grad tells me it has the best burgers. We'll see.

The skies were sunny yesterday and the graduation ceremony went well. The crowd around us was laughing as I was on the cell phone with Deadhorse (my term of affection for my youngest, who worked a summer cleaning rooms and toilets and cooking for oil workers at the Deadhorse Inn near the Arctic Circle in Alaska) asking her to wave her program and cap up and down so I could pick her out in the mass of purple clad students gathered on Ryan Field). I finally picked her out. Colbert's speech was better than I thought it would be. He made the point that although college grads are exhorted to follow their dreams, fulfilling one's dream doesn't necessarily make one a winner, and changing one's dream after colege doesn't necessarily make one a loser. In any event, I'm off to Ryan Field again for the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences ceremony (in addition to its main graduation festivities, Northwestern had separate ceremonies for each of its schools). Tomorrow I get to meet Mel at a burger joint.

[rpg]

"everybody with a different perception needs 'shrooms."

No. Mushrooms are a physical experience. Peyote is Mind/Body. Ergot, mostly Mind.

I don't recommend ergot for Red. He couldn't handle it.

[narciso]

Well I somewhat beg to differ, Rick, seeing as
Musa Kusa, the organizational planner of much
of this mayhem, seems to sitting confortably
probably in some safe house, in the Cotswolds,
I don't see much purpose to this exercise.

[hit and run]

Not if it's Tuesday.

[Thomas Collins]

And thanks for all the congrats on the other thread. I feel as if I have graduated too, since I now have no kids in college.

[narciso]

Yes, I'll agree, Clarice, Bashir should have checked his prescription, crowds are often
larger than they first appear.

[Soylent Red]

I don't recommend ergot for Red. He couldn't handle it.

Probably right on that. It takes a certain level of enlightenment and self awareness that you have clearly achieved, and I haven't. Perhaps I just never fully grasped the value in hallucinating to understand politics (although these days I'm beginning to rethink that). But apparently that approach is working for you, so rock on.

When it comes to mind altering substances, I'll just stick with beer, and humbly recognize my smarter and more well-informed hallucinogenicly enhanced betters.

[rpg]

I"'ll just stick with beer"

You're sounding smarter with every key-stroke.