“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
— Senator Barack Hussein Obama, December 20, 2007
The constitutional law professor has had a convenient change of mind. Full interview below the fold:
(Boston.com) — Barack Obama’s Q&A
- Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
- In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
- Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops — either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
- Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws — more than any president in history — is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.
- Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
- Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.
- If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president’s authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.
- Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
Disagree strongly.
- Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court’s several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.
Some further points:
The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy — which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.
- Who are your campaign’s advisers for legal issues?
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998–2001)
Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998–1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997–1998)- Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility — particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.
HT: Althouse
Posted by WM on Sunday, March 20, 2011, at 5:28 pm | 
Tweet
B. Hussein Chickenhawk just phoned to say “Oh, that interview? Never mind.”
Impeach the tool and use his own words to do it.
Doesn’t matter, he doesn’t think the Constitution applies to him anyway. IMPEACH NOW!
right on
Bambi is free and clear. he’s using the U.N. that has been headed by virulent Islamists AND communists and always votes against Americas interests about 110% OF THE TIME.
The ‘greater good’ is not for government to define, nor is it the role of government to supply or withhold anything from a nations’ people, for it’s ‘moral value’. That’s what spirituality/religion is for.
By the first amendment, every individual has the sovereign right to define good and evil for themselves. One person’s good is another person’s evil.
————–
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
- Thomas Jefferson
.
Hypocrisy is always ok if it’s from any leftist critter, especially coming from the phony Big Cheese!
…all I can do is laugh anymore at times, he’ll never be Impeached- that’s also a laugh.
Hell, he isn’t even a legal Prez as it is as far as I’m concerned, this is peanuts in comparison.
Well now we know why they hyped the story that Ga-whatever was going to retaliate with terrorist attacks to the US: “imminent threat to the nation.” Lawd I jes lubs me dat wiggle room!
2 faced, lying, hypocritical piece of shit. Impeach & imprison, now.
Just ignore congress, just like he has been ignoring the Constitution and the courts.
He won’t be held accountable by the LSM.
He’s Teh One!!
People…what ever President Nutsy said prior to being elected only applied to Republicans. Democrats are free to do any and everything they please. The Constitutuion, House and Senate Rules, Code of Federal Regulations…NONE of it applies to them. Political Civility…only applies to Republicans. These lunitics really believe this, I honestly don’t see how anyone in their right mind could possibly align themselves with these insane kooks.
Diamond Girl says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:55 pm
“…all I can do is laugh anymore at times, ”
DG, I am almost at the point where I cry. We are so screwed by the enemy within.
Sparky says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Well said and soooo true.
But they have their core group of enemy within that will align with them irregardless of what the lefties do.
Thanks Sparky for bringing me back to reality. I don’t know what gets into me sometimes… it’s just so hard to keep track of all the double standards.
Somewhere in the bowels of the WH there is a junior styaffer trying to get hold of the current press secretary (whatever the h3ll his name is):
“Sir–one of His interviews from 2007 is about to come back and bite us all on the…..”
And the response is:
“Don’t worry–The captive lefties in the media will provide plenty of butt armor for us–they know their job.”
Nothing destroys Obama….not his past, not the present, not the future, not his own words, not his actions, not who associates with….I’m starting to think those people who think he’s the anti-Christ may be on to something.
I think the only way he’s going down is of divine intervention. I tell you what folks…I’m praying hard for this country, moreso than I ever have.
He was a law instructor not a professor.
Welcome to the Audacity of Whatever
Well, i’ll be a crossed-eyed coon dog.
OCW, LOL. How true!!!!
So he’s ruling by fiat. Wow, I guess “hypocrisy” is only for conservatives. I’m guessing this new Obama doctrine won’t make the evening news…
dark vader has changed his mind or hillary changed it for him
Megyn says he’s a war criminal.
https://twitter.com/megynkellyfox
The whole country isn’t worth one American Soldier being put in harms way, in the air, sea or on the ground. I think it is time to round up the puppet masters in the WH and sever their nether parts with a rusty scythe.
IMPEACHMENT NOW ! OBAMA AND HIS BOOT LICK JOE BIDEN NEED TO GO. THE HOUSE SPEAKER AND SEC. OF STATE NEED TO BE IN COMMAND
Sure it’s hypocritical. But you can’t bust on the man for doing what many were agitating for him to do, right here on this site just this week.
Fuck impeachment let the Mossad, have at him.
If that doesn’t work. Impeach his lying sack of shit asshole monkey butt.
i don’t want him martyred, if that happens you will never be able to go anywhere without running into obama blvds
kingsportkafir – While I’d be tickled to see Dark Vader (h/t to wiki wiki) and Plugs ousted, the replacements would be Alinsky Lite and the “Guy Who Climbed into the Bob Dole Suit” (h/t to Mark Steyn).
Let’s just have a total re-do and elect an all-new Repub prez and veep. The top of the ticket arrives back in the states tomorrow from India/Israel.
EarthToMars says:
March 20, 2011 at 6:56 pm
i don’t want him martyred, if that happens you will never be able to go anywhere without running into obama blvds
We’ll let the Unions build whatever monument they want for him and in 2 to 3 years the thing will be falling down and crumbling.
