We finally did what John McCain, a Republican Party Presidential candidate, said that we should do in Libya and it was Barak Obama, the Democratic Party Presidential candidate and ultimate victor, who then did it—enforce a no-fly zone on another country who poised no military threat to the United States. Are there any real differences between the two major parties on foreign policy? Where is the authority for a single person to approve military action against another country which action has always been considered an act of war?
Although I have no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi, how would we feel if Libya was the super power and did the same to us? Of course, I realize that this was done by coalition forces (mostly France and Britain) through the power of the United Nations, but whose kidding who: it is mostly our aircraft, our pilots, our ships and our Tomahawk Missiles.
I am concerned about the constitutionality of this action by either a Democratic or a Republican President. The making and funding of war were clearly denied the President in the Constitution because he “had the most propensity for war.” Only Congress has the right “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” War requires the blood of our young warriors and this requires the permission of the people who are required to be the fodder in such.
Only the peoples’ representatives can “provide and maintain a navy or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and for “calling forth the militia…to repel invasions “ or “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States….” Congress is directly responsible for any acquisition of property for military use. All of this is in Article I, Section 8 and belongs to the legislative branch alone.
Funding for war is yet another Constitutional concern and clearly left with the House of Representatives. The document says: “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Two years is the designated time that a member of the House is elected and authorized to represent his people.
So, President Obama cannot expend monies to attack Libya, or anywhere else, without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” As far as we can ascertain he did not consulted with Congress. No! Not even with his own party!
The only power the president is allowed to have is as “Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, … when called into the actual service of the United States,” which is done only by Congress not by himself. Senator McCain and President Obama, and democrats and republicans, have no Constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before them. And there is no authority to defer this power to an international government—the United Nations—to do it for us. To commit our young to potential death unilaterally is not within a presidents’ power and should be an impeachable offense.
By the second day of bombing, Moammar Gadhafi’s troops were targeted and civilians killed. In time an American pilot will be shot down and rightfully held as a prisoner of war. This justifies sending even more troops with, “We Must Support Our Troops,” signs and we will be at war with yet a third country in the Obama administration.
I, together with other Tea Party Patriots, recommend immediate defunding of this war by the House of Representatives and withdrawal. Any other course of action entrenches us further and violates two of our core values: constitutional limited government, and fiscal responsibility.
Latest posts by Harold Pease (see all)
- George Washington’s Advice Rejected by both Parties - February 14, 2018
- Jury Nullification: Why the Bundys Walk From Prosecution - December 27, 2017
- The Constitution and Escalating War in Afghanistan - August 23, 2017