Obama: President Cannot Unilaterally Authorize Military Attacks Under Constitution

At least, that was Candidate Obama in December 2007:

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.

In other words, Candidate Obama agrees with Dennis Kucinich’s position that the President’s unilateral authorization of military action against Libya was unconstitutional. President Obama clearly feels differently. It would be interesting to hear why his thinking has evolved in the manner it has.

Especially considering his statement leading up to military action against Libya in which he couldn’t possibly have distanced himself from President George W. Bush — who would agree that it is preferable to have Congress’s informed consent, and in fact obtained it — any further than he attempted to do, prevarications and all.

Of course, it’s been plainly evident in other contexts that this man doesn’t much care for any limits the Constitution places upon him. Maybe that’s the answer.

(h/t Powerline)

Advertisement