Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Power: Obama's campaign in Libya is constitutional ( so says a Harvard Law Professor)
Slate ^ | 03/22/2011 | Jack Goldsmith

Posted on 03/22/2011 7:09:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Several days into a campaign of air and sea strikes against Libya, I agree with many of the arguments from critics of the intervention: President Obama acted imprudently in committing American forces to a conflict with an ill-defined national security justification. It is unclear how, on balance, a third war in a Muslim country helps our foreign policy goals. It is uncertain that the intervention will produce a regime more to our liking than Qaddafi's. It is hard to justify military action in Libya while the United States does not use military force in the face of brutal crackdowns by allies elsewhere in the Middle East. And it was especially unwise not to explain this action to the American people in advance or to better consult with and seek formal authorization, or at least political support, from Congress.

But that said, I depart from the critics of the Libya action, and from Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton themselves circa 2007, and from the academic writings of Legal Adviser to the State Department Harold Koh on this one point: I do not believe that the military action in Libya is unconstitutional.

Legal scholars disagree about the original meaning of the Constitution's conferral on Congress of the power "to declare war." Many contend it required Congress to formally approve all uses of U.S. military force abroad, save, as James Madison said at the Convention, in situations needed to "repel sudden attack." Others maintain the "declare war" clause provides more leeway, allowing the president to use force abroad as long as the force does not rise to the level of "war," whatever that means. Yet others argue that the framers meant simply to give Congress the authority to signal under international law a state of war;

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: constitution; harvard4farrakhan; harvard4impostor; harvard4libyawar; harvard4obama; harvard4obamaswar; harvard4resumefraud; harvard4tyrant; harvardresumefraud; libya; warpower
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST OF HIS ARGUMENT.

For those who want to know who Jack Goldsmith is :

Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, worked in the Bush administration from 2002 to 2004 and is a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. He blogs on national security law issues at www.lawfareblog.com.

1 posted on 03/22/2011 7:09:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m sorry, but Harvard has completely discredited itself as a source of Constitutional scholarship with the conferral of a PhD on Barry Hussein Soetoro Whateverhisnameis.


2 posted on 03/22/2011 7:12:17 AM PDT by Dr. Sheldon Cooper (If Mohammed were alive today, he wouldn’t be allowed to live within 1000 yards of a school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Isn't that guy, Kagan, who Obama just put on the Supreme Court from Harvard?

The “intellectual” elite are circling the Muslim's wagon.

3 posted on 03/22/2011 7:12:38 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’d love to see his argument for Bush going into Iraq. Somehow I expect he wouldn’t have the same opinion.


4 posted on 03/22/2011 7:15:04 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How does this square with Senator Obama’s statement “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”?


5 posted on 03/22/2011 7:15:28 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Washington is finally rid of the Kennedies. Free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sheldon Cooper

Abama has a PhD? You may be confused.


6 posted on 03/22/2011 7:16:09 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Even if we could definitively resolve this debate (the meaning of declare war in the constitution), which we can’t, it is unclear why original intent—which in practice rarely determines contemporary constitutional meaning—

I see, like whether one needs be a natural born citizen.


7 posted on 03/22/2011 7:16:52 AM PDT by Mouton (Government expands to fill any voids in freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What a joke! When democrats go to war its OK, but when Republicans do its unconstitutional!

We should not be helping the rebels anywhere in the middle east.

Islamic fanatics killing each other is a good thing!


8 posted on 03/22/2011 7:18:58 AM PDT by Lessthantolerant (The State is diametrically opposed to our search for a better living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Sorry, he has a JD, you’re right.


9 posted on 03/22/2011 7:22:30 AM PDT by Dr. Sheldon Cooper (If Mohammed were alive today, he wouldn’t be allowed to live within 1000 yards of a school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Harvard Law Professor?

Not impressed, and haven’t been for decades/

I’d rather hear the opinion of a real-world, boots-on-the-ground, Community College Law professor, than that of a sheltered pussy, deluded in the rarefied air of “elite” academia.

ANY Community College.....


