They say politics makes strange bedfellows, meaning that sometimes one’s political interests line up with those of the people opposed to you in other areas. Maybe I’m having a naïve day, but can’t it also be true that sometimes it’s one's principles – not just political considerations – that dovetail?
For a few weeks now, President Obama has been getting criticism from the right (no surprise) but also from the anti-war faction of the left for continuing the military’s involvement in Libya. The administration says that it’s not the U.S. military bombing Qaddafi, it’s NATO… but come on. Are U.S. military personnel, and U.S. funds, being used in Libya or aren’t they? Don’t split hairs.
Last week the House passed a resolution basically fussing at the White House for continuing in Libya without authorization from Congress (which earned them a thank-you note supposedly from Qaddafi). Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner asked the White House to report to Congress by the end of this week what exactly the legal basis for the Libya action is.
And today, 10 House members – three Democrats and seven Republicans – filed a lawsuit (in what jurisdiction? I don’t know, and the media isn’t telling me.) against the president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, apparently trying to get a judge to order and end to whatever it is we’re doing in Libya. I’m not sure how this will fly, practically speaking – a judge is going to tell the president of the United States what to do? – but it sure is an interesting legal conundrum.
At issue is the1973 War Powers Resolution, which basically states that the president can’t start a military action without Congressional approval. I am by no means an expert on this, but from what I understand, the president can still order an action in an emergency, but has to report to Congress regularly. And, if the action goes on longer than 60 days (with another 30 for winding down and withdrawal), Congress has to either pass an authorization or declare war.
(Or else… what? Roll the White House Rose Garden? No, just make the rest of the president’s term a living hell, to the extent that they can.)
Put that way, obviously President Obama is overstepping his authority by not going to Congress for an ok in Libya. The problem is that presidents of both parties have fought or outright ignored the War Powers Resolution since its inception. Congress had to override President Nixon’s veto to pass it in the first place. Separation of powers or no, presidents don’t like ceding any authority to a couple of hundred squabbling legislators up on the hill. (Even if those presidents are former Constitutional law professors.)
And Congress, of course, pushes back. I took a look at the last time Congress expressed disapproval of a president’s use of the military, the 2007 non-binding House Concurrent Resolution 63, which stated that it wasn’t in the country’s national interest to increase involvement in Iraq. (This was in response to President Bush’s “New Way Forward” policy, popularly known as the troop surge.) The Senate wasn’t able to bring HCR 63 to a vote, but the House passed it 246-182.
Now, to what I wrote earlier about principles… the 10 Representatives who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a mix of anti-war Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, who here find themselves in agreement that it’s wrong, and dangerous, for a president to consolidate so much power at the expense of the representative arm of government – Congress. HCR 63 wasn’t exactly the same thing, but the basic principle is the same.
Of the 10 Congressmen in the lawsuit, eight voted for HCR 63; that is, disapproving of the troop surge. Reps. Coble and Jones were the only Republicans in North Carolina’s delegation to vote for HCR 63, and both are plaintiffs. I had to admit, the consistency surprised me. One doesn't expect Congresspeople to apply uniform principles in the same way years apart.
I bring this up because my suspicion is that this lawsuit will be seen by many as a purely political move, and that may be part of the motivation. But while the Republicans named as plaintiffs may have nothing to lose in suing the president, they certainly had plenty to lose back in 2007 by opposing a Republican president with HCR 63. So, no, I don’t think this is 100 percent about politics.
Obama has a political problem, though, but it’s with members of his own party. Obama’s bigger problem is historical. His opponents like to fantasize that Obama is Jimmy Carter, but he’s risking turning into Lyndon Johnson – a guy who’s so confident of his own capabilities, and at the same time so doubtful of anyone in Congress to think beyond their next Twitter update, that he steamrolls all over process to get his way with predictably disastrous results. Obama campaigned on not being that guy, and his supporters haven’t forgotten it.
The next few weeks will be a crucial period in his presidency. Up to now, the president has been masterful at sharing the nuts and bolts of governing, and therefore the blame if those policies don’t pan out. But this one’s all on him.
No comments:
Post a Comment