Here are 16 presidential candidates responding to a New York Times survey on "executive power."
The first question is:
1. Presidential War Powers
In recent years, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has claimed that the Constitution authorizes the president, as commander in chief, to order the military to attack other countries without congressional permission if the president determines that this would be anticipatory self-defense or otherwise serve the interests of the United States — at least where the nature, scope and duration of the anticipated hostilities are “limited,” like airstrikes against Libyan government forces in 2011 and Syrian government forces in 2017 and 2018.
Do you agree with the O.L.C.’s reasoning? Under what circumstances other than a literally imminent threat to the United States, if any, does the Constitution permit a president to order an attack on another country without prior Congressional authorization? What about bombing Iranian or North Korean nuclear facilities?
This is what Joe Biden said about when the president can take military action without congressional approval:
As is well established and as the Department of Justice has articulated across several administrations, the Constitution vests the President, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, with the power to direct limited U.S. military operations abroad without prior Congressional approval when those operations serve important U.S. interests and are of a limited nature, scope, and duration.
I have served in both branches of government and believe this allocation of powers has served us well. Only in the most exigent circumstances would I use force without extensive consultation with Congress.
Any initiation of the use of force against Iran or North Korea – unless in response to an imminent attack -- could certainly result in a wide-scale conflict and constitute a “war” in the constitutional sense that would require authorization by Congress.
And here's Pete Buttigieg:
I am concerned that the Executive Branch has stretched the President’s unilateral war-making authority too far. The Office of Legal Counsel’s reasoning provides that the President may direct the use of military force pursuant to his or her Article II constitutional powers without prior congressional authorization when (1) the President reasonably determines that doing so would serve an important national interest and (2) the nature, scope, and duration of the military activities would not rise to the level of “war” under the Constitution. This framework acknowledges the reality that a President may need, in rare and extraordinary circumstances, to take swift action in response to attacks or imminent threats of attack.
But while it may reflect history, it strays from our Constitution’s design. Moreover, it lacks criteria for determining which “national interests” qualify, as well as any identifiable limiting principles on what constitutes “war.”
As President, I will take swift and decisive action to protect the nation when necessary. But I also believe that decisions to embroil our armed services in conflict should be a joint decision of both the President and Congress. There should be a high bar for the use of military force, and an exceedingly high bar for doing so unilaterally.
Absent evidence that either North Korea or Iran pose a threat that is truly imminent, there is no justification for using force in either country, let alone doing so without Congressional approval.
I also recognize that Congress has the constitutional authority to set substantial limits on the President’s ability to use military force absent congressional authorization, as it has done through the War Powers Resolution. As President, I will respect these limitations. And I will work with Congress to explore legislation that builds on the example of the War Powers Resolution to ensure our constitutional values are upheld.
Tough decisions about committing American lives and treasure should be subject to public debate and congressional oversight.... And if and when I must act unilaterally to defend the United States, I will explain why the threat is too grave to wait for Congress to act.
Who do you think gave the best answer?
3 comments:
None of the above.
If I can extract a nugget of meaning from the prolix waffle, I would be closer to Buttigieg: over the years we have let the presidency get too powerful. We need to find a way to reign it in that still allows for truly exigencies situations. Obama's invasion of Libya was way over the line.
John, I assume you are older than 29, and therefore this is not your first rodeo. Forums like this say a lot more about what the candidates want people to think, and in no way reflect what their real views are. Much less what they will do once tested. Bush promised compassionate conservatism and realistic foreign policy. Instead he presided over multiple debacles. Barack Obama promised to act without drama and to only engage in smart wars. He destroyed Libya, was responsible for the easily-preventable rise of ISIS, and practically shoved Pakistan into the arms of China in exchange for some easy approval ratings. The Clintons weighed in against NAFTA, only to sign the deal and negotiate worse ones.
The only candidate to come close to delivering what he ran on, without excessive surprises, is... Donald Trump. If you want to seriously analyze the candidates, compare what they say to what they have done. Given the fact Bernie is the only one who brings up Libya, forcing the Democrats to confront their staggering hypocrisy, I'd say Bernie clearly has the best answer- which was obviously written for him.
It appears that US troops were removed from Libya in April of this year. I don't remember this being widely reported but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.
Anyway, I always thought the Libya intervention was a terrible mistake. Qadaffi (Gaddafi?) was not my favorite person, certainly he was a murderous totalitarian dictator. But Libya under his rule posed no threat to the US, especially after we deposed Saddam Hussein and Qadaffi gave up all his nuclear ambitions.
Predictably, once the strong man was removed, violent factional groups moved in to fight for power. Who could have predicted that LOL?
When we went to Iraq in 2003 I supported the war but in retrospect I was probably wrong. It is not the US' business to depose evil dictators around the world if they are not posing a direct, immediate, and credible threat to us. The "stable genius" Saddam Hussein was probably no worse than the fragmented leadership that has controlled Iraq since then.
Post a Comment