I have all but abandoned this blog. I just reached a point where I had nothing left to say and not many people to say it to. However, this has changed in the past few days. I have, probably only for a one time engagement...or at least until the next time, become a blogger again.
When President Obama took office I was excited for many reasons. One was because I would not have to put up with McCain and Palin for four years. Knowing that their view of America's place in the World would most likely result in numerous foreign conflicts that I would not agree with. I would point to his "Today, we are all Georgians" statement to show that, had he been President, we may be at war with Russia right now. Which brings me to my second reason why I was excited to have Mr. Obama as my President, I thought he would be much less likely to get us involved in foreign military action. With 2 un-Constitutional wars currently in progress (and I say that based on Article 1 Section 8 Line 11) I do not understand the need/desire for a third. Now, I would argue that even though President Bush did get Congressional approval for Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not get a Congressional declaration of war. So I would say that the 2 wars we have going on over there are both un-Constitutional...and at least in my opinion...unnecessary and should have been avoided. Contrast this with the Libya situation. President Obama is a President, not a monarch. Therefore he cannot do whatever he pleases. He is restrained by the governing law that entrusts his office with the powers that it does hold. Namely, our Constitution. A President, cannot do whatever he feels best in any situation. With this Libya situation, the President has received no Congressional approval and he has not made a good case to the American people as to why it is necessary. I would like to refute the use of the "War Powers Act" in this situation because to use it we must show that the introduction of the "United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances" was necessary. Basically, we have to be in a state where there is imminent danger to us in order to use The War Powers Act as legal precedence for military action. I don't see how a case could be made for that. Libya was no threat to us. From the President's speech last night it would seem that he was making the case that we are in danger of "guilt" for allowing this genocide to happen, and this is why we must intervene. To save ourselves from our guilt. For those who support the President in this action take a moment and think about the future. Any precedence set during this administration will be passed on to future administrations and it is unlikely that you will agree with all future Presidents. This is the importance of the checks and balance system. It keeps any one person, or group of people, from having too much power.
It would seem that we have become involved in this military action because it "feels right" or there is some belief in the "morality" of this situation. When it comes to law and how we interact with sovereign foreign states, we cannot allow ourselves to become entangled every time we feel bad for a people. This was a civil war, and like many civil wars the outcome was probably not going to be pretty. And I, as much as anyone else feels horrible for the people involved and wish them the best when it comes to wrestling their country from the hands of Muammar Gaddafi. However, I cannot support our military action there. Especially, if that military action is brought about by a decision from one person. Such power is not vested in any single office for a reason.
When President Obama took office I was excited for many reasons. One was because I would not have to put up with McCain and Palin for four years. Knowing that their view of America's place in the World would most likely result in numerous foreign conflicts that I would not agree with. I would point to his "Today, we are all Georgians" statement to show that, had he been President, we may be at war with Russia right now. Which brings me to my second reason why I was excited to have Mr. Obama as my President, I thought he would be much less likely to get us involved in foreign military action. With 2 un-Constitutional wars currently in progress (and I say that based on Article 1 Section 8 Line 11) I do not understand the need/desire for a third. Now, I would argue that even though President Bush did get Congressional approval for Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not get a Congressional declaration of war. So I would say that the 2 wars we have going on over there are both un-Constitutional...and at least in my opinion...unnecessary and should have been avoided. Contrast this with the Libya situation. President Obama is a President, not a monarch. Therefore he cannot do whatever he pleases. He is restrained by the governing law that entrusts his office with the powers that it does hold. Namely, our Constitution. A President, cannot do whatever he feels best in any situation. With this Libya situation, the President has received no Congressional approval and he has not made a good case to the American people as to why it is necessary. I would like to refute the use of the "War Powers Act" in this situation because to use it we must show that the introduction of the "United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances" was necessary. Basically, we have to be in a state where there is imminent danger to us in order to use The War Powers Act as legal precedence for military action. I don't see how a case could be made for that. Libya was no threat to us. From the President's speech last night it would seem that he was making the case that we are in danger of "guilt" for allowing this genocide to happen, and this is why we must intervene. To save ourselves from our guilt. For those who support the President in this action take a moment and think about the future. Any precedence set during this administration will be passed on to future administrations and it is unlikely that you will agree with all future Presidents. This is the importance of the checks and balance system. It keeps any one person, or group of people, from having too much power.
It would seem that we have become involved in this military action because it "feels right" or there is some belief in the "morality" of this situation. When it comes to law and how we interact with sovereign foreign states, we cannot allow ourselves to become entangled every time we feel bad for a people. This was a civil war, and like many civil wars the outcome was probably not going to be pretty. And I, as much as anyone else feels horrible for the people involved and wish them the best when it comes to wrestling their country from the hands of Muammar Gaddafi. However, I cannot support our military action there. Especially, if that military action is brought about by a decision from one person. Such power is not vested in any single office for a reason.
4 comments:
Maybe these guys will get it right...
http://freestateproject.org/
You should keep the blog going, Scott. You have a lot of good perspective, and it needs to be presented to a larger audience. I'm with you on this one, we can't perpetuate this worldview that the US is responsible for righting all wrongs in the world, damn the costs. Iron Curtian my friend.
Thanks Derek. I did for a long time. But honestly the reason I don't post here is because a lot of the stuff I'd want to say is nuanced to a point of my having trouble explaining it in writing. Some of my views on theological, philosophical and political topics sometimes confuses me. So trying to accurately capture them in writing is a task that is so daunting it's scary for me. It's scary because I've put a lot of time and thought into them and I wouldn't want to misrepresent them.
politicians are full of shit.
Post a Comment