April 13, 2011

We were warned. “Who can deny but the president general will be a king
to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king
elected to command a standing army…. The President-
general, who is to be our king
after this government is established, is vested with powers exceeding those of
the most despotic monarch we know of
in modern times…. I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to find
in any period of history a monarch more absolute….”

That was written by Benjamin Workman under the penname
“Philadelphiensis,” one of the Anti-Federalists who warned in 1787-88 that the
proposed Constitution would centralize power to an appalling degree,
particularly in the executive branch.

Now here’s President Barack Obama defending his unilateral military
intervention in the civil war raging in Libya (emphasis added):

“Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian
crisis, I ordered warships into the
Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources
to stop the killing…. [At] my
direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security
Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the
regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to
protect the Libyan people…. We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more
day — Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre
that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of
the world…. I refused to let that
happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of
Congress, I authorized military
action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973….
[As] President, I refused to wait for
the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action…. Of course,
there is no question that Libya — and the world — would be better off with
Qaddafi out of power. I, along with
many other world leaders, have embraced that goal…. The task that I assigned our forces — to protect the
Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone — carries
with it a UN mandate and international support.”

You see no reference to a congressional declaration of war or the
Constitution. Philadelphiensis and his compatriots would not have been
surprised. They saw early on that it wouldn’t take much for a president to
become an emperor.

Obama continued: “I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and
unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and
our core interests…. But let us also remember that for generations, we have
done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we
know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of
mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity” (emphasis
added).

There in a nutshell is the imperial premise: Our future depends on the
condition of the rest of mankind. Therefore, the president may bomb or invade
anywhere he likes as long as he
believes intervention is feasible. And as long as he can get the U.S.-dominated
NATO and UN Security Council on board. (NATO, incidentally, was never
established for such a purpose.) Obama’s touted “coalition” is cold comfort to
those who realize that freedom and fiscal moderation at home are jeopardized by
a government run amok in the world.

Once upon a time, people actually believed that a president could not
constitutionally commit troops abroad without a declaration of war by Congress.
With some exceptions, that belief held presidents in check for a while. But it
passed away sometime after 1942, and since then presidents have gone to war —
big-time and small — whenever they damn well pleased. Congress has simply been
too timid to assert itself against imperial presidents. After the undeclared
Vietnam war disaster, a War Powers Resolution was passed in an attempt to limit
future presidents, but it was a pale substitute for the war-declaration
requirement — and besides, cowardly Congresses have never pushed to enforce the
resolution.

The Anti-Federalists saw it
coming. We can’t say we weren’t warned.

* Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation
(www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

About CFLive Staff

See Contributors Page https://chaddsfordlive.com/writers/

• Mail
|
• More Posts(8333)

There is one sentence—usually
spoken only by libertarians—that’s guaranteed to rile liberals and
conservatives alike. That sentence is that there’s virtually no difference
between the two.

Words and actions by President Barack
Obama—and reactions to them—are proving the libertarians correct.

Let’s first consider the
national debt.

In 2006, when President George
W. Bush wanted Congress to raise the debt limit, then-Sen. Obama argued against
the increase. Now, though, as president, Mr. Obama wants Congress to raise the
debt ceiling beyond the soon-to-be-reached limit of $14.3 trillion.

Mr. Bush wanted to borrow more,
so, now, does Mr. Obama.

Is there a difference regarding
military intervention? No, not really. President Bush got the U.S. into
Afghanistan and Iraq and our military is still there under Mr. Obama. We’re
also using Predator drones in Pakistan and this president decided to involve
the U.S. military in an act of war against Libya.

On this there is a difference
between the two administrations. However, as wrong as Mr. Bush was in
committing troops to Iraq, he at least went to the U.S. Congress first. Mr.
Obama did not do that with regard to the Libyan action.

This is the same Barack Obama
who said, as a candidate, that the president has no right to commit U.S.
military forces without Congressional approval unless there is an imminent
threat to the United States.

It was this duplicity that led
Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to call the president a
“born-again neocon.” Mr. Kristol, a nerocon, approves.

To be fair to Democrats, though,
U.S. Reps. Denise Kucinich of Ohio and Charles Rangel of New York have been
critical of the president’s decision. Also, there is at least one other
Democrat who, in private conversation, said she could hear President Bush
justifying the invasion of Iraq while listening to President Obama explain why
he committed to the UN action in Libya.

More similarities include the
base at Guantanamo Bay and military tribunals.

Candidate Obama said he wanted
Gitmo closed, but it’s still going strong and, instead of the justice
department trying accused terrorists, Guantanamo will be the site of a military
trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged master-mind of the 9/11 attacks.
A Los Angeles Times editorial on the subject ran the headline “Obama
administration’s anti-terror architecture: Too much like Bush.“

Then there is the matter of drug
laws. Both the current and the former president admitted to using illicit
drugs. They snorted cocaine, but neither was caught or arrested. It’s likely
they’re glad for that fact. Yet, both, Bush before and Obama now, prosecute a
disastrous war on civil liberties by continuing the failed policy of
prohibition. They enforce laws that put people in jail for things they
themselves did.

There is little difference
between the actions of the two men, but there is one. Mr. Obama doesn’t
fracture the English language while tap dancing around the Constitution

About CFLive Staff

See Contributors Page https://chaddsfordlive.com/writers/

• Mail
|
• More Posts(8333)