2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy big take-away from last night's speech...
For the Obama-Is-Just-Like-Bush crowd:
Thats my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But Im also the President of the worlds oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the peoples representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Obama drove a stake into the heart of the Unitary Executive Theory, making it difficult for any successor to plan military adventures without the consent of Congress, which is as it should be.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)abides by Congressional decision. He's only approached Congress...
of course that is good. Time will tell.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)What would prevent any future president from just ignoring this action of his and behaving much more like the previous 4 presidents.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I mean, all the screaming on DU stopped Obama from starting WWIII, right?
Obama could have used the precedent set by the Bush administration. He hasn't.
The next President will have to decide which way to go based at least in part, on the precedent Obama just did.
And surely you and DU will be there to point it out, right?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)A 4 to 1 precedent constitutes "driving a stake through"? Really? It will be amazingly easy to ignore, especially by a GOP president.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Even if they go back to a Unitary Executive model for foreign policy.
Ok.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The post to which I was responding was suggesting that Obama had "driven a stake through the heart" of the unitary executive. That's claiming alot of power over what the next GOP president chooses to do. I was merely pointing out that this singular act hardly was going to have that kind of power.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)But Obama has broken the cycle of Presidents acquiring more and more war powers. That's a good thing.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He still asserts the power, but merely suggests that it is preferable, if not necessary. Hardly diminishing the power of the presidency. Heck, Bush II went to congress and got support. That hardly stuck a stake through anything.