|
09 April 2011 By Sheldon
Richman We were warned. "Who can deny but
the president general
will be a king
to all intents and purposes, and one of the most
dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a
standing army.... The
President- general, who is to be our
king after this
government is established, is vested with powers
exceeding those of the most
despotic monarch
we know of in modern times.... I challenge the
politicians of the whole continent to find in any
period of history a monarch more absolute...." That was written by Benjamin
Workman under the penname "Philadelphiensis," one of
the Anti-Federalists who warned in 1787-88 that the
proposed Constitution would centralize power to an
appalling degree, particularly in the executive
branch. Now here's President Barack Obama
defending his unilateral military intervention in the
civil war raging in Libya (emphasis added): "Confronted by this brutal
repression and a looming humanitarian crisis,
I ordered
warships into the Mediterranean. European allies
declared their willingness to commit resources to stop
the killing.... [At] my
direction, America led an effort with our allies at
the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic
resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the
regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized
all necessary measures to protect the Libyan
people.... We knew that if we wanted — if we waited
one more day — Benghazi, a city nearly the size of
Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have
reverberated across the region and stained the
conscience of the world....
I refused to
let that happen. And so nine days ago, after
consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress,
I authorized
military action to stop the killing and enforce UN
Security Council Resolution 1973.... [As] President,
I refused
to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves
before taking action.... Of course, there is no
question that Libya — and the world — would be better
off with Qaddafi out of power.
I, along with
many other world leaders, have embraced that goal....
The task that I
assigned our forces — to protect the Libyan people
from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone
— carries with it a UN mandate and international
support." You see no reference to a
congressional declaration of war or the Constitution.
Philadelphiensis and his compatriots would not have
been surprised. They saw early on that it wouldn't
take much for a president to become an emperor. Obama continued: "I've made it
clear that I
will never hesitate to use our military swiftly,
decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend
our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core
interests.... But let us also remember that for
generations, we have done the hard work of protecting
our own people, as well
as millions around the globe. We have done
so because we know that our own future is safer, our
own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live
with the bright light of freedom and dignity"
(emphasis added). There in a nutshell is the
imperial premise: Our future depends on the condition
of the rest of mankind. Therefore, the president may
bomb or invade anywhere he likes as long as
he believes
intervention is feasible. And as long as he can get
the U.S.-dominated NATO and UN Security Council on
board. (NATO, incidentally, was never established for
such a purpose.) Obama's touted "coalition" is cold
comfort to those who realize that freedom and fiscal
moderation at home are jeopardized by a government run
amok in the world. Once upon a time, people actually
believed that a president could not constitutionally
commit troops abroad without a declaration of war by
Congress. With some exceptions, that belief held
presidents in check for a while. But it passed away
sometime after 1942, and since then presidents have
gone to war — big-time and small — whenever they damn
well pleased. Congress has simply been too timid to
assert itself against imperial presidents. After the
undeclared Vietnam war disaster, a War Powers
Resolution was passed in an attempt to limit future
presidents, but it was a pale substitute for the
war-declaration requirement — and besides, cowardly
Congresses have never pushed to enforce the
resolution. The Anti-Federalists saw it
coming. We can't say we weren't warned.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of
Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of
The Freeman
magazine. |
Add Comments