10 posted on 03/22/2011 7:22:48 AM PDT by EyeGuy (Gimme Shelter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
“Even if we could definitively resolve this debate (the meaning of declare war in the constitution), which we can’t, it is unclear why original intent—which in practice rarely determines contemporary constitutional meaning—

Harvard speak for, "let's muddy up the Constitutional water some more to keep the populace from having a clue as to what it really says." This practice has to stop. The Constitution is not a "living" document. It is what it is and it says what it is. I'm SICK to death of these "intellectuals" twisting our governing document into something it was never intended to mean for the sake of their progressive causes.

11 posted on 03/22/2011 7:22:59 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lessthantolerant
When democrats go to war its OK, but when Republicans do its unconstitutional!

Just another case of Liberal projection. Obama just did everything the liberals accused Bush of with Iraq.

12 posted on 03/22/2011 7:24:42 AM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Bush had the overwhelming support of Congress.


13 posted on 03/22/2011 7:28:45 AM PDT by csmusaret (Q: How do they say incompetent failure in Kenya? A: Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thank you, professor, for telling us the blatantly obvious.


14 posted on 03/22/2011 7:32:45 AM PDT by caldera599
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
I’d love to see his argument for Bush going into Iraq. Somehow I expect he wouldn’t have the same opinion.

The guy was a lawyer in the Bush adminstration when we went into Iraq. He's considered to be a conservative.

15 posted on 03/22/2011 7:32:50 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sheldon Cooper

Harvard hands those out like party favors.


16 posted on 03/22/2011 7:34:10 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

I agree, it does not say this is a guidline document. I guess Libs feel just like they have new meanings for the 10 commandments, we can now do the same to the Constitution.

BTW, not only does it proscribe in the Constitution what declare war means, it is further amplified in the War Powers Act of 1973. Seems to me, a literal reading of that law puts (.)bama in violation.

Arguing about this yesterday, I wrote even if what he did is the right or moral thing to do (not sure about that but even ceeding that point), it is not the legal thing to do. We are a nation of laws, not what feels good or seems right, so while he may have done what he believed was just, he is in violation of his oath which is an impeachable offense and he should go or resign.


17 posted on 03/22/2011 7:38:15 AM PDT by Mouton (Government expands to fill any voids in freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration” by Jack Goldsmith.

I haven’t read it. NYT, Huffington Post, Slate, and NPR liked it. Hmmmm.


18 posted on 03/22/2011 7:40:56 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Regarding the force ordered by Obama (in submission to the U.N), I would STILL like to know WHERE the immanent threat to this country was?


19 posted on 03/22/2011 7:41:00 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

20 posted on 03/22/2011 7:41:00 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration” by Jack Goldsmith.

I haven’t read it. NYT, Huffington Post, Slate, and NPR liked it. Hmmmm.


21 posted on 03/22/2011 7:41:12 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Anything coming from a Harvard as@ is pure crap. Communists school for ignorant attorneys.
22 posted on 03/22/2011 7:46:52 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Harvard hands those out like party favors.

How appropriate.


23 posted on 03/22/2011 7:49:56 AM PDT by Dr. Sheldon Cooper (If Mohammed were alive today, he wouldn’t be allowed to live within 1000 yards of a school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This went way past protecting civilians or establishing a no fly zone. The US (not the UN) is now spear-heading the rebel offensive, we are at war with the Libyan government.

The rebels have come out and said they can’t fight without the US leading the way.


24 posted on 03/22/2011 7:53:07 AM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

“I’d love to see his argument for Bush going into Iraq. Somehow I expect he wouldn’t have the same opinion.”

Did you even READ the article???

Quote:
“Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, worked in the Bush administration from 2002 to 2004”


25 posted on 03/22/2011 7:56:00 AM PDT by Crim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
Amen! We are a Nation of laws and what worries me is that progressives have been very successful in turning that into a Nation of precedent - and the precedent that Obama is setting is VERY dangerous to our Republic!
26 posted on 03/22/2011 7:56:24 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I aint a lawyer and I aint a scholar and it’s all good because you dont need to be either to see his premise is pretty flimsy.