Daniel 11:36
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Throw his ass in Gitmo. He needs a vacation. While awaiting trial.
The out of control power of the presidency is out of control and needs to brought back within the confines of the constitution. A good place to start would be the impeachment of our first communist president.
Get cracking congress and take back your constitutional powers. You have a duty to this Republic and you need to keep the oath you swore to defend the constitution.
What else can you expect from an empty suit?
@Earth this will make you happy:)
Someone last week called him a trojan horse. Indeed he is.
But “he has so much on his plate.”
No doubt about it, Obama is a bastard, aided by a fawning media.
The Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama. That was apparent when he took the oath although born in Kenya. He was emboldened when he wasn’t stopped. He was given tacit approval by everyone’s silence.
Obama is a vapid empty suit of arrogance and narcissism wrapped up
in total incompetence.
That is why he is a stupid idiot puppet for Soros and his goons.
He will go down as the biggest fraud and scam in the history of the world
I was commenting on another site and the radical left is going off a cliff trying to cover for this fraud. They are really scrambling, so now they are personally attacking conservatives and playing the lame used , reused, recycled and over used race card excuse.
No one cares if this bastard is purple or pink. He is still a fraud. And since the Obot Zombies also can’t count it would be great to mention the SOB POS is 43% Saudi Arabian, so much for their “black” candidate BS.
As for the traitors in Congress to do anything I am not holding my breath. So far they are useless trolls.
I am totally disgusted with their inactions, or playing games with us since we put them back in power. We have been used again, but their asses are going to be voted out.
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/gop_pledge_to_america_902410.html
A breakdown on this site of what is happening to us and what the Rinos are costing us Patriots. It is time for a call to action.
Obama:Except in the case of establishing a(nother) Muslim Brotherhood State.
you could fill a book with these types of examples of how terrible Obama really is, yet we still hate him just because he’s black.
-President FFM
Where is the Constitution?: http://bit.ly/g0cV78 did obama over step his presidency
from the canada free press
@Addie:
I lifted the following from The University of Chicago’s website:
Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Hey, is it good for the Jews? That’s the only thing that matters.
Obama is king of the “neighborhood.” Because of him it’s a “lovely day in
the neighborhood”. I say, “Boomerang,Soomerang,Toomerang!”…..he
can’t be impeached. Queen Sarah Saturday agrees.
“Hey, is it good for the Jews? That’s the only thing that matters.”
No, it is not. In fact, it is the worst possible thing for the Jews. The coalition is effectively aiding the mujahideen against Gaddafi. In other words, the greater of two evils — the Islamic Imperialists — are being assisted by us against Gaddafi, the lesser of two evils.
Has anyone ever claimed to have heard one of his lectures as in being present?
Usually people come out of the woodwork to tell stories of “I knew xyz way back when”. Obama doesn’t seem to have those people.
First of all, it worries me that the Democrats are suddenly so aware of our Constitution since they’ve blatently ignored it for the past two years of Obama’s presidency.
Also…are some of these Democrats calling for Impeachment (which I would dearly love to see, mind you) because they have a ‘better’ liberal candidate with a ‘better’ chance of winning the 2012 presidential election…and who will ‘better’ serve their Socialistic agenda?
With this said, I have to sadly agree with the Democrats that Obama does not have the right to deploy our military for the purpose of enforcing another country to obey the terms of the UN. This is an act of war and needs to be approved by our Congress.
Now…some will say that the president can do this under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 BUT this resolution is in opposition to what our Constitution says and is, therefore, not a legal law of this land. It doesn’t matter that administrations have been following this resolution since 1973. Following an illegal resolution does not make it legal…just ‘accepted’ by those wishing to bypass our Constitution. And if you let one law or resolution bypass Constitutional authority, then other unconstitutional laws can also be made and enforced…which is why our country is on it’s present destructive course.
Please go to http://www.livelovelaughandopinionate.blogspot.com for an article describing in detail why the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional. There are many such articles on the web but this one seems to best explain the problem.
Quote from the headline up top.
[quote]“Who are your campaign’s advisers for legal issues?
… Cass Sunstein… ” [/quote]
Cass Sunstein is one of the most dangerous men alive – he’s America’s top Communist!! Swap him for Kim Jong-Il and there won’t be any difference in the ideology!
Sunstein’s goal – turn the USA into a Communist totalitarian dictatorship just like nK. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, The Workers’ Paradise!
Bartholomew Roberts
It has been said that Democrats are the party of corruption and the Republicans are the party of stupid. Stupid can be fixed at the ballot box. Corruption has to be impeached or recalled. It’s roots run deep.
“Random in Texas says:
March 20, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Sure it’s hypocritical. But you can’t bust on the man for doing what many were agitating for him to do, right here on this site just this week”
Too true. I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with pointing out the hypocracy, but it’s stupid to not support him when you were telling him to do it. That’s also hypocritical. And hypercritical too, which just makes people look stupid. Stop playing ‘gotcha’.
“DG, I am almost at the point where I cry. We are so screwed by the enemy within.”
Well said Andrew