Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

We Have a King, Not a President: Barry's Sham With Syria

Expand Messages
  • Bob Wynman
    OBAMAÆS SHAM MOVE ON SYRIA by Jacob G. Hornberger September 2, 2013 After producing another classic national-security state crisis environment for the
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 12, 2013
    • 1 Attachment
    • 52 KB

    by Jacob G. Hornberger September 2, 2013

    After producing another classic national-security state crisis
    for the American people — this time over whether President Obama should
    his military to bomb Syria — the president announced that he would
    first seek
    approval from Congress for his bombing run.

    Notice that he didn’t say he was seeking permission from Congress. He
    that he doesn’t need permission from Congress to initiate to initiate
    against another nation-state. In fact, he has made it clear that in all
    likelihood he will order his army to attack Syria even if Congress
    votes no.

    So, why the charade? Why doesn’t Obama order his military to go head
    and bomb
    Syria? One possible reason is that if it all goes bad, like they have
    in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, he can say, “Well, Congress went along with me. They
    of what I was doing. We’re all in this together.”

    Another possible reason is that after the British Parliament’s vote
    England’s participation in Obama’s planned war of aggression, Obama
    want to come across as the head of a nation whose ruler possesses
    powers in foreign affairs. Of course, that’s just one more ridiculous
    and hypocritical sham, given that Obama says he might well go ahead and
    Syria regardless of whether Congress places its stamp of approval on his
    war of aggression.

    Let’s be clear: Obama’s authority to do anything comes from the
    and nowhere else. When our American ancestors brought the federal
    into existence, it was with the clear understanding that the president’s
    powers (along with those of the other two branches) would be limited to
    those enumerated in the Constitution. That’s what made the federal
    a “limited government” — the powers of its officials were limited to
    listed in the Constitution. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it couldn’t be

    Under the Constitution, the president was given the power to wage war
    but he
    wasn’t given the power to declare war. That power was delegated to
    That means that under our form of government, the president is
    from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from
    That’s why, for example, President Wilson and President Roosevelt had to
    secure declarations of war from Congress in both world wars. They
    that, like it or not, the Constitution requires it.

    Keep in mind that the Constitution is the law that we the people have
    on federal officials. Just as they expect us to obey their laws even
    when we
    consider them to be ridiculous (e.g., drug laws and gambling laws),
    they are
    expected to obey the law that we have imposed on them even when they
    it’s ridiculous.

    The problem is that ever since the advent of the Cold War-era
    state apparatus, which was grafted onto our constitutional order after
    WWII, presidents have seen fit to ignore this particular constitutional
    With the president’s powerful Cold War military and CIA at his
    disposal, both Congress and the Supreme Court have long known that as a
    practical matter,
    there is nothing these other two branches can do to stop the president,
    military, and his CIA from waging wars against other nations without
    the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. So,
    knowing that
    the lack the means of enforcing the Constitution against the president
    his military and CIA, they have, decade after decade, continued to
    defer to their omnipotent authority.

    It’s also important that everyone keep in mind what the Constitution
    does and
    does not require. It requires a congressional declaration of war
    against Syria,
    not an “authorization to use force” against Syria. An authorization to
    force is nothing more than a cowardly abrogation of congressional
    one that unconstitutionally delegates the power to declare war to the

    Interventionists obviously hate that and wish the Framers had either
    the power to declare war to the president or delegated to Congress to
    to enact a resolution delegating the power to declare war to the
    But under our form of government, interventionists have their remedy —
    out and secure a constitutional amendment.

    In the meantime, the president should be required to obey the law. No
    how many times previous presidents have been permitted to ignore this
    critically important provision in the Constitution, it remains the
    solemn duty of Congress, through the power of impeachment, to require
    the president to
    comply with the law that we the people have imposed on him through our

    This post was written by:Jacob G. Hornberger

    He is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was
    born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics
    Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of
    He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an
    professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and
    In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of
    programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
    and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well
    on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as
    a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch.
    View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context.


    > He B Da Man !!!
    > ~ RBB
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.