OpEdNews Op Eds

Rule of Law vs. Obamarule

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (7 fans)


by doocab.com

The War Powers Resolution (aka "Act") of 1973 was created to prevent presidents from doing exactly what President Obama wants to do in Syria. It is the law of the land. What makes him think he has the right to flout it?

In his draft legislation to Congress Obama says what he is proposing is "consistent" with sections 8(a)(1) and 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (full text at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp), which require that he obtain "specific statutory authorization" from Congress absent "a declaration of war" or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

So everything hinges on convincing Congress that what he says in his draft legislation is true -- that an attack on Syria will

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

The first point, then, is that Obama does NOT have the right to attack Syria unless Congress approves. And this is hardly a minor point. Why does the president and his supporters have such a perverted understanding of the law of the land, and why do we as a people even consider allowing him to get away with it? The fact that other presidents have violated this law and that "all presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional" (according to the Wikipedia article) is hardly an excuse, unless "we the people" (like our presidents) have truly given up the idea of the rule of law.

The second point is whether what Obama says about Syria is true. Here there is much room for debate. It has certainly not been convincingly demonstrated that Syria used chemical weapons, and there is apparently also evidence that the "rebel" groups supported by the US have used them. Whether or not and how the proposed attacks would prevent or deter their use or protect the United States is also extremely unclear.



Born in Washington, D.C., academic training (Ph.D.) in linguistics, now retired after teaching English as a foreign language at a German university for many years, but still living in Germany.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

9/11 Aletheia

Was the Air Force One Flyover a Warning to Obama?

An Open Letter to Noam Chomsky and Paul Craig Roberts

A Psychiatrist Searches for Sanity in a Crazy World

Transparent Underpants: MITOP Again

9/11, Antisemitism and Denial


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Unlike our presidents, many of us still believe in... by Michael David Morrissey on Tuesday, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:51:35 AM