Obama on Executive Power

[killbotfactory]

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress." The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

I don't know if I'm the only one but when I read his answers he seems to have such deep knowledge of the issue. I have to turn off the radio when I hear Bush speak. Obama makes me listen in.

(snip)

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

Much more at the link
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/215933/29/460/426698

[CTLawGuy]

1. bbbut

he voted present!!! :eyes:

[killbotfactory]

3. Yep, he did!

As part of a progressive legislative strategy headed by the likes of, for example, pro-choice advocates who praised his actions. What a scoundrel!

[CTLawGuy]

4. yeah

what a punk. I'm gonna vote for Hillary now. Cause apparently she's not "bad".

[AtomicKitten]

5. self-delete

D'oh

[CTLawGuy]

6. ha

I figured my avatar would function as the "sarcasm" icon.

[AtomicKitten]

8. One would think that would be enough, eh?

Sorry.

Cheers!

[CTLawGuy]

10. cheers

:toast:

[killbotfactory]

2. Forgot an important one

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like "waterboarding" clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

Some further points:

The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. "actual or imminent"??? Should be actual AND imminent.

The standard of unilateral executive military action is imminence and severity... circumstances so imminent that congress cannot be consulted as a practical matter. (Ordering a retaliatory strike against an incoming barrage of missiles from the USSR was the standard example of a situation so imminent that congress could not possibly be consulted, let alone have time to declare war.)

I don't know where Senator Obama gets the "actual or imminent" standard. Surely he wouldn't favor unilateral (unauthorized) military action against imaginary imminent threats, or against non-imminent actual threats.

[CTLawGuy]

9. actual means "current"

nice try.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Okay, I'll buy that halfway because it's a term of art used improperly

If he means actual as in "presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible" then he is still wrong, as it pertains to Presidential action.

He is using a legal term of art which is inappropriate for the applications, but I can see why he has the phrase stuck in his head. "Actual or imminent" is used in law a lot as a definition of "hazard."

And it is used in the the UN charter as a measure of a permissible use of force: "Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Neither of those has anything to do with the President's ability to act without congressional authorization. One is legal boiler-plate having nothing to do with the example. The other is a measure of whether you need to check with the UN, not with congress.

And the War Powers act doesn't say anything about "actual or imminent", so this is a personal definition of his. I'll give him half credit. He's conflating the international standard of permissible military action with the question of congressional approval, and the two have nothing to do with one another, but his heart's in the right place.

[killbotfactory]

12. picking nits