27 posted on 03/22/2011 8:05:36 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (You is what you am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crim; Ditto

I did read the article, and I noted only passing references to Bush (though it was noted that he went to Congress for authorizations). And I get the overall point — Bush asked for authorizations; Obama hasn’t thus far. The article COULD HAVE used Bush’s example to explain how military actions become legally justified through Congress. He didn’t. And because that’s the most obvious counter-example, it does raise a red flag with me.

Look: I didn’t know the credentials of this guy, but I do have to be suspicious on the surface given his Harvard connection. Since he didn’t take the opportunity to take us through the proper channels of action that Bush used, I do have to wonder if that’s because he didn’t feel it was a justified war action.

Okay - I tried to assume that everybody’d figure out where I waa going on that from a too-simple one-liner answer above. Mea culpa.


28 posted on 03/22/2011 8:09:44 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Talk about the devil in the details! What about an abundance of caution? What about respecting the will of the people by involving them? What about prudence? What about the process itself which would have shown the world that we did not act in haste, and that we bent over backwards to allow the target to back down? Bush did ALL of this.

And if all that failed, then you could have dusted off some academic who loves attention to reinterpret the precedents for you, and to exploit the letter of the law for you, so you could have the flimsy cover you wanted to do what you wanted anyway, putting men and women in harms way and overextending the nation to do it.

Obama goes down in flames over this. Mark my words.

29 posted on 03/22/2011 8:16:01 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (You is what you am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Obama Clarifies: "I Want Gadhafi Out, But That's Not The Coalition's Goal."

Obama being Obama... Can you say "banana republic"?

I want Obama out!

banana republic flag

The only thing I really know about this mess is Zer0 is pulling for the brotherhood.

30 posted on 03/22/2011 8:20:17 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let’s put these arguments to rest once and for all. It’s legal for socialist, liberal presidents and illegal for conservative and Republican presidents.
That’s how Leftists always view the law; the ends justify the means at all times. Just look at the Madison Dane Co. Judge Sumi’s decision on the alleged violation of the state open meetings law and its application to WI Senate rules.
Heads I win, tails you lose.


31 posted on 03/22/2011 8:29:46 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What the hell do Haaaaavad law professors know about the Constitution?


32 posted on 03/22/2011 8:51:00 AM PDT by crosshairs (Appeasement is surrender in slow motion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

If you’re going to shoot the messenger - let’s not shoot this one.

The problem is in the nature, structure,content and history of the War Powers Resolution itself, not necessarily its intent.

If you are a fan of the Congressional Research Service and its ability to produce unbiased analysis try
CRS Reports RL32267, RL31133 and RL33532. Available at http://opencrs.com/ .

His article is spot on as to the reality of this mess, he isn’t going to soil his reputation publishing fluff.


33 posted on 03/22/2011 8:51:53 AM PDT by PeteCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

RE: What the hell do Haaaaavad law professors know about the Constitution?


Well, they’re too busy teaching it to read it. Just like Congressmen and Senators, they’re too busy defending it to read it.


34 posted on 03/22/2011 8:56:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lessthantolerant

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Are Americans getting dumber?

By Gary Stein, Sun Sentinel Editorial Board

5:32 AM EDT, March 22, 2011

Newsweek Magazine thinks we are dumb. And it’s hard to disagree.

The magazine gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. citizenship test, and 38 percent failed. In a way, I’m surprised the failure rate was so low.

People simply are not as curious as they should be about the world around them. Kids don’t take civics classes in high school. How many of your neighbors could find Libya on a map? Could you?

It’s understandable that most people wouldn’t comprehend all the complexities of Medicare or the national debt. But how many people actually know the name of their state representative? How many know the name of their mayor? Maybe most don’t care, if voting turnout is any indication.

So is Newsweek correct? Are we dumb?

gstein@sunsentinel.com.

POLL:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/tuesday/sfl-newsweek-are-americans-getting-dumber-38-percent-failed-us-citizenship-test-20110322,0,1191073.story


35 posted on 03/22/2011 9:11:26 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
according to Obama the candidate ... it's not.
36 posted on 03/22/2011 10:01:19 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Carter 2.0 The Epic Fail Edition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson