Libya, Obama, the lawyers, and the press
News is that President Obama rejected the counsel of the two topmost lawyers when he decided, against their advice, to forego Congress’s consent for the war action in Libya [emphasis mine]:
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…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.”…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.
This is interesting on a number of grounds. The first is that it demonstrates what we already know about Obama: his conviction that he’s always the smartest guy in the room. That can be strength, I suppose, if the decisions a person makes are correct—that is, if he/she really is the smartest guy in the room. All too often, however, Obama is merely arrogant, and does not know what he does not know.
The second interesting thing is that the NY Times is covering this particular story at all. In the past, news critical of Obama ordinarily would have been left to the press on the right. But, as I noted just yesterday, for some reason the Times has decided to take a strong stand against Obama on the Libya issue. This means, of course, that stories that would ordinarily be ignored are instead given attention.
And that in turn highlights another point: the MSM shapes perceptions not just by its slant on the stories it covers, but by what it chooses to cover in the first place.
But the Times is not totally critical of Obama, of course. On the first page of the article it states [emphasis mine]:
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.
In my drafts there’s a post I’ve yet to finish, but one I’ve researched at length, about Obama the constitutional lawyer/professor/instructor (I don’t care what title you give him; that’s not my concern here, although I’m aware that there’s controversy about whether he really was a professor rather than instructor at the University of Chicago, where he taught constitutional law). That’s a meme that sounds awfully good, but it turns out that Obama’s field of expertise in constitutional law was a narrow one: due process and equal protection with a special focus on racism, as described in this NY Times article from 2008:
His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.
His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.
Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers”¦
None of this should be a surprise, and equal protection and due process (and even the sorry history of lynching) are all important and valid areas of study. But they have absolutely nothing to do with many other major concerns of constitutional law, and most definitely nothing to do with the issue at hand—the War Powers Act and its interpretation for the chief executive. On that score, Obama’s legal acumen probably is no better than that of any law school graduate, who may never even have encountered the topic in law school or in preparing for the bar exam.
THIS IS A SET-UP.
Obama, from the first, stated the condition “no troops.” The War Powers Act of 1973 is focused on troops. It may be time to update the language of the Act to reflect the power of drones and other since developed technologies and strategies, but under the Act alone it is certainly debatable whether hostilities exist. Koh is no dummy and this whole affair stinks with the smell of a pre-arranged “make Obama look like a genius” affair.
Kind of like the birth certificate, although that may be an inappropriate analogy because it appears it was forged after all. Not that anyone is paying attention to it.
But on a more general level than foreign affairs, look at the way the NY times presents the story with the statements like
“a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process”
“But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.”
“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.”
and of course, the clincher which shows what is all about:
“the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.”
It’s all about changing the traditions and forms which prevent President Obama from becoming King Obama–not that he isn’t already.
Nice post, Neo, especially in illuminating the shallowness of King Obama’s constitutional law ability. However, even if he was the greatest genius ever, the main point remains that our tradition and procedure, which nears the point of law, distributes-not consolidates-power.
There is much discussion about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. Krauthammer, on FNC’s Special Report, stated that it was not constitutional. I wrote to the host asking that they have a discussion to explain why my copy of the constitution apparently differs so widely from theirs. No response.
Fact is that Nixon vetoed it, and Congress over rode his veto. I believe that Nixon would have challenged it in court if he thought he could prevail. Maybe Watergate preempted such a challenge; but, I have never heard that he intended one. I consider it significant that no President in the intervening 38 years has challenged the law. They all say it is not binding, then they go along with it under one guise or another.
Barack Hussein Obama is close to getting his tail in a crack. He is going to have to do some wiggling. If this gets to the Supreme Court, I am convinced they will hand him his hat.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but…
I wonder if the occasional negative on Obama in the NY Times has anything to do with the new editor?
Obama’s field of expertise in constitutional law was a narrow one: due process and equal protection with a special focus on racism
Does absolutely everything in this man’s life revolve around race? Why? He’s not the descendant of slaves, and the American part of his boyhood was spent in Hawaii, which is one of the least racist places on earth (only haoles get a hard time about their race – I spent part of my boyhood there – and even then what racism there is doesn’t amount to much).
Imagine how delicious it would be if Obama were to find out that he’s not really half-black after all, but half some other race (e.g., Polynesian or something). He would lose the pole star of his existence!
Occam, you brought up something I suspect many have wondered about, whether Obama hates being black? He seems obsessed with doing something about it, some way of shredding what in his mind some sort of stereotype or handicap to his perfection. If there is a typical white woman like his grandmother does he also see a typical black woman or black man? And what does he see those like? And does he fear being stereotyped that way?
The guy needed therapy, and what he got was 53% of the electorate as enablers.
Obama’s life revolves around race because, to be brutally honest, his skin color is the only thing he’s got going for him. He’s not really all that smart, he’s lazy, he’s not really that good a speaker — but he’s black!
