RSS

Can Obama . . . Or Can He Not . . . Unilaterally Declare War on Syria?

02 Sep

The Nobel Peace Prize winner . . . with his own Death List.  [courtesy Google Images]

The Nobel Peace Prize winner . . . with his own Death List. [courtesy Google Images]

President Obama has declared that, under the Constitution, he has the unilateral power to declare war on Syria.  But Obama has also declared that he’s going to wait on a vote from Congress to authorize his attack on Syria.  These statements are contradictory.  At least one of the statements is false and arguably treasonous.

If, under the Constitution, the President has the unilateral power to declare war, but he nevertheless waits for “authorization” from Congress, the President is surrendering constitutional power from the Executive Branch to the Legislative branch. That surrender of powers is arguably treason to the Constitution.

If, under the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, then President Obama’s claim that he can unilaterally declare war is a lie, and more, an unconstitutional attempt by the President to usurp powers intended only for Congress. That usurpation of powers is arguably treason to the Constitution.

Whether or not our government attacks Syria is an interesting question.  But whether Obama has the unilateral power to declare war without congressional authorization is a vital question of constitutional law.

Over the next few days or weeks, we’ll hear a media hullabaloo about whether the US. government should or should not, will or will not, attack Syria. But the real issue won’t be the attack on Syria so much as the attack on the Constitution. We’re going to learn if Congress will permit Obama to act unilaterally and in violation of the war-making power granted by the Constitution–or if Congress will put Obama “in his place” as subject to the Constitution and not allow him to become an overt dictator.

If Obama can’t or won’t unilaterally declare war on Syria, he will probably set a precedent to prevent him from unilaterally declaring war on other countries–including Iran.

Here’s a short video on the issue:

video   00:04:30

 

Tags: , , , ,

17 responses to “Can Obama . . . Or Can He Not . . . Unilaterally Declare War on Syria?

  1. catherinecaseysmith

    September 2, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    Obama is in dire need of a nice padded cell in a prison for the criminally insane….

     
  2. Donna

    September 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM

    All one has to do is look up the definition of “imperial presidency” in Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary to see that the president of the US is operating outside the restrictions of the Constitution. This comports with mail received here in Florida from the Imperial County of Polk. The only place the dictionary claims has an imperial presidency is the U.S.

     
  3. Martens

    September 2, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    No nation has declared war since the United Nations Charter went into effect in 1945.

    This is because joining the UN cedes a nation’s war making power to that organization. Since the UN was founded (at least officially) to secure world peace, it’s hardly surprising that declared wars have been few and far between since WWII.

    So it’s not up to either the President or Congress to declare war on anybody. As long as the United States remains a member of the UN, it’s the UN that decides.

     
    • Adask

      September 2, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      If it’s true, that only the UN can declared our wars, then why can’t the UN make up its mind as to whether our government should or should not invade Syria? I.e., if the UN is in control, Obama should know it and shouldn’t have dared to suggest we invade Syria unless the UN had first told him to do so. Likewise, Congress should know the UN is in control and should quickly rubber-stamp the UN’s decision to invade Syria. If the UN wants Syria invaded, what’s the hold-up? Why haven’t Obama and Congress already “just followed orders” and caused Syria to be invaded?

      On the other hand, if the UN is in control but hasn’t yet decided to invade Syria, why has the pawn Obama dared to suggest that he can unilaterally invade Syria without the UN’s sanction? Is he trying to get himself killed by defying the “big boss”?

      On the the third hand, if the UN told Obama to invade but later told Obama to not invade–or at least not invade yet–why can’t the UN make up its mind? Doesn’t the UN know that it’s making Obama look like a fool?

       
      • Martens

        September 2, 2013 at 11:09 PM

        Perhaps you have noticed that these drawn-out arguments between the UN and a nation wanting war only happen with the US, or at least with the US as the main player on the side of war. That’s because no other nation has the sort of power in the UN that the US has.

        Normally, when the UN says no to a war, its word is final (unless you’re talking about a rouge nation). The US, on the other hand, is a special case in that it can twist the UN’s arm and sometimes get its own way.

        The UN does not want war with Syria. The US does want war with Syria. The US has the unique ability to go it alone, though it prefers to avoid this due to the big problems it causes even so powerful a nation. Or the US can keep trying to convince the UN to change its mind.

        So far, the US is still trying to persuade the UN, but it looks like this is not going to succeed. This probably means the war won’t happen, though we’ll see how great a cost the US is willing to bear to make it happen.

         
  4. Michael

    September 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

    Obama is playing the two face game of politics it is an old ploy on one side he is saying yes destroy them yet he really does not so he puts it to congress to decide, its the same as done at the time of the Roman Pilate did to Jesus he gave the decision to the representatives of people to decide so he can wash his hands of the matter and the blame will be upon the peoples representatives the congress to decide to attack or not, this shows a man who cars not for the people of America and for the false justice he lies about, he is a goat, a man with a crown, he has won his race and now the people can rot in hell for all he cares about is himself, his crown, and his seat of power over the inferior christens and Muslims, and fools, he will sacrifice his soul to be emporia of the western world, a Muslim at heart and soul and a puppet to his advisors and slave to his elite masters. He has power, but he’s warned to stay his hand for now and place the ultimate blame on the congress, and ultimately on the people of America THE SHEEP.

    Oh what fools you all are when you have not a leader but only another puppet pulling your strings.
    BLIND FOOLS ARE THE PEPOLE FOR THEY NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.

     
    • Tony

      September 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM

      For once, stop sounding like you are “God Emperor of Dune.”

      I know, I know…you are perched REAL HIGH.

      What a stench…

       
  5. Cathy Baldwin

    September 3, 2013 at 2:58 AM

    -In the spirit world demons do not die.The spirits that inhabited the Third Reich are with mankind today. The spirits that were active when Jesus was on earth still exist, are with mankind today. The fairly sudden public outward show of demonically influenced people in political power appears to be visible right now. What else can it be?

     
  6. palani

    September 3, 2013 at 7:16 AM

    In his private capacity he can declare war all he likes. In his de facto capacity he can do the same although he retains all liability for the act. As he has no de jure capacity to fall back on he gains nothing by involving Congress. Had he a de jure capacity then he would also have a bond with his oath of office subscribed upon the reverse and his liability would be limited to the amount of his bond.

    Should he declare war in a de facto or private manner anyone in the military who chooses to follow him have no national protections. These soldiers are in essence mercenaries. This has been the role of the U.S. military in all actions post-WWI (phase deuce).

     
  7. Adrian

    September 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM

    One thing was clear on that video,the presence of the Papal flag.Now you know who is calling the
    shoots.
    Obama is the CEO of US Inc.,he takes orders from his corporate masters.There is no “Constitution”
    here.
    The “Congress” is the trustee which manages the deeds for the bankrupt US Inc. only.
    US Inc is just a name on the paper,has no empoyees,only mebers under contract.
    The bulk of those members are so called”Americans” from America.
    If every one of them would had a clear conscience of this American Reality,US Inc would be just a name on the paper.
    Syria is on Vatican’s list.US Inc. is just a Vatican’s tool.

     
  8. Jetlag

    September 3, 2013 at 3:57 PM

    As already stated above, joining the United Nations requires a member nation to give up the power to declare war. This is a publicly available fact, for the record in writing, not a theory.

    So the answer to the question is:

    Neither the President nor Congress has the power to declare war, which explains why it hasn’t happened in over 70 years.

    Thanks to Yartap for mentioning this originally. I have since done some follow up research and it checks out.

     
  9. Ugly Truth

    September 4, 2013 at 1:20 AM

    Why can’t Obama be impeached for conspiracy if he were to attempt to convince the senators to proceed with a military response to the alleged chemical weapons attack?

    The indictment being that he incited directing the military to engage in an act of terrorism against Syria?

     
  10. Anthony Clifton

    September 4, 2013 at 3:07 AM

    maybe the elephant in the room can get some much deserved peanuts…

    a lot of time and energy is invested in pretending to not be there

    as if Abraham & Moses had a Talmud….

     
  11. Peter

    September 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    The American people say they don’t want war, but their pensions and S & P indexed portfolios positive performance benchmarks need war. Let’s face it, war for the better part of the last 100 years has produced some spectacular gains in the markets during up phases. The warfare has been all encompassing from hot to cold, to even unseen war and even declared wars that to most don’t even consider such. The wars on poverty, drugs, illiteracy and terror for instance, may not look like war but have the same intended goal , expand money(debt) levels so debt can be serviced.
    With all the wars in place real or not, seen or not seen, it’s still not enough war to keep the debt flying machine with an upward trajectory. Could it be that the growth industry of the U.S. economy known as war is the one sector of the economy that ensures continued growth? The American people may say heck no, but their portfolios say heck yea. If the expanded war in the mid-east does not go forward this may have negative consequences and may be the reason we may get a roll-over in the market. Let’s not forget spiritual war, that’s going on real strong too. I ask YHWH our Father in the Throne Room to help us this day that we begin to take back that which the enemy has taken from us in the last 100 years . If you could support me please ask of the same Amen. By the way I don’t have a wall street portfolio.

     
  12. Jen

    September 7, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    Isn’t Providing Military Support To American Enemies, Treason?‏

    News reports have stated that the Al Qaeda terrorists are fighting for/among the Syrian rebels.

    Question: Why isn’t providing U.S., military action (that would only aid and support the Syrian rebels), treason?

    The United States government, in defining Al Qaeda terrorists “enemy combatants” apparently did so, in order to treat them as war enemies…not, “international criminals.”

    Wthin that now legal definition, Al Qaeda fighters are defined a war enemy, yet, the President is asking for a legal right to provide millions of dollars worth of military support by activating a military strike that only provides aid and comfort to our legally defined war enemies!!

    How can this military action, not be treason?

    USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381- Treason

    “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

    USC-Title 18 Source:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

     
  13. Adrian

    September 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    UN,US,VATICAN,UK etc. are all corporations.THEIR corporate ” Constitution ” is different than the one you know. Governments,the ones you think you know, do not exist now days.
    To get a good understanding of the present situation,there is a good e-Book on the net, Vatican Assassins by Eric Jon Phelps.You can save it,it is a good intro into the past and present.
    http://www.vaticanassassins.org

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s