I think that in some ways this emphasis on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution distracts us from the fact that any sensible leader would want to order military action with as much support as he could muster. He would want to have a strong case that people could rally behind, and he would not want to lead from behind. But Obama has proven himself incapable of mounting a strong case for anything. His specialty is voting present. This is a repeat of the beer summit. Obama does something without thinking because it fits with his ideological programming, be that about police racism or responsibilty to protect. When shown to be ignorant of the situation, he then tries to distract attention from his incompetence. The Senate would probably not have gone against Obama’s decision if he could have given a coherent reason for it, but that would have meant too much work and perhaps interfered with his golf schedule.
The question of constitutionality is, of course, important, but equally important is the ignorance and arrogance of all his decisions. He delegated health care reform to Pelosi without seeming to know what it involved. He submitted a budget without trying to win votes of his own party before its submission. This particular case may have constitutional issues, but even when he is legally empowered to do something, he is too lazy or unable to think it through. He prefers to spend his efforts on devising Chicago tactics to get his own way.
Suppose the Supreme Court rules against him, and he ignores it? What then? Would the House begin impeachment proceedings, and would the Senate vote to convict? I guess we’ll see what they’re made of.
And if by some miracle he was actually removed from office, every inner city in the United States would explode in flames. We all know it.
Barack Hussein Obama intends to become a full-fledged dictator, or else cause American society to be torn to pieces. Or both.
Artfldgr was right when he said that we crossed the event horizon in November 2008. There’s no getting around it now. Either the Left is destroyed, or the Left will destroy America.
Couple of points: A commentator, possibly Krauthammer, noted that zero is validating the WPA by insisting it does not apply. That is is valid might be inconvenient if dems want to hobble a republ president’s military efforts. Better, said, The Hammer, to insist the WPA is unconstitutional.
If this isn’t a war, what is the status of, say, an
American aircrewman–since we don’t have grunts on the ground that we know of–if he’s shot down and Daffy’s folks get hold of him? What’s the status of a Libyan government soldier if we get hold of him?
What happens if NATO runs out of bombs or energy and Daffy is still hanging on? Do we take over?
A degree from Harvard does not necessarily a Constitutional scholar make. BHO has no respect for the Constitution, let alone the rule of law. The Constitution is an impediment to people like BHO. For Obama and the left its all about power, dogma, and agenda.
Richard Aubery,
You are being far too rational and realistic.
ricki, I am know that I am opening myself to severe criticism, but I firmly expect that every inner city will erupt when he is defeated at the polls in 2012.
The irony is that since most inner cities are overwhelmingly Black, the law abiding Black residents and business owners will again bear the brunt. Well, actually the Koreans and Chinese will bear the brunt, but the Blacks will have to live with the long term consequences. (I have lost track, should I be using the term African-American now, or is there some other term du jour?)
Urban renewal opportunities will abound, but America’s social fabric will be cleaved once more. Sooner or later the wound will become mortal. I firmly expect that this will be the Barack Hussein Obama legacy (I expect the Latino-Hispanic population will benefit if anyone does.)
rickl and Oldflyer:
Your explosion scenario is the natural result of ’empowering’. Now that they have the power, they have never used it decently, for themselves or for others.
>>what is the status of, say, an American aircrewman>>
Two things to note:
1) I have read (but have no way to verify) that those involved are receiving war zone pay. That’s fairly definitive, if true.
2) Do you _really_ think we have no boots – of any kind – on the ground???
I think part of the problem is that if O takes this to Congress, a whole bunch more is going to come out than he wants to come out…
suek.
My question is, what is the status of an American aircrewman if shot down and taken prisoner by Daffy’s forces? Is he a POW? War, what war? Bandit? Brigand? Irregular? War criminal? Common criminal?
The same question applies if we have boots on the ground. What happens if one of the grunts is captured?
I said nothing about whether I thought we had boots on the ground.
Nor was I interested in the pay status, although I suppose the guys doing the flying are.
As always, the usual expectations about how to fight a war are probably right, despite what zero is saying about it. But if it comes out, all it will mean is the admin lies, which we already knew. We already know (believe with 100% certainty) that there are at least some BDA and target designation folks down there, along with advisors and trainers and possibly some offensive squads looking for HVT.
Typical Libtard Thought Processing.
More to the point….
Stop It Already — He’s Not So Smart
1) To challenge it is to risk making it undoubtedly Constitutional. Politicians, more than most, are risk-averse.
2) Every PotUS so far has been smart enough to figure out ways around it or politically competent enough to garner support for doing what he wanted within its framework, while not forcing 1 to be tested…
The current PotUS, apparently, may not be thus encumbered.
One should be wary of the word “anything”.
I’m utterly certain, for example, that he could mount an exceptional case for his being totally incompetent.
I can’t recall who first said it but someone smart observed that “The bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think but that they tell you want to think about.”
The stories they cover – or not cover – is more of a problem then how they cover a story.